Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee.
Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, there are two instruments in the group before you, both of which address requirements for the movement of goods subject to UK sanitary and phytosanitary controls. I will speak to each in turn.
The first is the Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations 2021. This instrument delays the introduction of control measures for specific plant and animal product commodities. The EU exit regulations amended by this instrument addressed official controls on imports to Great Britain of animals and animal products, and plants and plant products, including food and other imports relevant to the agri-food chain, collectively known as sanitary and phytosanitary or SPS controls. Those regulations allowed retained EU law to remain operable in UK legislation after the end of the transition period following our exit from the European Union. For example, they removed references in legislation to the Commission and replaced them with references to the appropriate UK authority.
Having exited the European Union, we are implementing measures to bring EU imports into the same risk-based controls regime that we apply to imports from the rest of the world. A key element of the EU exit regulations is to set out a transitional period for the introduction of these controls on EU SPS imports into Great Britain. This is a temporary pragmatic step, made necessary due to the impact of Covid-19 on all businesses delivering import, control and infrastructure services. The phased introduction of controls prioritises flow at the border and gives business and industry the necessary time to prepare for the full controls regime. It supports international trade and mitigates border disruption. Those regulations, made and brought into force in late 2020, set out phasing provisions in a number of separate instruments governing official controls, trade in animals and related products, and plant health, including provisions to introduce a first tranche of border controls for some specific plants and animal product commodities from 1 April 2021.
On 11 March 2021, the EU Exit Operations Cabinet Committee agreed that the dates for the introduction of these phased SPS border control checks should be extended while businesses are still dealing with the ongoing impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, which have significantly outlasted the estimates made in the third quarter of 2020, when the instruments in question were being drafted. We are therefore now amending the original regulations to revise the planned dates for the ongoing introduction of phased controls. We must ensure that these transitional provisions are reasonable and operable during and after the protracted period in which businesses and border operations continue to be adversely affected by the coronavirus pandemic. This phasing adjustment will enable businesses to familiarise themselves with the new SPS requirements and migrate to new IT systems. It will ensure that necessary infrastructure and processes are in place at border control points, further minimising the risk of any disruption. We will, in due course, introduce a further instrument to reset the later phases of import controls.
As a whole, these regulations will ensure that we continue to deliver robust, effective controls and checks on all food, animal and plant imports. This instrument does not introduce any policy changes, and the devolved Administrations have given their consent for these regulations to apply to the whole of Great Britain. We remain fully committed to the World Trade Organization and to our international trade obligations.
I now turn to the second instrument. The Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021 provides a fee exemption for phytosanitary certificates for exporting or re-exporting goods from England to Northern Ireland by amending certain fee regulations. These regulations set fees for delivery of plant health services in England by the Forestry Commission and Defra respectively. This includes fees for pre-export and export certification services required to comply with EU third-country entry requirements relating to plant health controlled material. All businesses that use these services are charged a fee to recover the cost of delivery.
The protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland means that Northern Ireland remains in the EU plant health regime. Therefore, all movements of regulated plants between GB and Northern Ireland must meet EU third-country requirements, including being accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. If pre-exit fees related to production of phytosanitary certificates were not amended, they would apply in full to trade in regulated plants, plant products and other objects between England and Northern Ireland. This would create additional costs to businesses when carrying out trade within the UK internal market.
Amendments are being made by this instrument to provide an exemption from the payment of fees for pre-export and export certification services where goods are moving from England to a business or private individual in Northern Ireland. The exemption also applies to movements of goods by private individuals in their passenger baggage. This SI applies to England only. Scotland has made parallel legislation and Wales plans to do so. This instrument will ensure that trade between England and Northern Ireland is not subject to additional plant health costs following the end of the transition period. The exempt costs will cover the application, examination, production and amendment of phytosanitary certificates and any associated inspections and testing that may be required in order to meet EU entry requirements.
The amendments introduced by this instrument do not include any policy changes. The instrument simply ensures that the current policy for intra-UK trade is maintained; that services for pre-export and export certification to third countries should not be an additional financial burden to businesses when moving goods within the UK internal market. These instruments ensure that we continue to deliver an effective imports system that guarantees our high standards of plant health and food and animal safety, while ensuring frictionless trading and movements. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity of speaking to these statutory instruments and to the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. I am also grateful for the easement of fees, as they were looking fairly formidable. There was a great deal of anxiety about the fees likely to be payable, particularly in a business like ours. I must declare an interest, as my family business is very much involved in the supply of flower bulbs to Northern Ireland for distribution throughout the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and elsewhere. In particular, the regulated arrangements made a great deal of difference to the position of a company such as Taylors. I am sorry to speak from personal experience, but I hope that, in a way, it makes my comments more relevant—although my interest in the business is now as an elder statesman. I am not responsible for day-to-day management anymore, but I know the concern that it has cost.
These statutory instruments all change dates. The first changes the date to 31 July. I notice that it also extends the regulations on plant health until December. I wonder what the position is after that. The second statutory instrument expires on 31 December so the concession on fees, as I read it, expires on 31 December, and from then on it looks as if those fees will in fact be charged. I hope that some accommodation can be made regarding the prohibitive cost of small parcels and mail order and, in our case, after-sales service after the principal order has been delivered. I read the reports of the First Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons, which met yesterday. They make for interesting reading. They certainly give a strong line on the importance of horticulture and the importance of the Northern Ireland market to British horticulture. I think noble Lords will agree that it is important that the United Kingdom has freedom of trade across all four nations. I know that this is a matter of negotiation; these concessions certainly help.
If I may, I will give an illustration of what happens to a flower bulb grown in Holland. It gets a field inspection in Holland. It gets a dry bulb inspection in Holland prior to export. It then gets a receipt dry bulb inspection in GB. Then, if it goes to Northern Ireland, it gets an export dry bulb inspection and must have a receipt dry bulb inspection in Northern Ireland. That is five inspections for one bulb. They are duplications of the same thing. A bulb is a dormant object. It is not a developing disease. It is not growing. It is being repacked in Great Britain for the purposes of distribution to retail outlets. The plant health certificate that is issued on its arrival in the UK lasts only 14 days; the packing process may take a month or two while consignments are gathered together.
It seems unnecessary bureaucracy to have to do all this. Even with some concessions as to how frequently the consignments will be inspected, it is still a considerable burden. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind and to seek ways of trying to negotiate arrangements whereby the industry does not have to have all this delay and difficulty for the genuine export of a product when previously it was sufficient for it to be sent on the basis of commercial trust from one producer to another and with a plant passport issued in the Netherlands. There is no difference to the bulbs and no difference to the care but an awful lot of increased delay and expense is involved.
Added to which, I know that the whole Northern Ireland trade business is a matter of considerable concern to the Government. I support them in their concern in this area. For example, we supply a large number of seed potatoes to Northern Ireland. At the moment, we are forbidden from sending seed potatoes from Scotland. These certified seed potatoes are inspected in Scotland and freely distributed throughout Great Britain but they are banned from Northern Ireland at the moment. I hope that it will be possible to get this matter resolved.
Only today, we had a Private Notice Question in the Chamber from my noble friend Lord Moylan concerning a cancer drug that is, as I am sure all noble Lords know, freely available in Great Britain but not available in Northern Ireland. This is a real cause for concern. If the United Kingdom is to mean anything, products that are available in one part of the United Kingdom should be available in another.
I support the regulations and am grateful for the concessions that they deliver. I would like to know whether there are time limits on those concessions. I hope that my general remarks have made it clear that there is a long way to go before we have anything like normal trading relations with our customers in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of and introduction to these two sets of regulations.
The first set relate to trade and official controls. I note that they are intended to protect biosecurity and support trade by ensuring that within Britain, and between Britain and the EU, effective official border controls continue to operate following the end of the transition period, governing imports to Britain of animals and animal products and plants and plant products, including food and other imports to the agri-food chains—collectively known as the sanitary and phytosanitary checks. This represents a failure properly to prepare for the new arrangements over all of last year and raises more questions that require detailed answers.
The important questions are these. Why are the IT systems not ready? Is the infrastructure in place at the border ports of Portsmouth et cetera? Has more construction of infrastructure to take place? Have staff been trained to undertake the new responsibilities? What discussions have taken place with the agri-food sector and the National Farmers’ Union regarding the delays? What will be the estimated costs of the damage that these delays could cause to our agri-food sector?
In actual fact, this statutory instrument postpones the date from which prior notification requirements will apply to the import of products of animal origin and prescribed types of plant and plant products from the EU into GB from 1 April to 31 July. The instrument also extends the transitional period so that phytosanitary certificates will not be required for the import of plant and plant products from the EU into GB until 31 December 2021—apparently to allow businesses more time to familiarise themselves with new information technology arrangements.
Can the Minister explain the reason for both delays? Is it due to the implementation of the IT arrangements? If this is the case, why is that? Was no preparatory work undertaken on this issue last year in advance of the TAC agreements at the end of December? Was any equality impact assessment undertaken? If so, what were the results? If no assessment was undertaken, why was that the case? Will there not be an impact on the agri-food sector? Why the lack of preparedness on the part of the Government and Defra?
I note the concerns of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Committee, which has written to Defra about the delays in the implementation of the IT systems. The committee was advised that there would be a phased transition to the new live systems, starting in summer 2021. Can the Minister indicate how long this phased transition period will be and whether there is an estimated date for completion?
There is also, it has been suggested, a delay in getting the BCP infrastructure ready for the new BCP checks, which Defra states should be ready in October 2021, January 2022 and March 2022. What will be the financial costs of this work and has it been budgeted for within the budget timeline for this financial year?
While recognising that these regulations are required for the operation of the trade and co-operation agreement, I fail to understand the inexplicable reasons for the delays. I fully recognise that Northern Ireland will continue to operate within the EU single market under the Northern Ireland protocol. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no detrimental impact on agriculture and the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland and its relationship with GB as a result of the delay in implementing the IT and digital requirements?
A number of weeks ago we discussed the plant health fees amendment regulations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, responded. I am pleased to say that there have been some easements. I have been contacted by the AgriSupply Coalition which stated that because of our references in that debate to its problems, there has been greater engagement by Defra with it. Defra recognised that more clarity was needed on the terms used, such as “not intended for final user”, and put out much more information. It now means seed being sown to produce a crop that will be marketed, such as a crop of OSR. This step by Defra is welcome in removing the higher fee from seed for trials in response to industry concerns.
Notwithstanding that, the industry remains vigilant about any potential divergence between all parts of the UK on the matter of seeds and plant health. Many companies located in or involved in sales around all parts of the UK remain nervous about this. This is very relevant to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, so I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the area of divergence is being managed, and managed in the interests of those in the agri-food sector and the AgriSupply Coalition, which helps to supply and keep fuelled our local agricultural industry throughout the UK.
I support these statutory instruments and their two specifications. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and I echo many of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who speaks with such authority on these issues. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly the content of the two instruments before us. I would like to put a number of questions to him, if I may.
In regard to the plant health miscellaneous fees regulations before us, the point was made that an exemption from the payment of fees is being made but, as we understand it, this is only for a period of time. However, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said that these regulations apply only to England and that there will be separate regulations for Scotland and Wales. It would obviously be good to know that they will be applied in the same way, and that there will not be two different regimes operating. Confirmation of that would be very helpful.
I note the importance of the industry. The horticultural trade is worth more than £24 billion in GDP. It supports more than 568,000 jobs and contributes £5 billion in tax per annum, which is considerable. The agricultural supply industry, as represented by the Agricultural Industries Confederation, represents a farmgate value of more than £8 billion. This is a significant industry and a significant trade.
Particularly in the context of the second instrument before us—the Trade and Official Controls (Transitional Arrangements for Prior Notifications) (Amendment) Regulations—it would be helpful to know whether the Minister can update us on where we are in the negotiations on the recognition of the sanitary and phytosanitary provisions. I have great difficulty in understanding why we cannot introduce a system more akin to that in New Zealand, particularly when we live so physically close to our erstwhile European Union partners. It would be helpful to know what stage we are at.
Likewise, in case any issues arise, can the Minister confirm that parliamentary committees and other specialist committees are being established at this time under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement? Many of these issues will raise concerns on both sides, and it is important that they can be identified at the earliest possible stage.
As was noted in the discussions in the House of Commons, it is a matter of concern and something to be remarked on that the Minister was completely silent on the question of the expected financial impact and the cost of applying these two sets of regulations. Given the significance and contribution of this sector to the UK economy, it is extremely important that we understand the impact at the earliest possible stage.
As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach said, these are new fees that did not exist in the past. Given the new arrangements that we find ourselves in post Brexit, this is the first time that a producer or exporter will have to pay them—from 1 January 2022, as I understand it. It would be helpful if, in summing up this short debate, the Minister could tell us what impact he and the department expect the fees to have when they apply. Also, it seems slightly odd that, if that is the case, the same fees will apply per consignment regardless of size. That seems nonsensical and it would be helpful to have an explanation.
Extraordinarily, when we last debated these regulations, there had been no discussion or formal consultation with the agricultural supply sector. The Agricultural Industries Confederation was not contacted before the initial regulations were drafted. It is good to recognise that there is now greater engagement. I understand that there is a dialogue between Defra and the AIC, as well as with other parts of the industry, on this subject. That is obviously welcome.
However, Defra must provide more clarity, particularly on some of the terms being used. One example is the phrase “not intended for final user”. Can more information be put out at the earliest possible stage, particularly in view of the fact that we have time now before these fees come into effect on 1 January next year? What does that phrase mean? If the seed is being used to produce a crop that will be marketed, it will be important to understand that from the industry’s point of view. I understand that Defra is removing the higher fee from seed for trials in response to the concerns that have been expressed by industry. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is the case. I would welcome that very much indeed.
As I mentioned earlier, there is ongoing concern that if these regulations are to be implemented differently with three pieces of legislation—one for England, one for Scotland and one for Wales—there should be no divergence in their interpretation and operation between the nations of the UK on the matter of seeds and plant health. I entirely support the strong and appropriate comments made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach about the fact that we find ourselves in this incredible position of not being able to export seed potatoes from Scotland and the rest of Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That is regrettable. If there is to be a review of the Seed Marketing Regulations 2011 next year—or even this year—it would be extremely helpful to us to have the earliest possible notification of what the implications will be.
Although I do not oppose these regulations, I obviously welcome the fact that there is now at least a dialogue between the department and the industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to take this opportunity to answer some of the concerns I have addressed this afternoon.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these two short statutory instruments, which are closely interrelated. The first is a short SI concerned with sanitary and phytosanitary checks to ensure efficient pest and disease control, which is extremely important. Previous speakers have spoken knowledgably and from experience on this subject.
This is all about border control, yet the EM makes no mention of Northern Ireland, but deals with England, Scotland, and Wales. Given that this is extremely important, I am surprised that we are debating this only today, on 18 May. The SI came into force on 1 April, as the previous regulations ceased on 31 March. This is all very retrospective and unsatisfactory.
I am concerned that paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that although businesses could
“attempt to comply with control requirements”,
the Government do not think this is necessary and they will not be enforced. Is this safe? Are the Government, in their anxiety to assist businesses, not opening a loophole which could see the importation of diseased material?
The SI on plant health deals with the payment of fees from England to Northern Ireland. Can the Minister say whether there is a similar arrangement from Northern Ireland to the UK or whether this a one-way arrangement only?
This is a fairly straightforward SI on the face of it, and appears to be solely about the waiving of fees for pre-export and export certification services. However, I have one concern about the wording at paragraph 2.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:
“The exemption also applies to movements of goods by private individuals in their passenger baggage.”
This Minister referred to this in his opening remarks. I am by no means a frequent global traveller, but one thing I have experienced is that, if you fly out of GB to another country, taking plants and plant products, even for your private consumption on the flight, is not permitted. Given the rise in pests and pest-borne diseases, and the decimation they can bring to our plant life, it seems odd to be allowing individual travellers to carry plant products in their luggage without an exemption certificate, and likely to be a recipe for disaster. Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of this paragraph, and I would be grateful if the Minister can provide some clarification.
I have two other comments on this SI. First, new paragraph 2(d), which is inserted by Regulation 2, refers to
“introduction into, and movement within and out of Northern Ireland”.
There is, however, no mention of the destination after leaving Northern Ireland. Is it to be assumed that it is always going to be England, Scotland, or Wales? I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, for sharing his experience with us. It has been most helpful.
Secondly, new paragraph (4B), which is inserted by Regulation 3(2)(b), states that new paragraph (4A)
“ceases to have effect at the end of 31st December 2022.”
What is proposed to happen then? Presumably fees will be introduced, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, suggested. What is the likely scale of these fees? Will this be a burden for businesses which will have benefited from a fee holiday? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, referred to a possible increase in fees.
I am generally content with these two SIs, but there are some worrying aspects to this, and I look forward to the Minister’s concluding remarks.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these SIs. While they are broadly technical in nature, I have a number of questions on which I would like clarification.
Dealing first with the trade and official controls SI, I accept that this debate is taking place after the SI came into effect on 31 March, but nevertheless it raises some concerns. We have dealt with a number of SIs on similar themes over the past year. Each time, we ask whether businesses will be ready to operate the new processes and whether the IT systems will be in place. On each occasion, we receive reassurances from the responding Minister, only to find that further delays in implementing the new regime are necessary.
In December, when we were dealing with an earlier SI which introduced delays, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, reassured us that a shift in introducing the new processes from 1 January to 1 April would
“allow us to maintain the highly effective sanitary and phytosanitary regime, while allowing businesses time to prepare for our new import requirements”.—[Official Report, 2/12/20; col. GC 179.]
He specifically argued that introducing the new import controls on a phased basis would give businesses—many of which had been impacted by Covid—time to adjust.
We now have a new set of deadlines before us today, and the reason given in the Explanatory Memorandum is:
“This extension will allow businesses affected by the pandemic to familiarise themselves with the new SPS compliance requirements and IT systems, and enable workable migration from current systems.”
Does the Minister accept that, despite previous reassurances, businesses were clearly being put under unreasonable pressure to set up the new compliance systems? Does he accept that trying to rush it through risked jeopardising the viability of import companies which were struggling then to understand the complexities of the administrative system set up by Defra? Can he clarify what the industry response has been to the new deadlines?
The Explanatory Memorandum states that stakeholders had not been formally consulted but it was expected that these amendments would be received positively. Since the amendments represent a further delay, this was clearly to be expected, but has anyone asked them whether they are confident they can have the new processes up and running by 31 July and 31 December respectively? Otherwise, is there not a danger that we will be back here again, with another SI making further changes to the timetable?
While on this subject, can the Minister also update us on the development of the IPAFFS IT system? This issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. In a letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the department said that, from 1 January 2021, the system was being used for live animal and high-risk food products, and that its functionality was now being extended to include plants and plant products. Can the Minister clarify whether the new IT system now covers all animal and plant products, or is there more work still to be done? Can he also update the Committee on the development of the border control posts infrastructure? By the new deadlines contained in this SI, will there be the comprehensive biosecurity checks that should be required at all border posts? Is the Minister confident that enough staff will have been recruited and trained to staff the posts? Can he update us as to whether sufficient veterinary staff with appropriate qualifications will be in place to ensure that proper checks can take place?
We are not in a position today to oppose this SI, and we have every sympathy with businesses adversely affected by the huge bureaucratic maze that the Government seem to have created. But, as my colleague Daniel Zeichner made clear in the Commons when it considered this SI, it is also vital that we put in place robust biosecurity measures equal to those that we previously enjoyed in the EU. I hope the Minister can explain when we are likely to receive the same protections on food safety and security that we previously took for granted when we were in the EU.
Turning briefly to the second SI—on plant health miscellaneous fees—we accept that these proposals are necessary to ensure that our colleagues in Northern Ireland are not penalised by changes to export certification costs on plant and wood products. This is one small measure that highlights the difficulties that Northern Ireland businesses are having to tolerate to carry on trading, as was well illustrated by the example from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, of dry flower bulbs needing five inspection certificates. Can the Minister explain why this problem was not picked up earlier and clarify whether a comprehensive review of fees charged when goods are moving from England to Northern Ireland is now taking place? Can we expect further SIs covering different aspects of trade costs to ensure that Northern Ireland is not further disadvantaged by the new trade arrangements?
Also, paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes:
“Scotland and Wales plan to make parallel legislation, which will have the same effect”.
As it has been some time since this SI was laid, can the Minister provide an update on the status of the devolved legislation? As several noble Lords have said, it would be helpful if there was no divergence in application by the devolved nations, either in the timescale or the content of the provisions they are making. I look forward to his response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
As I outlined in my opening remarks, the first instrument reflects the Government’s assessment of the protracted impacts of the ongoing pandemic and our need to be pragmatic about phasing in controls on EU imports in a manner and on a timescale that can be reasonably met by trade. The second instrument ensures that the current policy for intra-UK trade is maintained without additional plant health costs for moving goods between England and Northern Ireland following the end of the transition period.
I assure the noble Lords who raised concerns about delaying checks and the new timetable that we are acting in the best interests of UK businesses in taking the decision to delay the introduction of import controls. This will give traders time to focus on getting back on their feet as the economy opens up in the summer.
When the regulations were drafted in the autumn of 2020, we were unaware how disruptive the pandemic would continue to be. These proposals are contingent on the UK proceeding with the relaxation of coronavirus measures in accordance with the broad timetable set out by the Prime Minister. If the UK faces a different scenario, we will monitor the impact very carefully. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in particular that we are confident that there are no biosecurity risks from these delays. Current EU biosecurity standards are essentially the same as our own, and where this is not the case—for example, for certain plants—we have already delivered more robust controls, which remain in place.
The instrument before your Lordships was made under the urgency provision so that it could be laid and brought into force by 31 March, following the Cabinet committee decision of 11 March. We did not want the risk that EU import businesses would have felt obliged to comply with the control requirements originally due to come into force in April. As with many of the SPS instruments giving effect to the withdrawal Act 2018, this SI does not apply to Northern Ireland.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Jones, asked about the readiness of IT infrastructure. Delivery remains on track for the new import and export IT systems. Since 1 January 2021, the IPAFF system has been successfully introduced for imports of live animals, animal products and high-risk food and feed not of animal origin into GB. We are now extending that system to imports of plants and plant products from EU and non-EU countries. Our new exports IT system is also on track, currently in beta. The next stage is phased transition to the new live systems throughout summer 2021. These timetables will allow the import and export sectors, including businesses affected by Covid, the time they need to familiarise themselves with the new services and commodity groups.
On wider infrastructure readiness, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as of April 2021, Defra has received 41 applications for new border control points in England and Wales; 37 of them are live and we are aware of 16 applications for Scotland. The revised phasing has taken into account the concerns from ports and port authorities on preparations for checks. As we validate the plans for January 2022, we will identify any ports or authorities where there are residual concerns and ensure that a response is pragmatic, tested and can be operationalised effectively. Delaying these requirements does not reflect a change in policy; therefore, in answer to a number of noble Lords, an impact assessment or formal consultation with stakeholders was not deemed necessary.
The delay in import controls introduced by this instrument has already been communicated to the trade via meetings, newsletters and a webinar. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, these amendments have been positively received by the trade as they enable businesses to save documentary costs and goods to flow easily across the border. Also in response to the noble Baroness, to support readiness for the delivery of the new import controls on animals and animal products, Defra has provided £40 million of funding to local authorities in England to assist port health authorities with the recruitment and training of more than 500 new staff, including official veterinarians.
The delay in import controls for low-risk plants and plant goods introduced by this instrument will give EU businesses more time to prepare for these changes. EU businesses have welcomed this additional time. EU member states are aware of our new requirements and are getting ready for these changes. Ultimately, they will be responsible for preparing EU businesses to meet ongoing demand from customers in Great Britain.
Noble Lords asked questions about the challenges facing those that export regulated goods to the EU or move them to Northern Ireland. We fully acknowledge the difficulties facing those businesses, and continue to press the strong technical case for the remaining prohibitions and restrictions to be removed from GB plants and plant products.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised concerns about charges and the need to simplify the process of sending dormant flower bulbs to Northern Ireland. The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have developed practical arrangements to simplify checks and controls between GB and Northern Ireland. The requirements for moving bulbs and other plant material to Northern Ireland are set in EU plant health regulations, and we continue to discuss issues around the application of these requirements, in the context of the protocol, with the Commission.
The Movement Assistance Scheme has been developed by the Government to make it easier for traders to continue to move agri-food goods, including bulbs, from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We will continue to monitor and review the scheme to determine how best to provide ongoing support to traders. Also in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the UK Government have engaged and continue to engage with businesses and stakeholders on support measures; they also continue to collect feedback on what further assistance could be beneficial.
Defra continues to press the strong technical case for the remaining prohibitions and restrictions to be lifted to enable exports of the full range of GB plants and plant products to the EU and their movement to Northern Ireland. Following this process will lead to an outcome that endures over the long term. Working with industry bodies, we are seeking to ensure that this process is expedited.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was concerned that there is a contamination risk where private individuals can bring plant and plant matter into and out of Northern Ireland with certification. The new requirements on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are consistent with the Northern Ireland protocol, and certificate requirements are the same for personal or commercial movements of plants and plant products. The Government have guaranteed unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the rest of the UK internal market, ensuring that they can continue to trade as they did before the end of the transition period. Plants will continue to move from Northern Ireland to GB under the same plant passporting system that now governs plant movements within GB. For private individuals travelling from Northern Ireland, or indeed from anywhere, our advice remains to act responsibly.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether the SI covers all the devolved Administrations. The answer is no. The territorial application of this instrument is England. Scotland has laid two Scottish statutory instruments to cover the equivalent measures for goods moving from Scotland to Northern Ireland, and Wales intends to lay equivalent legislation, which will enter into force later this year. The Scottish and Welsh Governments continue to commit to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks where it has been agreed that they are necessary or where discussions continue.
My noble friend also asked why we do not have an SPS regime such as that in New Zealand. The sanitary and phytosanitary chapter of the trade and co-operation agreement put in place a framework, including an SPS specialised committee, that allows the UK and the EU to take informed decisions to reduce their respective SPS controls, with a commitment to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. It is in both parties’ interest to use this framework to reduce the rate of SPS checks required, and the TCA is the starting point for our future relationship with the EU. We are open to discussions with the EU on additional steps that we can take further to reduce trade friction, but they cannot be on the basis of future alignment with EU rules, as that would compromise UK sovereignty over our own rules.
Finally, on the issue of cost, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, the actual costs to businesses will vary depending on how they organise their imports and the type of material being imported. The schedules to the statutory instrument set out the fees for individual categories of commodities. The fees methodology was agreed through consultation with the trade in 2017.
To those noble Lords who raised questions about the fees applying to moving material from GB to Northern Ireland, I can reassure them that there will be no associated fees. This is in line with the principles of unfettered market access. There is no requirement for export phytosanitary certificates to accompany qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. There will also be no import checks on QNIGs entering GB, and no additional costs to trade as a result of plant health service delivery by APHA.
I hope that noble Lords appreciate the need for these trade-supporting regulations. These two statutory instruments are critical components in our ongoing legislative process, which will together ensure that we are able to maintain a functional and effective imports regime now that the transition period has ended. I would like to thank again noble Lords for the important points raised here today. I trust the responses have been useful. I am confident that these regulations are fit for purpose and represent another marker in the Government’s commitment to providing support for business.
Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 24 March this year. It is now over a year since the emergence of Covid-19, and the Government have consistently taken the swift action needed to save lives, limit the spread of the disease, protect the NHS and mitigate damage to the economy. The Government’s successful rollout of the vaccine programme and the implementation of their four-step road map out of lockdown are both reasons for cautious optimism that we will soon enjoy a return to normality. To date, in excess of 35 million people have had their first vaccination and more than 18 million have had their second dose—including me, yesterday. The British public have also risen to the challenge of suppressing the spread of the virus by sticking to the rules: staying at home; getting tested when appropriate; isolating when required; and following the “hands, face, space” and “letting fresh air in” guidance.
However, we are not out of the woods just yet, and the emergence of new strains of the virus mean that now is not the time to become complacent. The continuation of social distancing measures, introduced to limit the spread of the virus and help save lives, is crucial while we wait for everyone to be vaccinated, but this of course continues to have an effect on business. The Government recognise that, while most businesses have been able to reopen and many have received significant financial support, social distancing measures remain and some businesses continue to face uncertainty and financial difficulties, as they are still unable to open or are not yet able to trade at full capacity.
It is therefore crucial that the Government continue to support businesses by giving them every chance to survive, fully reopen and get through this period of uncertainty. This statutory instrument will do that by extending the temporary measures first introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020—which were due to expire variously at the end of March or April—by a further three-month period until the end of June 2021. The temporary measures being extended until 30 June 2021 are: first, the suspension on serving statutory demands and the restrictions on filing petitions to wind-up companies; secondly, the small supplier exemption from termination clause provisions; and, thirdly, the suspension of the wrongful trading provisions. In addition, modifications to the moratorium provisions and the temporary moratorium rules are extended until 30 September 2021.
The temporary suspension on serving statutory demands and restrictions on winding-up petitions continue to help many viable companies during these difficult trading conditions by removing the threat of aggressive creditor action at a time when many businesses remain closed or are unable to operate at full capacity, particularly in the retail, hospitality and events sectors. Extending these measures further will give businesses the confidence and support they need while they are doing their best to reopen safely and return to as normal trading as they can in these unprecedented times.
Noble Lords will know that the Government have already extended the temporary suspension on the ability of commercial landlords to forfeit business tenancies. This will give further protection to tenants who have only recently been able to restart trading after the restrictions introduced because of the most recent lockdown.
Although these measures are intended to help companies that may be subject to aggressive creditor enforcement, the Government have been clear that they are not to be seen as a payment holiday. Where companies can pay their debts, they should of course do so. It is important to note that these measures aim to encourage forbearance and do not extinguish any existing creditor rights or interests. In addition to the protection that these measures give, they are also intended to give those companies with unavoidable accrued arrears caused by the pandemic time to take advice from restructuring professionals and to negotiate and reach agreements with their creditors wherever possible.
I know that many businesses and their business representatives will welcome the continued support that these regulations will give them during this extremely uncertain time. However, I also recognise that these measures will mean a further period of uncertainty for creditors where some of their rights to enforce the recovery of their debts are temporarily restricted. Although we believe that the extension of the statutory demand and winding-up provisions will be particularly welcomed by commercial tenants, it applies to all business sectors of the economy.
Noble Lords will be aware that wrongful trading proceedings are an action that may be taken by an insolvency office-holder against directors, which can lead to a director being held personally liable for losses to a company’s creditors where they allowed the company to continue to trade beyond the point at which it became inevitable that the company would enter formal insolvency proceedings. A successful action may lead to losses being recovered for the benefit of creditors but, more importantly, wrongful trading has a vital role in preventing reckless insolvent trading. The threat of personal liability is a strong deterrent against directors causing companies to continue to trade at the risk of creditors.
The suspension of liability for wrongful trading until 30 June 2021 will allow directors to take steps to save companies that would otherwise be viable but for the impact of the pandemic without the threat that they may be personally penalised for losses incurred during a period of great economic uncertainty if things did not improve and the company later had to enter insolvency proceedings. I should stress that suspending wrongful trading does not give a free pass to directors or allow them to act irresponsibly. Other vital protections for creditors when a company is facing insolvency remain in place, such as the directors’ duties set out in the Companies Act, fraudulent trading or misfeasance actions under the Insolvency Act, and disqualification from acting as a company director.
Finally, the new company moratorium introduced by the Act gives financially distressed companies protection from creditor enforcement while they seek a rescue. In normal economic conditions, the moratorium is intended to work with certain entry criteria that must be met before a company can enter into one. These criteria protect the integrity of the moratorium, which should be used only for those companies with a realistic prospect of rescue. Noble Lords will recall that it was recognised during the debates on the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act that it would help fundamentally viable companies impacted by the pandemic to make use of the moratorium if these criteria were temporarily relaxed.
These regulations will extend some of those temporary relaxations to 30 September 2021. They include: allowing a company subject to a winding-up petition to access a moratorium simply by filing the relevant documents at court, rather than having to make an application to the court; and, secondly, disapplying the rule that prevents a company entering a moratorium if it has been subject to a company voluntary arrangement, been in administration or been in a previous moratorium within the last 12 months. These regulations will also extend the temporary administrative rules for the moratorium contained in Schedule 4 to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which enable it to operate.
The important package of temporary measures, first introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act last year and by subsequent extensions, continues to be widely welcomed by businesses. We are told by business that these measures, alongside the availability of new permanent tools, have been essential in supporting continued trading, seeking a rescue or restructuring, and allowing many companies to trade without the threat of creditor action being taken against them.
In conclusion, the Government recognise that these measures represent a significant incursion into the normal operation of insolvency legislation, in particular to the rights of creditors, and as such it is right that they are not extended for longer than is absolutely necessary. These temporary measures will, therefore, continue to be kept under constant review. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out so clearly the effect of these extension regulations. I support these extensions, as I have done previously—this is not the first time we have been here, of course—but I have some questions for my noble friend.
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 introduced the new stand-alone moratorium procedure for companies. This had been proposed earlier and was, of course, very much a pre-pandemic proposal. Most of the other legislative changes in that Act were driven by the pandemic, and quite rightly so. Given that the moratorium procedure is central to some of the context of these regulations, I wonder whether my noble friend can update the Committee on the number of moratoriums that have been applied for, although I appreciate that that statistic might be difficult, the number granted, which should be more straightforward, and the number that are live today.
Few would argue—and I do not do so—that those businesses impacted by the Covid pandemic and which find themselves in financial difficulties, unable to pay their debts because of the pandemic, should be granted a breathing space, which is what these regulations seek to do. I support that. What I do not understand, and it is not apparent from listening to my noble friend, is why the length of the breathing space varies according to different areas of activity under the regulations.
Protection of companies from creditor action on statutory demands and winding-up petitions lasts only to 30 June 2021—I note in passing that that is not far away, and I suspect we will be back here again, probably after the event, to extend this period, which I do not necessarily disagree with. On the other hand, protection for the operation of the company moratorium goes on to 30 September 2021. Protection for directors and shadow directors from the wrongful trading provisions lasts only to 30 June 2021. There is no explanation in the regulations for the different end dates, other than the somewhat cavalier statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that
“the extension for each measure has been determined having regard to the nature of the measure in question.”
This seems somewhat circular to me. What is it inherent in the nature of the statutory demand versus the moratorium that requires a different end date, particularly, as I say, given that I would be surprised if we are not asked to extend these dates again? I believe I raised this issue on our last outing.
As I have said, I support these provisions, but we need to recognise—to be fair, the Minister made this point too—that, notwithstanding the small business carve-out exemption, these measures are an interference with the normal rules of insolvency, and indeed the normal rules of trading. However, a year into these restrictions—my noble friend referred to them as temporary, and I think we are going to have to revisit that word before too long in this context—there has been no consultation on them. The Explanatory Memorandum does however state that the
“Government has engaged informally with a range of stakeholders”.
The Minister in passing made reference to a welcome, I think, from business. The Explanatory Memorandum also refers to engagement with
“business representative organisations and investor groups on these matters.”
Can my noble friend tell the Committee what groups these were, what the nature of the engagement was and what the groups said? That would be important for us in these proceedings.
Lastly, I turn to the position regarding wrongful trading. I note what my noble friend said about the suspension of liability for wrongful trading for directors and shadow directors, and I wonder why this part of directors’ liability has been seized upon. My noble friend noted, I think with approval, that other liabilities in relation to directors’ duties, disqualification and so on are unchanged. Why, then, have the Government singled out wrongful trading as a particular area to suspend during this period? It is not clear to me. There may be some reason, and I would be grateful if my noble friend could enlighten us on that.
Subject to these caveats and concerns, I support these regulations.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, clearly we are at a critical time for UK businesses. It is widely recognised that businesses face enormous liquidity issues when an economy comes out of a downturn as much as when the downturn starts. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register, which include investments in all sorts of companies—I think they are all solvent, but one never knows.
As of now, as my noble friend eloquently explained, the effects of the downturn have been cushioned by the somewhat heroic efforts of the Chancellor, and the teams at the Treasury and BEIS, in providing a cushion for so many businesses in different ways, from loans to grants, rates relief and furlough, and, as my noble friend explained just now, measures that were set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, which we debated in this House a short while ago. It was a great achievement and showed the Government being fleet of foot at their best.
There is no question that we are coming through the difficult times to some sort of normality, and even possibly a mini boom, so the question is whether we need all the measures in the Act to be extended. I plan to ask my noble friend broadly the same question as my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth asked: why are the measures not coterminous? Perhaps he can explain what has happened in the interregnum for those measures which expired on 31 March.
I have been studying some commentary and research from the turnaround specialist group R3. When the previous extension was under consideration it said:
“The Chancellor’s decision to temporarily extend his COVID insolvency measures, coupled with the other aspects of the support package announced today, will be welcome news to many businesses across the country … The insolvency and restructuring profession will also welcome the extension of the temporary relaxation of entry requirements for the new moratorium procedure. This measure could enable more businesses to access this important tool over the coming months, and help to facilitate the rescue of otherwise-viable businesses.”
It added:
“However, while the Chancellor’s announcement will make a real difference in the coming months, these measures can’t be prolonged indefinitely, and the Government will face a number of questions when this extension ends.”
It is important to avoid a cliff edge, but the longer temporary measures are in place, the harder the recovery will be. On early intervention, a smart and staged plan is needed for businesses to be in turnaround, ideally, rather than insolvency.
The main issue that businesses will face will be working capital and skills shortages. On the former, the reintroduction of Crown preference has reduced the amount of headroom in inventory finance to the point where there may not be any facility on which to draw. As a key creditor in most corporate insolvencies, along with landlords and banks, the Government have a direct role to play in supporting viable restructuring and business rescue proposals. HMRC, in particular, has not always taken a constructive approach to these proposals although, I understand from briefings, it is being as lenient as it possibly can be to companies that have been sensible taxpayers. However, every step should be taken to encourage HMRC to be as helpful as possible. This is now very important because, as I have noted, HMRC has Crown preference, which is a huge change from the former arrangements. Perhaps the Minister will advise us of whether the Government have any plans to review this preference.
As part of the excellent build back better policy, there is an inevitable need to reallocate resources, improve productivity and, therefore, grow sustainable jobs for businesses that can truly thrive in post-pandemic global Britain—as in post-Brexit Britain, my noble friend will note. There will be a painful but necessary process to get Britain back to fighting fit. There will be casualties; we have to accept that. The enormous challenge we have is to devise ways for fundamentally sound businesses to get through the next year or so, but not to prolong the agony for those that will just use up more and more resource before, sadly, they reach their inevitable end. I understand that the current rate of insolvencies is, roughly, one-third below the normal level, so there is a build-up of companies and businesses facing insolvency.
I will use this debate to make some related points to this SI. First, what will the Government’s approach be to the mounting level of corporate debt in the economy? What further flexibility will HMRC provide to Covid-hit businesses that need extra time to pay their debts? The Government need to make the most of the time they have bought for businesses, industry and the economy, not least by the Act, to consider how they will answer these questions. In particular, are there any further plans for some sort of equity fund, which was being discussed about a year ago, possibly through the British Business Bank or the Business Growth Fund, which celebrated its 10th anniversary last week? This needs to be reconsidered, as so many businesses just need a modest injection of equity—say £2 million or £3 million. I say “modest” in the nature of the world because £2 million or £3 million is below the amount that traditional private equity arranges and is not necessarily within the scope of EIS or SEIS. Of course, this is an opportunity for us to look again at the EIS rules, now that we are out of the EU. This is the famous equity gap that was first raised by Harold Wilson, when he was Prime Minister.
I turn to a subject that my noble friend and I have discussed at length, the moratorium. In answer to the question from my noble friend Lord Bourne, I think that there have been only four moratoria between June and December. There is an argument that initial take-up was low because of other reliefs, such as statutory demands, winding-up petitions, furlough payments, et cetera, which are protecting companies that might otherwise need the procedure. The extension is to the relaxation of the eligibility criteria for a moratorium to make it more accessible. I understand that the moratorium is intended to be a permanently available procedure and that permanent rules will be introduced in due course. Can the Minister comment on that and on whether the changes to the moratorium that we debated are under review?
By taking a more active and engaged stance as a creditor and legislator, I am sure that the Government could help to save more potentially viable businesses, thereby safeguarding thousands of jobs, securing future tax income and giving companies a chance to deal with the liabilities resulting from this pandemic. However, there must soon be a time when we allow businesses to find out if they are viable without further support, and thereby protect creditors from prolonging and deepening the problem.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the regulations before us extend the life of temporary measures to 30 June this year, but the Government have failed to provide any road map to show how businesses can negotiable the cliff edge that is inevitable whenever the regulations end. The past 15 months should have been used to develop such a strategy, but none is in sight at the moment.
Covid-related loans have been welcomed by many businesses and have enabled them to manage and survive the crisis. Such support has been welcomed by big and small businesses, including easyJet, British Airways and many others. Of course, some loans will never be repaid. However, this loan-centric policy is also storing up more problems for the future. In time, the loans and interest thereupon will need to be repaid. The repayments will deplete business cash flows and dampen business recovery, employment and investment in productive assets.
A better policy option would have been to take an equity stake in businesses wherever possible. This would mean that business cash flows would not be depressed and would instead be available for investment in productive assets. In time, the Government could sell their equity stake to recoup their investment if they so wished. Of course, the equity stake would need to be written off if the business in question did not survive. However, that risk is no different from a situation where the business has been supported by government loans. Even now, there is nothing to prevent the Government converting their loans to an equity stake wherever possible. I hope that the Minister will agree with this proposal and the Government can therefore avoid the problems that will surely arise and affect many businesses.
In previous debates, I have asked the Government to help unsecured creditors. Under insolvency law as it stands now, unsecured creditors recover little of the debts owed to them. This in turn affects their survival, jobs, investment and local prosperity. There is no economic or moral reason for enabling secured creditors —mostly banks and other financial institutions—to walk away with most of the proceeds from the sale of a bankrupt business’s assets. This leaves little for unsecured creditors and hits micro-businesses and SMEs particularly hard. Their prospects of survival are strangled by inequitable insolvency laws.
The current insolvency laws do not provide equitable risk-sharing and the biggest burden is borne by those least able to carry it, namely micro-businesses and SMEs. Such entities are not diversified and therefore cannot absorb the risk arising from the collapse of a major customer. In contrast, banks hold diversified portfolios and are in a position to absorb risks arising from the default of loans. Insolvency law needs to be changed. At least 40% of the proceeds from the sale of bankrupt businesses’ assets must be ring-fenced for distribution to unsecured creditors to give them a chance of survival. If the Minister does not agree, I hope he will explain why SMEs are being penalised by the current insolvency laws.
There is no legislation in place to prevent insolvency practitioners enriching themselves by prolonging insolvencies and charging exorbitant fees. In some cases, partners are charging more than £1,500 an hour for their services; I have seen the invoices. Government statistics show that around 14,328 insolvencies were not finalised, even after 15 years. This is a licence to loot and no regulator has done anything to check it. It is no good saying that a creditors’ committee can act because many insolvencies do not require the prior approval of creditors. In any case, small businesses are too busy looking for replacement business and do not have the time to attend such meetings. Even if they did, the votes cast by banks and private equity would override their concerns. The cost of administration and the liquidation fees are directly borne by unsecured creditors. In other words, higher fees for insolvency practitioners reduce the amounts that can be recovered by unsecured creditors. I hope the Minister can explain why secured creditors do not bear the cost of insolvency —the insolvency practitioners’ fees, in other words.
I urge the Government to provide an insolvency road map so that more businesses can survive the coming crisis, which will not end soon but will roll on for quite a few years yet. We need a strategy in place now.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I support this measure. It is right that the Government should take action to protect corporates from insolvency in the current pandemic emergency situation. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the measures are designed to help UK companies and “other similar entities”, so I hope I will be forgiven for pointing out that the measures have no effect and give no relief for those running businesses as self-employed persons from the equivalent of corporate insolvency in their case, which is of course personal bankruptcy. This also applies to the directors of small companies who have been required to give personal guarantees to their creditors and landlords.
I take as an example for the benefit of the Committee a bespoke tailor of my acquaintance. Effectively, his business and the skills he has learned so hard over the years have been criminalised during the past year; it is impossible in practice to do an inside leg measurement without breaching Covid regulations. His past earnings—now very much in the past—exceed the limit for help under the self-employed income scheme that the Chancellor has made available. Of course, trading as he does from shop premises, he is protected from eviction and has had business rate relief, but he is not immune to personal bankruptcy proceedings brought by his landlord. Bankruptcy, even more than corporate insolvency, threatens one’s home, one’s family and one’s reputation in a terrible way. It is a terrible threat to live under. My example is only emblematic, of course; it applies to the self-employed as a class, especially those trading from business premises and, as I said, to directors of companies.
Short of legislation, because legislation is not the essential answer to everything, there are things that the Government could do. For example, they could prevent such claims coming before the courts for a period to come—certainly while the pandemic lasts and for a period beyond—in the same way as they have prevented actions for eviction being brought before the courts. They could even use the force of moral suasion—the bully pulpit, if you like—against unscrupulous and unforgiving landlords. There may be other things that they can do to get landlords and tenants working better and more effectively together. I hope that my noble friend will be able to offer some words of support to those in this very difficult position.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as the Explanatory Memorandum states, this SI
“has been prepared by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy”.
It goes on:
“This instrument makes provision to further extend the duration of some of the temporary measures introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 … beyond their current expiration dates, namely: restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions from their current expiry date on 31 March 2021 to 30 June 2021; the modifications to moratorium provisions and temporary moratorium rules from their current expiry date of 30 March 2021 to 30 September 2021; and the small supplier exemption from termination clause provisions from its current expiry date of 30 March 2021 to 30 June 2021. This instrument also extends provisions suspending liability for wrongful trading in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Suspension of Liability for Wrongful Trading and Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 … made under the CIG Act, from the current expiry date of 30 April 2021 to 30 June 2021.”
The EM also states:
“The instrument is made using the powers given by section 20 and section 41 of the CIG Act to make regulations which amend or modify corporate insolvency or governance legislation, and to extend temporary provision in the CIG Act respectively and is subject to the made affirmative procedure … the Secretary of State must have considered the effect of the regulations on those likely to be affected by them. The Secretary of State must also be satisfied that the need for regulations is urgent, the regulations are proportionate, and that the same result cannot be achieved either without legislation or by using a different power. The Secretary of State must also keep the need for the regulations under review and revoke or amend them if appropriate. This power is being used to amend secondary legislation … The territorial extent of this instrument is England, Wales and Scotland.”
Thank you.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I have a strong sense of déjà vu. We are back debating the extension of measures in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. As we have heard, these measures include extending the
“restrictions on the use of statutory demands and winding up petitions”
from March to June. The modifications to moratorium provisions and temporary moratorium rules are extended from March to September; the small supplier exemption from termination clause provisions are extended from March to June; and the provisions suspending liability for wrongful trading are extended from April to June.
We welcome the Government extending the safety net for businesses in distress because of this pandemic. Just as we supported the emergency legislation last year, we welcome any measures to support the businesses that closed to keep us safe. As the Minister knows, we argued then that the protections in the Act should be extended over a longer period. Now, as we extend them again, I stress that this causes real uncertainty and worry for businesses in the run-up to each previous expiry date.
As the economy reopens and restrictions ease, it is right that these measures are kept under review but we must remember how many people are still being affected by insolvency. According to the most recent government statistics, there were 29,140 total individual insolvencies in the first quarter of this year—2021—with one in 424 adults having become insolvent in the last 12 months.
Throughout this crisis, we have called on Ministers to ensure that economic support matches the public health measures in place. While we have seen welcome support for workers through the furlough, there have still been gaps in support that the Government have repeatedly failed to address. In particular, we are concerned about the levels of debt facing businesses, whether through the loans they have taken, the VAT they have had deferred or the rent holidays they have had but will soon have to start repaying. These measures are welcome in staving off creditors but they just kick the can down the road. They do little to change the fundamentals facing so many firms of large Covid debt and low or no takings while the fight against Covid continues.
After the Queen’s Speech, it is also clear that the Government continue to dodge the need for wider reform of our insolvency laws, particularly in providing greater protection and support for key industries and their workers. Currently, there is no safe place to refinance or protect such a company’s assets until it might be too late, all the while leaving the company searching for refinancing while trying to retain the confidence of suppliers and customers, who risk the most should it fail.
Even if these changes do not come forward, Ministers should not be bystanders. They should intervene early—before liquidation if necessary. This would mean that workers would not lose their accrued service benefits, and would protect the supply chain. We support today’s measures but call for wider reform tomorrow.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what I thought was a very interesting and informative debate. The points raised have highlighted the importance of the measures being extended by these regulations and the necessity of extending them so that many businesses can continue to benefit from them. Over the past year, businesses have faced an exceptionally challenging time, with many unable to trade or having had their ability to trade at full capacity restricted due to social distancing measures.
My noble friend Lord Bourne asked how many moratoria there have been to date. The answer is four. This relatively low number is a direct result of the decisive government action to support the economy through the worst of Covid-19’s economic impact, which has helped many businesses and saved jobs. These measures have meant that there has been somewhat suppressed demand to date for the moratorium. It should be noted that there have also been far fewer corporate insolvencies in this period; for example, government statistics show that corporate company insolvencies in March 2021 were 86% down on the same month last year—as I say that, there is a clap of thunder; I hope that is not a sign of impending doom.
As the economy begins to emerge from the pandemic, it is of course sad to report that we expect the moratorium to be used more frequently. It will be subject to review to ensure that it works as intended no more than three years from Royal Assent of the Act.
On the different end dates my noble friend asked about, the Government recognise that these measures have a significant impact on the normal working of insolvency legislation and the rights of creditors; it is therefore right that they are not extended for longer than needed. The temporary provisions for moratoria in Schedule 4 are extended to 30 September because the consent of the Scottish Government may be required to implement replacement permanent rules for Scotland, as some aspects of corporate insolvency are devolved. Users have told us that when rules in both England and Wales and Scotland change, they prefer the rules to come into force in both jurisdictions at the same time. An extension of six months will therefore aid this process.
My noble friend also asked whom we consulted. We have engaged with major trade representatives including the Institute of Directors, R3, major restructuring firms and insolvency practitioners. There are too many to list now but I can write to my noble friend if he wishes to have a list.
My noble friend Lord Bourne also asked why we have singled out wrongful trading for these measures. Representatives have made it clear that wrongful trading is a strong deterrent to continued trading, and many responsible directors will cause companies to cease trading rather than risk the threat of future personal liability, with the impact that this could have on the lives of directors and their families and all it entails. As with all these measures, we will keep the need for them under constant review and act swiftly if evidence demonstrates a need to extend them further or turn them off.
My noble friend Lord Leigh asked about the Government’s approach to mounting levels of corporate debt in the economy. While many firms have been hit hard by the pandemic, government support has ensured that the corporate sector has remained resilient, with the increase in indebtedness matched by an increase in net deposits over and above the level of lending. Firms look likely to have used lending to increase cash buffers, both to cover deferred liabilities such as VAT and rent and to prepare for any further shocks. Firms in certain sectors such as hospitality, which has been hit hardest by the pandemic, have received additional government support in grants of up to £9,000 per premises. Support continues to be available to firms as restrictions are eased and economic activity rebounds.
Further temporary insolvency legislation and business support provided by the Government since the crisis began have resulted in fewer insolvencies than would normally be expected. Her Majesty’s Treasury is monitoring the impact that insolvencies will have on lenders’ balance sheets, which to date have remained largely resilient—backed of course by government action —and on their ability and willingness to lend to support economic recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, raised some concerns about insolvency practitioner fees. In our view, it is right that insolvency practitioners are paid a fair rate for the work they do. The remuneration and expenses of insolvency office-holders are subject to the approval of creditors in each case and, of course, subject to the overall control of the court. Regulators have a statutory duty to encourage an independent and competitive insolvency profession that provides high-quality services at a fair and reasonable cost to the profession. Complaints about high levels of fees charged by an insolvency practitioner can be made through the Insolvency Service’s complaints gateway.
I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for highlighting the many ways in which the Government have consistently supported business throughout the pandemic; he also made a number of very important points. He asked what the Government are doing to protect sole trader tenants and/or directors who have given personal guarantees against being made personally bankrupt by aggressive landlords; that is indeed a good point. As my noble friend will be aware, although the restrictions on insolvency proceedings were targeted at companies, the Government have put in place an unprecedented package of support to help the self-employed with their finances during the coronavirus pandemic; this includes the job retention scheme and the recovery loan scheme as well as a number of business support schemes operated by local authorities.
The Government recognise that many people are struggling financially due to the coronavirus. We have worked with mortgage lenders, credit providers and the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that people can get and access the support that they need. We are also committed to helping people to access the necessary support to get their finances back on track. An extra £37.8 million has been made available to debt advice providers to support people in financial difficulty. I would always encourage businesses that have not been able to access support, or are not sure of the support available, to contact their nearest business growth hub. The Government have established a network of 38 of these hubs, with one in each local enterprise partnership area in England. Expert advisers can offer businesses of all sizes free, tailored, one-to-one guidance on areas such as business plans, building resilience and potential funding streams.
My noble friend asked why these temporary measures are not being extended for longer. The temporary measures can be extended by statutory instrument only for a maximum period, which was set down in the original primary legislation; for the insolvency measures, that is a maximum of six months. However, recognising that these measures involve a significant intervention into the normal working of the insolvency regime, including affecting the rights of creditors, it is right that these measures are put in place only for as long as is necessary and that we keep them regularly under review. The Government will keep this matter under review in the light of ongoing developments during the pandemic, and we will move swiftly to extend them further if that proves necessary.
Turning to my noble friend’s questions about the measures that expired at the end of March, this was solely due to a relaxation of the requirement to hold annual general meetings physically. The provision was effective for a limited period and it was not possible to extend it beyond 5 April 2021. Where there remain concerns in the business community that holding general and annual general meetings post March 2021 would be problematic given continued uncertainty around coronavirus restrictions, officials are working closely with stakeholders as a matter of urgency to explore non-statutory approaches to address the challenges that might arise upon the expiration of the temporary provisions.
Turning to the question of how we avoid a so-called cliff edge when these measures expire, the Government recognise the risks of such a scenario involving the accumulation of unpaid debts becoming due when restrictions and government fiscal support expire. Work is ongoing to develop possible solutions to enable a viable exit from these measures; that continues to support business during the recovery phase.
Finally, I turn to the question of the Government’s approach to the mounting level of corporate debt in the economy. While many firms have been hit hard by the pandemic, HMG support has ensured that the corporate sector remained resilient, with the increase in indebtedness matched by an increase in net deposits. As I said earlier, firms in certain sectors, such as hospitality, have also received additional support through grants of £9,000 per premises.
Further temporary insolvency legislation and business support, provided by the Government since the Covid-19 crisis began, has resulted in far fewer insolvencies than would normally be expected; I outlined the figures earlier to my noble friend Lord Bourne. We continue to monitor the impact of insolvencies on lenders’ balance sheets; backed by government action, these have been largely resilient to date, as have lenders’ ability and willingness to lend to support economic recovery.
The noble Lord, Lord Lennie, asked about the scope for wider insolvency reform. I can tell him that the Government always keep the insolvency regime under review and, if any change is needed, we will not hesitate to bring forward the necessary legislation. These regulations will provide much-needed continued support for businesses as we continue with the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown, allowing them to concentrate their best efforts on reopening or continuing to trade, and building on the foundations for our economic recovery in the United Kingdom. Careful consideration has been given to extending these temporary measures, and the Government will continue to monitor the situation extremely closely.
Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2021
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the House may be aware that in October 2020 the Government consulted on the proposed one-year extension of the warm home discount scheme. The changes proposed were broadly welcomed and it is the regulations implementing those changes that we are debating.
The Government are committed to alleviating fuel poverty. In the sustainable warmth strategy, published in February, the Government restated our commitment to our statutory target to upgrade as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practicable to an energy efficiency rating of at least band C by the end of 2030. The best long-term solution is to improve the energy efficiency of a home, bringing down the cost of heating it, but this takes time, and some, especially those that are harder to treat, may be left behind. As well as reaching millions of people each year, energy bill rebates are simple to deliver and consumer-friendly. The warm home discount is therefore a key policy in our policy mix to help alleviate fuel poverty.
Since 2011, the warm home discount has helped more than 2 million low-income and vulnerable households each year by reducing their energy bills at the time of year when it is most needed. Under the current scheme, around 1 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive the £140 warm home discount as an automatic rebate on their energy bills and more than 1.2 million low-income and vulnerable households receive the rebate following an application to their participating energy supplier. Building on the success of the scheme, the energy White Paper committed to extending the scheme to at least 2025-26, expanding the overall spending envelope to £475 million per year from 2022, and consulting on reforms to improve the fuel poverty targeting rate. We intend to consult on the future scheme later this year.
Reforming the scheme has long lead-in times, however, and this winter we want to prioritise the safe and timely delivery of rebates to ensure that those in need continue to receive this vital support, particularly given the continuing impacts of Covid-19. It is therefore important that minimal changes are made to the scheme for next winter. This will mean that the scheme will be worth £354 million and that eligible pensioners on pension credit guarantee credit, as well as eligible vulnerable households supported through the broader group, can continue to receive a £140 reduction on their energy bills.
We will also not be amending the current energy supplier participation thresholds, as any change now, with such limited time for implementation, could cause significant, and potentially damaging, administrative and financial challenges for smaller energy suppliers. We intend to review this for the future reform. We are, however, making some improvements to the industry initiatives part of the scheme. This includes lifting the restriction on providing financial assistance under industry initiatives to those eligible for a rebate, which will create greater flexibility and help more people during the Covid-19 pandemic. We will keep the current overall cap of £6 million for the energy debt write-off mechanism, but we will also introduce a new individual cap of £2,000, enabling support to reach a greater number of households in need.
We will also be making changes so that proposed industry initiatives and specified activities will ensure—so far as reasonably practicable—that advice on the benefits of smart meters is provided to households benefiting from the industry initiative or specified activity. During the Covid-19 pandemic, smart meters have been invaluable for energy consumers, allowing prepayment customers to top up remotely from home, while also enabling suppliers to offer timely support to vulnerable consumers. We are also introducing greater consumer protections for boiler and central heating system installations and repairs carried out under the scheme.
Finally, we are proposing to make some further operational changes this year. This includes introducing a requirement for the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority to inform the Secretary of State if an electricity supplier which becomes a supplier of last resort notifies the authority of its intention to meet all or part of a failed supplier’s non-core spending obligation. This additionally includes making changes to clarify the full extent of a smaller supplier’s scheme obligations when it passes the relevant threshold and becomes newly subject to the non-core spending obligation.
In conclusion, the regulations extend the warm home discount until March 2022, which will help more than 2.2 million households next winter. These regulations will provide vital support for low-income and vulnerable customers to keep warm, in advance of consulting on wider scheme reform from 2022. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of the regulations before us and thank my noble friend for setting them out so clearly. I have a number of technical questions and, as I have not been able to give advance notice, if my noble friend cannot reply in full, I would very much welcome a written response, if that is in order.
I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to ending fuel poverty and declare my interest as president of National Energy Action. I pay tribute to NEA, which works across England, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that everyone in the UK can afford to live in a warm, safe home. NEA both promotes the warm home discount rebate scheme to its clients, ensuring that those who are most in need can access it, and delivers broader support as part of the industry initiative portion of the warm home discount. My noble friend has accurately set out why this scheme is so important, and I echo that NEA strongly supports passing these regulations exactly as they are set out before us.
I will take this opportunity to look at some of the detail beyond the welcome single-year extension. NEA hopes that the regulations will take effect as soon as possible—the scheme effectively came into force on 1 April 2021; I think my noble friend will confirm this—and I echo its concern that the new regulations are urgently required to give immediate clarity to vulnerable energy consumers and industry participants on the shape of this scheme year.
I also welcome the commitments made in the energy White Paper, which has pledged to extend and expand the warm home discount scheme, after the one-year extension, from April 2022 to the end of March 2026 with an expanded scheme envelope. I hope that this debate enables us to look at the opportunities that these future developments will provide, and I take this opportunity to seek early clarity on the longer-term scheme.
It is particularly welcome that, while the White Paper does not set out too much detail, it makes a number of commitments that are to be noted and welcomed. These are a significant increase in the scheme envelope to £475 million a year from the current £350 million a year, and an increase in the rebate from £140 to £150. I also welcome consulting on reforms to improve fuel poverty targeting; for example, using government data to provide automatic rebates to most recipients.
There are some concerns expressed by NEA about the detail, which I hope can be resolved at the earliest opportunity, certainly before the end of this one-year extension and forthcoming consultation. The only clarity over the future of the industry initiative portion of the scheme was a commitment from the Minister in the corresponding debate to today when these regulations were raised in the Commons:
“The reform consultations later this year will include industry initiatives.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 315.]
Industry initiatives are particularly important to deliver significant value for the most vulnerable households. It is argued that they must be retained for the current level of energy advice, income advice and fuel vouchers to be preserved. Therefore, I hope that, as part of this debate, my noble friend is able to confirm and agree that the industry initiative scheme is of significant value and that, as far as the Government are concerned, this vital element will continue or be further expanded.
I want to raise on behalf of National Energy Action its concern about the intention to improve fuel poverty targeting. In the impact assessment for the recent consultation on the one-year extension of the scheme before us today, BEIS set out the fuel poverty hit rate for the current core group and the broader group based on the England-only fuel poverty “low income high costs” definition, which has been recently adjusted. While it is important that the poorest fuel-poor households can access future warm home discount rebates, this analysis implies the possibility of withdrawing support from the current core group and the broader group recipients. If that is the case, it could prove detrimental to households that currently receive the rebate, in particular current core group pensioner recipients or low-income-household recipients who require support with their energy bills via the broader group but who do not fall within the new fuel poverty metric for England: those with income less than 60% of the median living in poverty with an EPC of D, E, F or G.
Taking rebates away from the core group would remove support from the poorest pensioners, which I am sure is not the Government’s intention. Whether captured within the England-only fuel poverty metric or not, poorer recipients within the broader group could also face significant health risks when living in cold homes. The current discount doubtless helps mitigate such risks. I therefore request on behalf of NEA that the Minister share with us how these potential risks will be mitigated and how the department expects to do so.
While it is important that we value the contribution that the warm home discount scheme makes in supporting the Government’s wider fuel poverty commitments, the NEA specifically does not support one-off energy rebates counting towards progress to meet statutory energy-efficient fuel poverty targets. The current approach considers whether a household receives the warm home discount and, if so, treats the rebate as an energy-saving measure. This means that the energy-efficient fuel poverty target can be reached in part through giving rebates to households. As rebates do not necessarily deliver the same lasting benefits as energy-efficiency improvements, NEA believes it important that the warm home discount scheme does not potentially mask a lack of progress in increasing levels of domestic energy efficiency in fuel-poor homes.
While we accept and welcome the safe passage of a one-year extension, which will be secured through the regulations before us today, these issues should be addressed to ensure the future of the scheme. I welcome the regulations. I congratulate the Government on their ambitions, and hope that my concerns will be heard.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the regulations. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who raised a number of very important questions. If the Minister is unable to answer them immediately, I hope that any answers in writing will be copied to the Committee, in particular in relation to the rebate being covered as an energy-saving measure, which is clearly a counterproductive approach.
I wonder if the Minister could tell us a little, first, about the way in which this statutory instrument has been dealt with. My understanding is that these measures have come into force already; I think they did so on 31 March. It is obviously slightly concerning that we are debating issues which are already in operation. Secondly, in her response can she explain to me, in a way that I did not quite gather from the Explanatory Memorandum, what happens where the supplier of last resort does not take on the obligations? I understand that part of the purpose of these regulations is to try to encourage that, but what happens in those circumstances?
As noble Lords will know, the warm homes discount was introduced in 2011, during the coalition Government, to help tackle fuel poverty by placing obligations on energy suppliers. But in the 10 years since then, significant costs have been placed on bills because the cost of power sector decarbonisation has been funded pretty much entirely through them. This is obviously a highly regressive way of addressing the problems of climate change—an issue that is, after all, critical to us all and to which the wealthiest, in fact, contribute the most in emissions. The fact that those on low incomes are having to pay a disproportionate share of that burden seems the wrong starting point.
Not only that, but the impact assessment states that the cost of the warm homes discount is met by energy suppliers. Of course, that is not really correct: it is met by energy consumers, because those costs are passed on by the suppliers to the consumers. This means that it is, again, an extremely regressive—and in my view inappropriate—way of paying to tackle fuel poverty if it burdens costs in a disproportionate way on others who may find them difficult to pay. We have to look again at the whole way in which we share fairly the burden of decarbonisation and how we support those in fuel poverty out of it.
The most sustainable way of addressing fuel poverty—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, touched on this—is to ensure that everybody lives in the most energy-efficient buildings. We are otherwise literally letting our money go up in smoke, which is why it is particularly unfortunate if the rebate is treated as an energy-saving measure. Again, the impact assessment gives an indication of the increased emissions as a result of these measures.
Can the Minister give us in her response, or else put it in writing, a breakdown of the EPC rating of all the homes where households are in receipt of the warm homes discount? She reminded us that the Government have committed to improving the homes of those in fuel poverty to EPC band C by 2030, while the Explanatory Memorandum reminds us that the Energy White Paper committed to all homes reaching band C by 2035. That is an incredibly unambitious target. The Liberal Democrats have set out a target that we should reach that point by 2025, but we should note also that even the unambitious target set by the Government is caveated by the words
“where practical, cost-effective and affordable”.
At some point, the Government will have to recognise that there is no point setting the highly ambitious targets that they have—a 68% reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases on 1990 levels by 2030, or the 78% reduction by 2035, or achieving net zero by 2050— if they will not match those targets with ambitious actions. The Minister knows that the one cannot be achieved without the other. She also knows that these targets of 68%, 78% and net zero are absolute targets and commitments; they are not caveated in the way that the Energy White Paper caveated the energy efficiency ambition.
I ask the Minister in her reply to confirm specifically that those targets are not subject to those sorts of caveats but absolute targets, and to recognise that if we are to have any hope of meeting them, our actions have to be much more ambitious. That has got to start with the energy efficiency of fuel-poor homes. We have to make much more rapid progress on that. All the time we fail to do that, we—the consumers—are having to pay out costs to support those in fuel poverty who continue to burn excess amounts of fuel in homes that are not properly insulated.
We have to recognise that the world has 79 months at the current rate, at the current burn level, before we have used up the carbon budget to keep us within the 1.5 degrees aim of the Paris agreement. We do not have the luxury of time. Much will rely on future technologies, but on the things that we know how to do we must act much more swiftly and ambitiously. As I say, our actions must be as ambitious as our targets.
Having said that, obviously we support the alleviation of fuel poverty and, in the absence of a more progressive scheme, welcome the renewal of the warm home discount and the increases in rebates. However, I urge the Minister and the Government to really get on to the issue of the energy efficiency of our buildings. We simply cannot proceed on the current timetable.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for a clear explanation of the regulations before the Committee. From these Benches we are happy to approve the instrument, as it extends the warm home discount for another year. As it has been a successful scheme, what is there that we could not welcome in the extension for at least a further year, with a government commitment to continuing the scheme until 2026, albeit that new arrangements, with details and provisions as yet unknown, are envisaged to come into place from that point?
The scheme, now in its 11th year, will continue to provide a guaranteed £140 for to help those in fuel poverty and in vulnerable circumstances with their fuel bills. Before I challenge any assumptions or possible intentions of the Government in shaping the future scheme, let us recognise that these regulations maintain existing benefits with minor improvements in some respects. They maintain the overriding approach agreed by participants in the consultation: to allow as many eligible consumers as possible to receive support within the funding envelope. That this funding envelope has been increased to £354 million—the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has a higher figure—in line with the rises in inflation is another important benefit. The regulations maintain the current £6 billion total debt write-off cap provision, while introducing a £2,000 cap for individual debt write-off—although how far that is used to write off historic bad debt from previous versions of the scheme with unfortunate outcomes is one for specific case-by-case analysis.
Nevertheless, I have some questions around this individual cap. How many individual cases of bad debt have been eliminated and from what total? Was there evidence of disparity in higher bands of debt across any analysis of banding debts with the number of individual cases? It would be interesting to understand whether the element of previous and new bad debts was being eliminated, with the stress for many vulnerable customers recognised and dealt with realistically. Further recognition can be given to the improvements in these regulations, removing restrictions on energy suppliers that prevented them providing additional financial assistance through industry initiatives to domestic consumers eligible in the core and broader groups—with rebates, advice and specified activities, including benefits for smart meters and consumer protection requirements for boiler installations to be provided under the TrustMark scheme.
It is also encouraging that the regulations include provisions such that when a voluntary or compulsory smaller electricity supplier grows to pass the relevant supplier threshold and becomes a larger energy supplier its core group rebates, undelivered previously, are utilised consistently with the fully obligated suppliers and that all funds for rebates are used to help those in need. However, some benefits and improvements, unfortunately, still need consideration and further development.
For example, when a supplier fails and its licence is revoked, the scheme’s obligations on that licence also fall, meaning that there is no obligation on whoever steps in as a supplier of last resort—or SoLR. If I understand the regulations correctly, if they had included provision that whoever this might be could deduct such a technical overspend from future scheme years, they could incentivise any supplier of last resort to take on the spending obligations of failed suppliers voluntarily. The provision would bring greater consistency with that regarding suppliers whose growth is allowed for, as I have mentioned. The scheme would be further improved. Can the Minister say whether I have this correct and see whether it could be addressed in future years?
It was also unfortunate that a consultation proved negative towards the proposal that supplier participation thresholds should be changed. While respecting the view that, given the pandemic and the disruptions it has caused throughout 2020, the main elements of the scheme should remain consistent in this one-year extension, it causes competitive issues and distortions. Some smaller energy suppliers can offer lower tariffs as they do not have to take part in a scheme. There are also consumer issues; a consumer may switch to a smaller supplier on price and then lose the benefit that he or she could be entitled to and receive with a larger supplier. Does the Minister have any figures or evidence on this latent cost?
The consultation also adjudges as unimplementable the proposal to require failing suppliers to provide data on unpaid rebates and industry initiative spending to TrustMark, to integrate it with its framework operating requirements. This can be extremely frustrating for participating consumers who miss out through no fault of their own. While we understand the practicality of the measures and the direction of travel for future regulations, will the Minister take the issue back to the department and can further consideration be given for future developments?
Many operability improvements also included in the measure could well be mentioned. All these measures will come with compliance costs and administrative burdens, which impacted businesses can recover under the scheme through charges to domestic consumers. The impact on the public sector is also discussed as very small—around £2 million for scheme year 11, in a total estimated cost of £10 million. However, the impact assessment fails to examine the added cost that will be passed on to consumers by energy suppliers. Can the Minister provide any details on the measure’s effect on consumer pricing? What is the status quo cost of the discount scheme on pricing and what may be the added cost specific to this extension?
I would like the Minister to address some other serious issues. The Energy White Paper of 2020 sets out the commitment to make and keep energy bills affordable, and to ensure that households in fuel poverty are not left behind in upgrading energy efficiency ratings on their homes, with the long-term reductions in energy costs this would bring.
One feature of the regulations is that they categorise one-off energy rebates to many vulnerable households as improvements in energy efficiency and progress towards reaching statutory energy efficiency targets. However, as has been stated by other contributors to this debate, rebates are not necessarily delivering lasting benefits in the same way as would be provided by energy efficiency improvements. The sustainable warmth part of the warm home scheme can mask a lack of progress on increasing levels of domestic energy efficiency in fuel-poor homes. The future design of the scheme must correct this interpretation. It is regretted that the green homes grant was such a dismal failure and had to be scrapped merely six months after its launch.
How will the Government align the warm home discount scheme with their legal commitment to net zero? What plans do they have to address the urgent problem of below EPC standard band C homes, especially those of the fuel poor with generally less available income? What is the Government’s view of Scotland’s wider interpretation of the 10% indicator in assessing fuel poverty? What are their plans and what thoughts do they have on reassessing and redesigning the scheme?
The Minister said in her introductory remarks that 1.2 million households received the £140 rebate. How many do the Government expect to receive the rebate in the next year? What will success look like to the Government in addressing the route to eliminating fuel poverty by 2035? What measures will the Government put in place to ensure that net zero is delivered fairly to those living in fuel poverty? When will the promised consultation start and when will the Government lay out their proposals?
Already there are concerns when the Government talk of refining the scheme towards better targeting of the fuel poor when the budget was already constrained from providing better financial assistance to more households that already miss out on their entitlements. This inevitably means that there will be some losers and that some households will receive less help than they currently do. Can the Minister confirm that industry initiatives will remain a key part of the current and future schemes? Will the department look at how the budget could be expanded for this element that seeks to help consumers understand and utilise their entitlements? It would provide a welcome boost of confidence to the industry to develop these initiatives.
There is much here for further consideration in my approval of the continuation of the warm home discount scheme.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, particularly coming from people whom, I know, have long been interested in this subject and have a greater degree of knowledge than often happens in these short debates.
The points made show the importance of extending the warm home discount scheme for a further year. The financial pressures that Covid-19 has imposed on households across the country has been challenging, particularly for low-income and vulnerable households. Extending the warm home discount will provide much-needed support for households in or at risk of fuel poverty, particularly during the pandemic. I am therefore pleased that there is agreement across this Committee that low-income and vulnerable households should continue to receive the valuable support provided by the warm home discount at the time when they need it most.
Over the 10 years of the discount scheme, more than £3 billion in direct assistance has been provided to low-income and vulnerable households. These regulations will enable the continuation of this support for another winter. This means that more than 1 million of the poorest pensioners and a further 1.2 million households in or at risk of fuel poverty will continue to receive £140 off their energy bills.
The regulations also allow for the continuation of a wide range of industry initiatives, including debt write-off, financial assistance and energy efficiency measures. These initiatives will be enhanced by the changes I have outlined, ensuring that we can better support households in need.
As outlined in the energy White Paper, we are committed to extending the scheme beyond this extension, from 2022 until at least 2025-26, expanding the spending envelope to £475 million to enable us to reach a further 750,000 households. We are also consulting on reform of the scheme to target fuel poverty better. This may be where the difference in numbers came from—the scheme has expanded from next year. We intend to consult later this year on the future scheme beyond 2022.
I pay tribute to the long-standing commitment of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering to this whole area of alleviating fuel poverty. I am very grateful for her support. She asked for confirmation of the industry initiatives—they are of significant value—and whether they will be continued or expanded under the reformed scheme. We recognise the value of industry initiatives, which is why we have expanded their potential use over time. We will consult on reforms later this year; that will include proposals on industry initiatives.
In response to my noble friend’s question about the future for vulnerable customers in relation to the new fuel poverty metric, we intend to reform the scheme to target those most likely to be in fuel poverty while continuing to protect the most vulnerable current recipients. Our proposals, which we are still finalising, will include options to mitigate the impact on households that may be disadvantaged by those reforms. My noble friend also asked about the rebate contributing to the Government’s fuel poverty and energy efficiency targets. We are increasing energy efficiency support for fuel-poor homes through the future expansion of the energy company obligation, as well as through recently introduced funding through local authority delivery.
We recognise that energy efficiency is the best long-term method of tackling fuel poverty, which is why in the past year we have increased government investment to make homes more energy efficient and committed to extending and expanding the energy company obligation. We should also recognise, however, that reducing bills through the warm home discount will continue to be a crucial tool in reducing fuel poverty until all homes reach the required energy efficiency standard. I know that this point was of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Oates. In response to his question on the timing of the regulations, they have not come into force; the rebates will be paid only from autumn this year, as is always the case. We have said that, if and when these regulations come into force, any industry initiatives that have already been funded from 1 April 2021 and are subsequently approved will count towards suppliers’ obligations.
On the noble Lord’s question on the supplier of last resort process, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets already has in place a process that ensures that customers have continuity of energy supply when an energy supplier fails. The competitive process is run by Ofgem and allows for the orderly transfer of the failing energy supplier’s customers to a different energy supplier. Warm home discount obligations are placed on the electricity supply licence and, when a supplier fails, it does not transfer to the new supplier. However, the warm home discount is taken into consideration when Ofgem appoints a supplier of last resort. In previous scheme years, suppliers of last resort who were themselves warm home discount participants have chosen voluntarily to honour the obligations to pay rebates of the failing energy supplier. This information requirement is intended to facilitate the potential to permit any notifying suppliers of last resort to deduct extra non-core overspend from their non-core spending obligation in future scheme years, which in turn would incentivise suppliers of last resort to take on the non-core spending obligations of failed suppliers voluntarily.
The noble Lord also asked about the funding of the scheme. Suppliers reducing their customers’ bills directly is a more effective way of tackling fuel poverty than increasing incomes because consumers are more likely to use the money to pay their energy bills. The same amount of money reduces energy bills by a greater proportion than it increases income. We also believe that it is more likely to result in households using more energy to keep warm in winter and reduces the risk of them rationing how much they heat their homes or self-disconnecting entirely.
In response to the noble Lord’s question on the EPC ratings of homes that have received the warm home discount, I am afraid that we do not have the data he requires. He also spoke in general terms about the Government’s ambitions on increasing the efficiency of homes and their heating. On this point, I should say that the heat and building strategy will be published imminently, setting out how we intend to meet our commitments and setting us on a path to decarbonising homes and buildings by 2050. When I say “imminently”, I know it is disappointing that we have not got it out already, but it is due to be published soon.
I suggest that I write to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the details of writing off bad debt as I do not have that data in my briefing pack or to hand. In response to his question on the supplier of last resort process, the obligation is tied to the supplier’s licence but, thus far, the new suppliers have voluntarily taken on these obligations.
In response to the noble Lord’s question on TrustMark, we are introducing new requirements for the installation and repair of boilers and central heating under industry initiatives. They are to be delivered by TrustMark-registered installers and lodged in TrustMark’s data warehouse. This will provide greater consumer protection for households. The cost for a company to register under TrustMark is minimal. TrustMark also has a fee for installers to lodge measures in their data warehouse. As with other government schemes, the fee is £30, which covers the costs associated with providing technical monitoring and quality assurance. Requiring TrustMark registration will ensure that boilers and central heating systems installed under the scheme are delivered to a high standard, providing households with security and a longer-term solution. The introduction of these standards is particularly beneficial for those who are particularly vulnerable to cold, such as individuals with a health condition.
On the noble Lord’s question about consumer costs, the expansion from 2022 is expected to add £5 to the average annual dual fuel bill, taking the total to £19 per annum.
The noble Lord asked about the definition of fuel poverty in Scotland. Fuel poverty is devolved and it is up to Scottish Ministers to set their definition of fuel poverty and targets. We believe that our definition is best suited to measuring the problem and progress against it in England. In the next scheme year, we expect around 2.2 million rebates to be provided.
The noble Lord also asked about the contribution of measures to eliminating fuel poverty by 2035. Our target is to improve as many fuel-poor homes as is reasonably practical to an energy efficiency rating of Band C by 2030. I can also confirm that we will publish our consultation on the future of the scheme soon. We will consult on the future of industry initiatives as part of this but, as I have already said, we value industry initiatives.
I think I missed out the green homes grant and local authority delivery. Last summer, the Chancellor announced an investment of up to £3 billion in decarbonising buildings, including investments towards the £9.2 billion of funding set out in our manifesto. We have made excellent progress across much of this investment, with substantial sums being invested in social housing, schools and hospitals as well as in homes through the green homes grant voucher scheme, particularly in partnership with local authorities and supporting local green jobs. I think the noble Lord, Lord Oates, asked about this.
I think that that completes the debate. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour.
Electricity Trading (Development of Technical Procedures) (Day-Ahead Market Timeframe) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations were laid before the House on 22 March. This instrument is brought forward using powers under the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020.
The trade and co-operation agreement that we have secured with the European Union provides for co-operation on a range of energy matters to support and strengthen the UK’s and EU’s shared energy objectives. The agreement requires that new, efficient cross-border electricity trading arrangements be developed between connected UK and EU markets. The UK and the EU are committed to co-operating closely on efficient trading developed in accordance with the process and timeline set out in the agreement.
These new arrangements were a key objective for the UK during the negotiations on the agreement. Efficient cross-border trade can lower bills for UK consumers, as well as support our decarbonisation and security-of-supply objectives. The new arrangements will be based on the concept of multi-region loose volume coupling, where cross-border transmission capacity on an interconnector and electricity are auctioned together. This will ensure that Great Britain can import energy from areas of lower price or export energy to areas of higher price more readily than under current interim arrangements. This will be achieved while the energy market in Great Britain maintains independence from EU regulations.
While the agreement sets out the principles for the design of the new trading arrangements, the detailed technical procedures still need to be developed by transmission system operators. These are, collectively, the companies that own and operate electricity interconnectors that connect the UK to neighbouring markets, and the electricity system operator that runs our onshore electricity network. The development of these new arrangements will need to take place in co-operation with relevant electricity market operators, which are organisations that operate marketplaces for the buying and selling of electricity.
The agreement details the timeframes for transmission system operators to develop technical procedures for the new arrangements, noting that new arrangements should be made operational by April 2022. It is therefore important that development of the new arrangements takes place quickly and efficiently. To support this development, this instrument imposes duties on electricity transmission system operators in Great Britain, with co-operation from relevant electricity market operators, to develop the new cross-border electricity trading arrangements for the day-ahead market period.
The instrument also grants Ofgem the ability to regulate transmission system operators and relevant electricity market operators in their development of the new trading arrangements to ensure that they meet their obligations under the regulations. The instrument further enables Ofgem to make decisions on the allocation and recovery of costs incurred in the development of the new arrangements. It is estimated that these new, efficient trading arrangements could bring significant economic benefits to UK consumers. Any delay in implementation will come at a cost to them. Therefore, it is important that this instrument is approved to ensure that transmission system operators develop the new arrangements within the timeframes set by the agreement and that the benefits can be realised as early as possible.
The new arrangements will also be used for trade between Great Britain and the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. While energy is largely a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, my department has developed this instrument in close collaboration with officials in the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy and the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation. Input from our colleagues in Northern Ireland has ensured that this instrument supports a UK-wide approach to the development of the new arrangements. The process continues to be underpinned by extensive engagement with UK industry and stakeholders, including Ofgem and the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator, to ensure they can prepare for the development and implementation of new arrangements. My department has regular conversations with the transmission system operators and is pleased with the progress they are making.
The instrument is one part of a programme of work to deliver the new arrangements. On 3 February, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provided guidance to those organisations to encourage early action to support implementation of the agreement while the regulations were being prepared. This instrument follows on from this guidance, providing a regulatory underpinning for the initial development of the new cross-border electricity trading arrangements. If required, the Government will prepare further legislation for the operation of the new trading arrangements once they are developed. I assure Members of the Committee that this legislation will be laid before Parliament to ensure that it can be appropriately scrutinised.
Since this instrument was laid in both Houses, the numbering of the provisions within the trade and co-operation agreement has been updated following the final legal revision process. Therefore, a correction slip has been laid in respect of the draft instrument to update the cross-references to the agreement.
In conclusion, this instrument is an appropriate use of the powers of the European Union (Future Relationship) Act and will ensure compliance with an international treaty and that an enforcement mechanism is in place to prevent delays in developing technical procedures for cross-border electricity trade. These new trading arrangements will provide for greater efficiency and consumer benefits than the alternative arrangements currently in place without the UK being a member of the EU’s internal energy market and subject to the EU regulations that that entails. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am honoured to be in such a select group of noble Lords debating these regulations. I thank the Minister for his explanation of them.
If I did not already deeply regret the UK’s exit from the European Union, then having to get my head around this statutory instrument would surely have converted even the most ardent Brexiteer to the most ardent remainer. We are confronted by such tortuous statements as:
“cross-border electricity trading arrangements at the day-ahead market timeframe that will replace previous market coupling … will be based on the concept of ‘multi-region loose volume coupling’, where cross-border transmission … on an interconnector and electricity are auctioned together and the energy market in Great Britain maintains independence.”
That is not even from the SI; it is from the Explanatory Memorandum.
Can the Minister help us out a little here, on what is obviously a fairly technical measure? Can he tell us whether the proposed
“multi-region loose following coupling”
is preferable to the previous market coupling? Is this change between the two types of coupling taking place simply between the UK and the single energy market—is it happening because we are no longer part of the European Union and as part of the arrangements under the trade and co-operation agreement—or is it part of a broader change within the European single energy market?
I think the Minister confirmed in his opening remarks that Northern Ireland is not within the scope of the regulations. That certainly seems to be the case from what I have read. Northern Ireland will therefore continue to be governed by the single energy market rules. He has told us how he has consulted the Northern Ireland Executive on these regulations, but how are the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly involved and able to make representations on the single European energy market, under which, if I have understood this properly, they are still governed? How will they be consulted as we develop these proposals and what practical impact will they have on them anyway, if they are part of the single European energy market? Can he also indicate how long it will take to put the new arrangements in place, given that they will obviously involve some fairly complex technical discussions between a range of stakeholders, domestically and within the European Union?
Paragraph 7.16 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us that
“Placing obligations on relevant persons is not sufficient by itself to ensure that technical procedures are developed without delay”
and that “An appropriate enforcement mechanism” is therefore
“necessary to act against non-performance. The instrument applies Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989”
in this respect. I have looked at Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989 and it did not enlighten me particularly. Can the Minister explain to us what the enforcement procedures under Section 25 of that Act are and what the sanctions are? Section 25 refers to the notices that may be issued to relevant persons but says nothing about the sanctions if they are not complied with. I am happy for him to write to me on any of this because it is obviously a technical error.
The final question I have for the Minister is this. Throughout the documentation, there are references to the trade and co-operation agreement—the Minister has explained that the references have been amended because of the changes in the final version of the TCA. Paragraph 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum tells us:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union.”
I am slightly at a loss as to that. Can the Minister explain how it does not relate to our withdrawal, when it seems so bound up with the fact that we are no longer part of the single energy market? That refers back to my first question: would this be happening anyway if we were within the European Union?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the regulations. I also thank his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, for providing answers on interconnectors earlier during Questions.
This statutory instrument may not be contentious and is largely technical. However, it is not entirely uncontroversial, as we have discovered this afternoon. It implements provisions relating to the efficient use of electricity interconnectors and requirements to develop technical procedures in respect of the day-ahead market timeframe in its operability in accordance with the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement that was initiated at short notice on 1 January this year.
The instrument makes reference to many aspects that need to be delivered as a consequence of the agreement. If the Minister could outline how fast and how quickly he envisages these things being implemented, it would be useful. The instrument makes reference to two agencies, the specialised committee on energy and the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, necessary to implement and co-ordinate powers and regulations with what used to be the internal energy market across the EU, which at the time included the UK. Can the Minister give any more details about these structures, as they will have considerable powers to ensure that transmission system operators develop arrangements that run efficiently across both the UK and the EU through interconnectors? Does the reference to the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators relate merely to dialogue with the EU after any adjudication and consideration by Ofgem, as the authority and overall independent regulator within the UK, in connection with its operation of interconnectors? Will the SCE be suitably independent in this structure? What is its authority in relation to the TSOs?
Since 1 January, the arrangements have been necessarily ad hoc, while respecting the independence of the UK from the previous internal energy market. What is the specific timeframe within which transmission system operators must develop arrangements setting out the technical procedures? How will the Secretary of State determine this timeframe? Since 1 January, have any specific problems arisen, and will the powers of Ofgem be sufficient to implement all the provisions necessitated since ending the transitional arrangements? What assessment have the Government made of the efficiency of multi-region loose volume coupling compared to the internal energy market’s existing trading mechanisms? What material impact has there been on energy pricing since 1 January? What assessment have the Government made of the impact on consumer prices of the new arrangements envisaged under the trade and co-operation agreement for new, cross-border electricity trading at day-ahead timeframes, such that they are deemed more efficient and allow appropriate trading to benefit from greater transparency?
There are notable benefits from interconnectors. That more are envisaged can only be further insurance that energy continues to be supplied effectively while the huge transition to net zero, through reforms to the energy market, continues.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, I thank our two hardy contributors who have stayed the course for this afternoon’s debate on the fascinating subject of the technical operation of electricity markets. I thank both noble Lords for their valuable contributions.
Both noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Grantchester, raised questions about multi-regional loose volume coupling and whether that is preferable to the previous market coupling. This model provides for greater efficiency than the current alternative arrangements without being a member of the EU internal energy market and subject to EU regulation. The UK and the EU are moving to a new relationship and a continuation of previous arrangements was not an option for either party. There are new internal EU arrangements as a consequence of the TCA.
On the questions regarding Northern Ireland, the department has engaged extensively with the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy and the Northern Ireland electricity regulator on this instrument which obliges parties to consult Northern Ireland counterparts as required under specific stages of development. To ensure that opinions reflect views that are specific to Northern Ireland, the instrument states that Ofgem must provide the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator with relevant information and opportunities to make appropriate representations. Ofgem must have regard to those representations and ensure that they are taken into account as appropriate.
On how long the new arrangements will take to put into place, the anticipated deadline for implementation is April 2022. All stakeholders are taking relevant steps to ensure that this deadline is met. In the meantime, alternative electricity trading arrangements are in place which will endure until a new agreed solution is implemented.
On the enforcement methods available under Section 25, I will write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the SCE and ACER, the European regulator. I can tell the noble Lord that ACER will have no formal role but, of course, there are co-ordination arrangements in the TCA that will require co-ordination between UK regulators and ACER. The specialised committee on energy plays a key role in the development of the EU/UK electricity trading arrangements, and following ratification of the trade and co-operation agreement by the EU we are now working with the EU formally to set up the specialised committee on energy and all associated working groups. In particular,
“The Specialised Committee on Energy shall review the draft technical procedures”
submitted by November 2021 and
“shall take decisions and make recommendations”
as required by the agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the impact on consumer prices. The cost-benefit analysis shows that there are significant potential benefits in moving to more efficient electricity trading arrangements. The cost-benefit analysis quantifies the potential social-economic welfare benefits, as well as the carbon dioxide emissions savings. We welcome the CBA and outline proposals that the transmission system operators have jointly produced, and are assessing these materials together with the European Commission. We expect to provide feedback to the transmission system operators to support their development of the technical procedures that are required to be submitted to the specialised committee on energy by November this year. Alternative electricity trading arrangements across all Great Britain’s interconnectors have already been developed, which will endure until they can be replaced by the new agreed solution.
I therefore hope that I have been able to provide the necessary assurances to approve this instrument before us. The Government are committed to co-operating closely with the EU on efficient energy trading, energy markets and access to networks, with a deal based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals. There is no precedent for an agreement on energy trading of this nature between the EU and a third country.
The UK and EU are moving to a new relationship. As of 1 January this year, trading between Great Britain and the internal energy market on the day-ahead market ceased. Until new arrangements are operational, trading will continue using what we feel are less efficient explicit auctions. The UK and EU are committed to developing and implementing a robust and efficient solution that will facilitate efficient electricity trade across interconnectors. As said earlier, these will be based on the concept of the famous multi-region loose volume coupling, allowing transmission system capacity on an interconnector and electricity to be auctioned together and the energy market in Great Britain to maintain independence.
The regulations that the Government are seeking to introduce will oblige transmission system operators to develop new efficient cross-border electricity trading arrangements under the TCA with the EU. They will also enable Ofgem to take the necessary decisions on the allocation and recovery of costs incurred in the development and implementation of the procedures. I am pleased with the progress that the transmission system operators have already made in developing these new efficient trading arrangements and assure the Committee that we will continue to take steps to facilitate their implementation.
As I said earlier, we will continue to work extensively with the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy, Ofgem, the Northern Ireland Utility Regulator and the UK industry to ensure that we see the benefits of the new arrangements as quickly and effectively as possible. The agreement notes that new arrangements should be operational by April 2022. This is a challenging deadline, but adherence to it will enable us to realise the benefits to consumers from the arrangements as quickly as possible. I commend this draft instrument to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
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. I ask Members to respect social distancing, and if the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers are also brief in their answers.
Right-to-Work Checks for UK Nationals
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to end online right-to-work checks for United Kingdom nationals.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, from 21 June, right-to-work checks will revert from the Covid-19-adjusted measures to face-to-face physical document checks for those who cannot use the Home Office online checking service. We are currently evaluating the potential for introducing specialist technology, including identity document validation technology, into the right-to-work checking service. This would provide a permanent digital option for those unable to use the online checking service.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what has the feeling of being, perhaps, an encouraging Answer. The online verification of right to work during Covid has been a huge success for the Home Office. The system works really well; no one I have spoken to is aware of any serious issues. It avoids frauds; it is much more efficient and effective for companies; and it really promotes remote working, helping people in unemployment blackspots get jobs many miles away. What is the reason for junking it? Who benefits? I really do not understand.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, I am glad my noble friend feels he got a positive Answer because, in fact, employers have been very positive about the temporary measures we have put in place. It is not about “junking it”; it is about the fact that it has been a temporary measure. Obviously, legislation has not been changed in this regard, and we made it clear that we would revert to the full checking regime in line with the lifting of social distancing measures. But I hope that my noble friend is encouraged by the moves we intend to make going forward.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
If the temporary measure has been successful and there is no need for return to physical right-to-work checks, why not continue with the temporary measure? We do not really seem to have had an answer to that question.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The answer is actually quite clear: we need to check the security of what might go forward. We are undertaking a review of the value of using specialist technology, including identity document validation, in supporting the system of digital right-to-work checks to include UK and Irish citizens, as they are not in scope of the Home Office online checking services.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, not only are the Government insisting on in-person physical right-to-work checks but some parents say they are being asked by schools to produce passports to prove their child’s right to education as a result of the UK’s departure from the European Union. Can the Minister confirm whether the Home Office is requiring schools to do this and, if so, on what legal basis? If it is not, will the Minister take urgent steps to stop this practice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for a heads-up this morning, and it is important to say to him that Brexit has not changed the rights of foreign nationals to access schools. State schools do not have a role in policing the immigration system. Independent schools, with sponsor licences, do have an explicit duty to have documents proving the right to stay in the UK. I do not know the details of the noble Lord’s case, but I would be most grateful to have some further detail, and perhaps we can discuss it further.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, following the move to more distanced right-to-work checks during the coronavirus pandemic via video link, in operation to 21 June 2021, can the Minister comment on what measures were taken to check against fraud and abuse of this process? What were the findings?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Well, my noble friend asks the absolutely crucial question. We need security measures in place to ensure that the system is robust. What we have had in place as a temporary measure will, I am sure, be evaluated in due course. But she goes right to the heart of what we need when we progress towards more regular online checking.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it has been reported that EU nationals arriving here who were believed to be seeking work were immediately detained in places such as Yarl’s Wood and deported. Apparently, this has stopped, but what sort of example does the Minister think it sets for the treatment of British citizens in the EU? Secondly, EU nationals who have been British citizens for decades are getting letters telling them they risk losing rights to work, healthcare and benefits unless they apply for settled status in the next six weeks. But they do not need this. Why are the Home Office records so poor?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, EU citizens who have applied to the EU settlement scheme should not be detained in Yarl’s Wood unless there is some exception such as, for example, criminality. In terms of people getting letters, I am sure the reminders are helpful; they are not intended to be hostile in nature.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next question.
Electricity Supplies from Europe
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proportion of electricity supply to the United Kingdom is provided from continental Europe.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
From provisional data, net imports from continental Europe—the Netherlands, Belgium and France—provided 5.6% of UK electricity supply in 2020. Final data for 2020 will be published at the end of July.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Threats to provision of power to Jersey have highlighted the issue of UK reliance on overseas power supplies. Currently, I think we have four interconnectors and the number is going up by about 10 or even 12. Does the Minister agree that it is highly dangerous for our nation to be reliant on power sources beyond our shores, and contrary to government policy on resilience and sovereignty? Rapid completion of major new nuclear reactors, plus advanced modular reactors, would seem to be the answer to ensuring sufficient UK provision of zero-carbon electrical power.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Interconnectors form an important part of our energy mix, but most of the power consumed in this country is still domestically produced. The noble Lord will know that the White Paper mentioned an ambition to have 18 gigawatts of power through interconnection. In The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, reiterated in the energy White Paper, the Government confirmed their commitment to developing large, small and advanced nuclear projects, and an advanced nuclear fund of up to £385 million was proposed to invest in the next generation of nuclear.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Does my noble friend accept that these electricity connectors, to and from the continent, play a vital triple role, in smoothing and increasing the reliability of our electricity supply—which is mostly low-carbon sourced—through the connectors when the wind drops or stops, in cutting our inflated energy bills and in exporting our electricity surpluses overseas when wind and solar produce too much for our immediate needs? What are the plans for further expansion of these links, both with continental Europe and elsewhere? Is the North Sea-Norway link progressing, and what about the link, which will be the longest of its kind in the world, with Iceland?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, who speaks with great authority on this matter. The Iceland link is, I think, no longer going ahead, but I can confirm, as I said in an earlier answer, that we have 18 gigawatts of interconnected power provided for within the energy White Paper. It does indeed play a vital role in supporting a flexible decarbonising system, by rapidly responding to changes in demand and supply. Interconnection supports the integration of low-carbon generation in the UK to meet our net-zero goal. It also provides competition in the energy sector that will reduce prices and lead to lower energy bills.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, reliability is of course an imperative. However, is the Minister able to give an assurance about Russia, which was deemed by the Government to be “the enemy” in their recent integrated policy review? Given that a major UK company is a funder of the Nord Stream 2 gas project, with the promoters emphasising that not just Germany but western Europe will be a beneficiary of the gas from Russia, it would be inextricable that the gas from the original source would find its way to our shores.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
There can be no normalisation of our bilateral relationship until Russia stops its irresponsible and destabilising activity. The UK imported less than 3% of its gas in 2020. The Government remain concerned about the impact Nord Stream 2 will have on European energy security, and particularly on the interests of Ukraine.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
Can the Minister update us on the interconnector application by AQUIND Ltd, owned by two Russian Tory party donors? One of them, Alexander Temerko, once said he owned enough Tory MPs to dislodge a UK Prime Minister? The two owners control less than 50%; who owns the rest? Can she confirm that everybody on Portsmouth City Council is totally opposed to the proposed cable route through the city, and that even now it is better for this decision to be made locally rather than by Ministers?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am indeed aware of the issues surrounding the AQUIND interconnector, as the noble Lord outlined. AQUIND has made an application for development consent. All applications for development consent are dealt with by the department in line with government propriety guidelines. We do not comment on projects that are currently in the planning process.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
Over the last year there have been significant issues with electricity supply, not least because a number of power stations have either been down or under repair, and we have not yet got the new generation online that has been long talked about. That makes the interconnectors particularly important, but in Northern Ireland, of course, they are fully integrated with the rest of the Irish electricity system. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement that governs all this will run out in 2026. Are the Government actively in discussion with European counterparts on its successor?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I can confirm that the Government are in discussions on its successor. We are in fact planning another interconnector between Ireland and the UK. As the noble Lord knows, the island of Ireland is counted as one electricity market, and I can update him on further discussions as and when they happen.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I follow up on the questioning from my noble friend Lord Rooker, as conflicts of interest have obviously been a large part of public debate recently. Can the Minister confirm which Minister will sign off the final decision on the AQUIND cable, that Ministers in the department have no involvement and that the Government will nominate who has any role in any stage of the adjudication process? Will the final sign-off be undertaken by Ofgem?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The application has been examined by the planning inspectorate; the examining authority is currently writing its report, which will contain its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State. Once he has received this report, the Secretary of State will have three months in which to take his decision. No other Ministers are involved in this decision-making process.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, interconnectors play an important role in reducing costs, but Britain is not at risk of an energy embargo. We are close to self-sufficiency, we will be closer when hydrogen comes on tap and, in a real emergency, we are sitting on 300 years’ supply of coal. Will the Minister confirm, none the less, that threatening an embargo is not the act of a friend, but rather that of an antagonistic state, such as Putin’s Russia?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Undoubtedly, emotions ran high following the introduction of the new licensing regime in Jersey, but we believe that the measures that Jersey has put on its fishing licences are entirely consistent with implementing access under the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. Our strong and healthy reciprocal energy relationships with neighbouring countries have been based on good will for many years; it is in the mutual interest of all parties that we continue to uphold these positive relationships.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House the anticipated timescale for more interconnectors between Britain and Ireland? Does the UK have any plans to set up a domestic cable manufacturing capability?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We have a strong pipeline of interconnectors. We have 3.8 gigawatts in construction to Norway, Denmark and France, and the completion of these projects will result in 9.8 gigawatts of interconnector capacity for Great Britain by 2023. A further 6.1 gigawatts are in development to Ireland, France, Germany and Norway. We have no capacity in the UK at present to build HVDC cables, but we have the capacity to build the medium voltage cables that service the offshore wind farms.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. No? In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to opine on this important issue. Can the Minister confirm that the French are in fact building one of our nuclear reactors? Has the recent dispute led the Government to review that situation?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The French are indeed building at Hinkley Point, and we are still in discussions with them on the project to build Sizewell C. I am not aware of any interruptions in those negotiations.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, what many Members want to hear is an assurance from the Government that reducing dependence on the import of French electricity will be a strategic priority for the Government in the face of the threats that we know they are likely to issue—they have a track record—when it comes to renewing and renegotiating the Trade and Co-operation Agreement. If my noble friend cannot give that assurance today, which I understand, will she at least promise to take it back to Ministers, so that we can have a clear policy that defends the national interest?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The UK has an extremely strong domestic energy supply—our homegrown mix of energy sources means there is no chance of the lights going out. The UK has a target to build 40 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and our ambition for at least 18 gigawatts of interconnection by the same date will support our energy requirements in this country. I will of course take my noble friend’s concerns back to the department.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the third Oral Question.
Railway Industry Association Report
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Railway Industry Association Why Rail Electrification?, published on 22 April.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and remind the House of my railway interests as declared in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome this report and agree that further electrification is required to decarbonise the railway, alongside the deployment of hydrogen and battery trains on some lines. In the last three years, we have completed almost 700 miles of electrification in England and Wales, and we will continue to do more.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome that Answer. The Railway Industry Association report is indeed excellent and the case it makes for a rolling programme of electrification is unanswerable. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to decarbonising the railway by no later than 2050? If so, do they accept that the most effective and beneficial way to deliver that is a steady, stable stream of electrification of between 400 and 500 kilometres each year? Will she and her ministerial colleagues in the DfT do their utmost to resist the Treasury’s efforts again to kick this into the long grass and water it all down by putting it off into the spending review?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government’s plans for decarbonising all forms of transport will be set out in the transport decarbonisation plan, which will be published shortly, but the noble Lord is quite right that the best way to make the most effective use of the supply chain is to have a rolling programme. That is why electrification projects are included in the rail network enhancements pipeline, which was last published in October 2019 and will be updated in the near future. I take his point about the Treasury, but it is also the case that we must be prudent and stay within the funding envelope that we have available.
Lord Snape (Lab)
The Minister will be familiar with the east-west railway line connecting our two main varsity towns. She will also be familiar with the fact that the design was for a fully electrified line, since when the Government have changed that to a non-electrified line, with electrical specification left for the future and the line being built by a private sector company. Are we really going to decarbonise our transport system by adopting this temporary and, in the view of many of us, expensive alternative, rather than going ahead with building the line as it was originally designed?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that it is our aim to deliver a net-zero carbon railway. East West Rail is a very important part of the development of the Ox-Cam Arc, which will support housing and jobs. Any decision to grant development consent for the project will need to demonstrate that it would not have a material impact on the ability of the Government to meet their carbon reduction targets. However, EWR Co, the company responsible for it, continues to examine decarbonisation options, including full electrification along the whole route, as well as various options for partial electrification using battery or electric hybrid rolling stock and other sustainable rolling stock options.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
There is nothing really new in this review because, of course, electrification has always been a cleaner option and, as I never tire of saying, the Green Party has been saying this for 30 or 40 years. Why have the Government not taken this as a matter of urgency and done it much faster?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I take this opportunity to remind the House that the Green Party is against HS2, a position which I remain a little confused by. The noble Baroness is quite right that now is the opportunity to put our shoulder to the wheel and to electrify our railways as quickly as we can. That is why we will be setting out a rolling programme in the forthcoming RNEP, and why we take great heed of what was written by the Network Rail-led traction decarbonisation network strategy. That is not government policy, but there are some very important conclusions which we are looking at, and we will be putting them in the transport decarbonisation plan.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the report mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, makes a compelling case for accelerating the electrification programme so that we can hit our carbon commitments, but it says very little about the industry’s capacity to deliver, which historically has been disappointing. Can my noble friend ensure that if the recommendations are accepted, we have the technical skills and know-how to deliver, on budget and on time, and that any reorganisation of Network Rail will not impede progress?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is quite right. Indeed, the Rail Industry Association report in 2019 set out that one of the root causes of the challenges of electrification was the 20-year hiatus that had previously occurred in the electrification projects, which led to a loss of specialist knowledge. But we are looking at the supply side of this to bring forward the rolling programme of electrification; I specifically point my noble friend to the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy, which has a lot of information about the supply side. We are confident that, if we have the right programme in place, we can not only use the existing supply-side skills and expertise but grow them for the future.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Does the Minister agree that all the options in this report are better than diesel trains, which are just as bad as diesel cars for the environment and health? Can she therefore explain why the Government have fixed 2030 as the year to phase out all diesel cars while they are still promoting hybrid trains, which are of course simply diesel trains for large parts of their journey?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness will be well aware that decarbonisation of different modes has to happen at different speeds. For example, the reality on the railway network is that freight is a challenge, because it takes much higher levels of energy to pull freight cars along. Therefore, it is right that we look at each mode and try to decarbonise them as quickly as we can, and that is what we will set out in our transport decarbonisation plan.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that had there been some diesel trains operating on the east coast main line, there would have been a greater number of trains operating, given the recent problems with the cracks? The electric trains can operate from any power source; which power source do the Government intend to use for electric trains?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure that I entirely understand that question. The electric trains will use the power sources available. Decarbonisation of the power network is, of course, very important and a huge amount of work has already been done to decarbonise power generation. Therefore, when we combine decarbonising not only power generation but the transport system as a whole, we will reach our target of net zero by 2050.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
Why Rail Electrification? rightly claims that electricity is the cleanest and most efficient power source for UK railways, but electricity itself must be cleanly produced. It cannot be stored and requires the use of energy to convert it to other potential energy. There are other linked components to the use and distribution of power; does the Minister agree that tackling each of these in parallel is essential in meeting the target of net-zero emissions by 2050?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree, and I refer the noble Lord to the answer to my noble friend’s question just now. But I also point out that this is not just about electricity and electrification; there is huge potential for hydrogen in the mix. The Government are very clear that we should invest in various new technologies. Indeed, we have now invested up to £3 million on various alternatives to straightforward rail electrification. On hydrogen, for example, we have invested £750,000 in HydroFLEX, the UK’s first hydrogen-powered train. These trains may be particularly useful for freight in the future.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In light of the Government’s commitment to decarbonisation, when will the Great Western main line into Bristol Temple Meads and from Cardiff to Swansea and Didcot to Oxford now be electrified? What will be the additional costs of now doing so at a later date, arising from the earlier decision to defer electrification of these key parts of the Great Western main line?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Great Western electrification programme is now substantially complete. However, I recognise that some parts of the network will still need to be electrified. As with all projects within the rail system, each one is looked at from the bottom up, and analysis is undertaken and development work done. If it meets value for money and is affordable, it will go into the RNEP system and therefore be done in due course.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
When the Minister’s colleague Chris Heaton-Harris met the Rail All-Party Group, he was presented with a package costing less than £100 million which would enable 2 million train miles a year to be hauled by existing electric locomotives instead of diesel—the equivalent of decarbonising 80 to 100 million HGV miles a year. Has any progress been made with this?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I know that my honourable friend in the other place will be very grateful for the suggestions of the noble Lord about some of these quick wins—the fairly small, low-cost, infill electrification schemes that he refers to. We will of course look at these schemes, and they would be developed through the RNEP process.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Size of the House of Lords
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to the latest report of the Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have of course noted the committee’s latest report. However, given retirements and other departures, some new Members are essential to keep the expertise and outlook of the Lords fresh. This will ensure that the House of Lords continues to fulfil its role in scrutinising and revising legislation while respecting the primacy of the Commons.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, good progress was made in the last Parliament in reducing the high numbers in your Lordships’ House by a combination of increased retirements by your Lordships and restraint by Theresa May. But the incentive for your Lordships to play their part is diminished if the Prime Minister does not play his. Will my noble friend encourage the Leader of the House to persuade the Prime Minister to do what the Burns committee recommended —namely, to engage positively with the House—so that we can continue to make progress towards our target of 600?
Lord True (Con)
The Government always seek to engage positively with the House; the House does not necessarily always engage positively with the Government. The Government did not accept the cap when it was proposed to come in by 2027 in the first report, and they do not accept it in the latest report, when it is due by 2024.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think the House has been freshened up rather enough, and we hope that the Government might pause for a little time. Have the Government now set themselves against substantive reform of the House? If they have, why not at least engage with your Lordships’ House to see what incremental change could be agreed?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, there have been a number of changes in your Lordships’ House over recent years. The Government have made their position clear: we are committed to looking at the role of the House of Lords, but we do not want to do so in a piecemeal way.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I strongly endorse the views of the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Hunt, and indeed those of the Lord Speaker. Is it not now obvious that Mr Johnson is seeking to deliberately damage the reputation of the House to reduce our influence? Will the Government now accept the recommendations of the Burns committee, and the view of the large majority of the House, and take the lead in legislating to end the 20 year-old temporary hereditary Peers by-election anomaly? This is way past its sell-by date.
Lord True (Con)
No, my Lords, for the reason I have just given. The noble Lord speaks with the strength of 86 Liberal Democrat Peers behind him. At the rate of retirement we have seen recently, it would be some time in the 2060s before their representation was reduced to that awarded to them by the British people in the House of Commons in 2019. Maybe there is another aspect of your Lordships’ composition that might be examined.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I really hope that the Government have not lost their enthusiasm for proper reform of this House but, given that over the last 20 years there have been a tiny number of Divisions of over 600, I cannot really see what the problem of numbers actually is. Being a practical person, has my noble friend considered the relevance of asking the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee to look again at the whole subject of age limits in this House, as so many other professions are legislated with age limits?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, of course I was struck by what my noble friend said in the debate on the gracious Speech last week and some of the striking figures he gave then. Having said that the Government are not looking for piecemeal change, I will not follow him directly, but it is of course a fact that somewhere above 110 Members of your Lordships’ House are over 80.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has repeated the Government’s desire not to have piecemeal reform, but does he not accept that the only progress that has been made in your Lordships’ House has been through piecemeal reform? Can he think very seriously about the report’s recommendation about the worrying blurring that has happened between the process for appointing Cross-Bench Peers and party-political Peers? Will he also accept the recommendation that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should regain its control of this process, and perhaps consider the view—which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—that that commission should be put on a statutory basis?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness rightly says, the Appointments Commission has an important role. However, I cannot agree that there has not been progress in reforming your Lordships’ House. I seem to recall a very dramatic reform of your Lordships’ House in 1999—which, considering the age of your Lordships’ House, is relatively recent. Substantial proposals were also put forward in the 2010 Parliament which failed to make progress because the Labour Party would not agree to a programme Motion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sorry not to be present, but I am off to get my second jab after this Question. I return to the quite inadequate answer that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. He referred to the Burns report but did not accept its recommendations. The Burns report has the interests of the House at heart; clearly, the Government do not. When the Minister mentioned refreshing the House, what he really means is refreshing the Conservative Benches. Since the first Burns report was published in 2017, we have seen an overall decrease in the number on the Official Opposition Benches of 16 Peers and an overall increase on the Conservative Benches of 20 Peers. This House works best when we work as a team to examine legislation. That does not seem to be the Government’s understanding.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that the role of the Official Opposition is extremely important, and new Peers have been appointed —the Prime Minister has nominated people to the Labour Party Benches. Indeed, I had the great privilege of hearing the maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, only last week.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, may I follow the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith? The Labour Party acted with great restraint in the first 11 years after the 1999 reforms. It was six years before there were more Labour Peers than Conservative, and at the end of the Labour Government there were only 26 more Labour Peers than Conservatives. We now have 83 more Conservative Peers than Labour, almost as many as there are all other party Peers. Do the Government intend to respect the convention that no group should have a majority in this House or do they intend to carry on appointing more until they approach an overall majority?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Conservative Party has only about 33% of the seats in the Lords, which obviously is way short of its share of the vote. This House has always benefited from negotiation and balance. However, there is a fundamental principle of our constitution that the Queen’s Government must be enabled to carry on, and everybody watches very closely the relationship between this House and the House of Commons.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests. I wonder whether it is time to take advice from Albert Einstein, who said, “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about the solution.” As we are about to enter a period where I think the United Kingdom will reflect on its constitutional arrangements as a whole, it may in that context be appropriate to look at the function of the House of Lords, and then its composition and size may well flow from those conclusions quite naturally.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that function and role are of substantial importance; too often all aspects of this question fail to be considered together.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
Do the Government agree or not agree with the Motion passed by this House on 5 December 2016 that steps should be taken to reduce the size of the House?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government always respectfully note Motions passed by your Lordships’ House. However, I believe I have answered that in saying that the Government’s view is that this House needs refreshing.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, that we need to look at the function and the purpose of the House and not concentrate just on its size. This constant concentration on the size of the House detracts from the real purpose of what the House can do. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that we need to put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis and look at the role that the House can play in post-legislative scrutiny.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness was able to intervene, and, as I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, I agree that the broader role needs to be considered. I can only repeat that, yes, the House of Lords Appointments Commission has an important role. However, I will go no further than that.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume and I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Osimertinib Cancer Treatment
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether Osimertinib (Tagrisso), a cancer treatment drug recently approved by the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, will be available to residents of Northern Ireland (1) on the same timescale, and (2) with the same ease of access, as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the innovative lung cancer drug Tagrisso has recently had its licence expanded to include patients with early-stage lung cancer through Project Orbis. I am pleased to confirm that Tagrisso is currently available to all patients, including in Northern Ireland, at clinical discretion with no delays. The UK Government are committed to supporting parity of access to medicines across all parts of the UK.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, people will be reassured to hear that but the fact of the matter is, surely, that the use of this drug for early treatment of lung cancer remains subject to the approval of the EMA and access at the moment is available on application by clinicians on an individual-case basis, which is not the same ease of access as exists in the rest of the UK. While it may be of some assurance that the EMA is expected to approve the drug’s use for early treatment in the near future, that remains wholly outside the Government’s control. What does that say about the integrity of our National Health Service and for how long can this situation go on?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we estimate that there are currently just eight patients in Northern Ireland who would benefit from the expanded use of Tagrisso for early-stage disease. Perhaps I may reassure my noble friend that they will all have the same access as in the rest of the United Kingdom without any delay or restraint on that access.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we should all wholeheartedly welcome the news of the agreement to enable early access to Osimertinib for early-stage lung cancer patients in England and I absolutely recognise that it is also available to patients in Northern Ireland. However, early diagnosis is as important as access to treatment. It is therefore deeply concerning that the number of people in England and, presumably, across the UK being seen by a specialist for suspected cancer, following urgent referral from their GP, has dropped dramatically. What steps are the Government taking to bring those waiting lists down? We certainly cannot wait for a reorganisation of the NHS, as proposed this year. Does the noble Lord acknowledge that reorganisations tend to have a chilling effect on the recovery of our NHS?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right to be concerned about the backlog of oncological diagnostics. It is of grave concern to all of us. That is why the NHS has massively prioritised the tests she described. We are working extremely hard to get through the backlog. GPs are extremely focused on identifying those most at risk and those who are late for their tests are being followed up with great energy and endeavour. I pay tribute particularly to the role of NHS D, which is using the kind of data gains that we made during the pandemic to mobilise all the technology we can to get the right people into tests at the right time.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
I am really pleased that this drug can now be used as I understand that it is something of a wonder drug. That is good news. Are there any other drugs that might fall foul of the Northern Ireland protocol? Will the Minister update the House on the current problems in Northern Ireland with over-the-counter medicines such as Strepsils and others that appear to have fallen foul of the protocol?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not aware of a Strepsil shortage in Northern Ireland but I would be glad to write to the noble Baroness if I have any information.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Northern Ireland protocol runs the risk of medicines not being available, that there will be divergence in the availability of medicines—and, importantly, medical devices—because the approval process might be different, and that the Government are due to report in six months on the effect of that divergence?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are watchful of the concerns to which the noble Lord refers but it is our hope and aspiration that there will not be the kind of delays or trouble that he explained. The Northern Ireland protocol means that Northern Ireland will stay aligned with EU rules, particularly for this kind of specific cancer medicine, but that does not mean that there need to be any delays. However, we are watching the situation carefully and the report that he described will give a full account of the problems, if there are any.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Can my noble friend, in this instance at least, explain the divergence between the MHRA and the European Medicines Agency? On 22 April, the EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use gave a positive opinion under an accelerated assessment, but the EMA has not yet given the new indication of marketing authorisation. What is the potential gap between MHRA authorisation and EMA authorisation?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is, as ever, all over the detail. It is my understanding that the gap is a matter of weeks rather than there being any clinical divergence in assessment of the evidence. However, I am afraid to say that I would have to leave it to the EMA to think for itself on that.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, rightly mentioned waiting lists. According to the most recent statistics, 9% of the population in England are on hospital waiting lists—the highest figure since records began in 2007. In Northern Ireland, the figure is 23% of the population, by far the highest proportion in the four home nations. The drug that we are discussing has been widely used in Northern Ireland to treat mid and late-stage lung cancer until now. Cancer patients in Northern Ireland now feel that they are being placed at greater risk than cancer patients elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister confirm that the supply problems that Northern Ireland is facing would not exist if the United Kingdom Government had not agreed to the European Medicines Agency having jurisdiction in Northern Ireland?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with either the basis or detail of the noble Lord’s assertion. There is absolutely no delay or problem of access for this drug. He is entirely right to say that Tagrisso is currently offered to patients across the UK, including Northern Ireland, for mid and late-stage disease and it will now be offered to patients across the UK, including Northern Ireland, on exactly the same terms for early-stage disease.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, Northern Ireland is subject to EU law when it comes to the single market for goods and medicines because there is a grace period until 31 December 2021. After that, say representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, the supply of 98% of medicines from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is at risk of being discontinued. That is a truly outrageous and scandalous situation. The effects are already being felt. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will take whatever steps are necessary in terms of the protocol to guarantee the continued supply of medicines to Northern Ireland from Great Britain without any further regulation being required?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have met with industry on this matter for the past 18 months. I am afraid that the message I get from it is not of the alarmist kind that the noble Lord described—quite the opposite. I pay tribute to the industry for its enormously collaborative sense of partnership and I really do not believe that there is any threat of the kind that the noble Lord described.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
Speaking from Aberdeenshire, I know that drug approval can differ between Scotland and England. Now that we have left the EU, is it not inevitable that there will be differences in drug approval and timings from time to time? What are the Government doing, having signed the agreement, to opt out of the EMA and negotiate an arrangement that minimises disruption but does not pretend that it cannot happen because that is what they signed up for?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there will be an occasional moment when there are slight differences between the EMA and MHRA; we are not anticipating them to be huge and, in this case, we are anticipating them to be a matter of weeks while one approval does not quite overlap with another. The UK Government and the MHRA are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and all relevant stakeholders to ensure that the supply of medicines to all UK patients, including those in Northern Ireland, remains smooth, seamless and efficient.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his calm and reassuring Answer, but does he accept that the real problem is the one pointed to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, namely, that of waiting lists? Can we perhaps devise some sort of Nightingale solution to bring forward and have people seen in a special place or special places? The real danger is that people will be diagnosed too late, and then, whatever the drugs, they will die.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I endorse my noble friend’s recommendations. He is entirely right that the old method of diagnostics, which relied a lot on patients attending diagnostic appointments in hospital, feels very out of date after the pandemic. I note the review on diagnostics by Professor Sir Mike Richards, which recommended community hubs, and has a huge amount of support within the NHS. We need to build up our diagnostic capability, bring it closer to where people live and make it more approachable so that people get early interventions.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I fear what seems to be a certain complacency in the Department of Health about what will happen in Northern Ireland from next January, when Brussels takes control of medicines coming into Northern Ireland. How can a Conservative and Unionist Party accept that our National Health Service will now be separated out, whatever the good will that my noble friend might express about making sure this does not happen?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I reject the accusation of complacency. We have worked unbelievably hard with Northern Irish stakeholders, the pharmaceutical industry and EU colleagues to ensure the smooth running of the supply of medicines in Northern Ireland. The facts speak for themselves: so far, they have run extremely smoothly indeed. I reassure the noble Baroness that the UK Government are committed to parity of access to medicines across the UK, including Northern Ireland. Despite different approval routes, we have ensured that all patients have access to medicines at the same time, and we will maintain that commitment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister commit to meet the pharmaceutical industry, otherwise known as PAGB, which I met several weeks ago and which told me about problems that could ensue from 1 January next year in relation to the availability of over-the-counter medicines in Northern Ireland, due to the requirements of the protocol? Will the Minister undertake to meet this organisation to ensure that there are immediate discussions between the UK and the EU to resolve any ongoing difficulties and impediments?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I note the point made by the noble Baroness. As I mentioned in relation to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on this issue, it is not one that I am not aware of, but I would be pleased to meet with the party she described in order to understand it better.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and indeed answered.
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]
Tuesday 18th May 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 View all Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps and Local Authority Enforcement Powers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 9 April be approved.
Relevant documents: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2019-21, and 48th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, Session 2019-21 (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 17 May.
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 22 and 25 March be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 May.
Anti-Semitic Attacks
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Jewish 97 year-old aunt Rose lives in St John’s Wood. I never imagined I would see such scenes on her street. As Simon Wiesenthal said,
“For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do nothing.”
And Pastor Niemöller wrote:
“First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.”
Does the Minister agree that each and every one of us must stand up to, and speak out against, what we saw at the weekend?
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I completely agree that we must stand in solidarity with British Jews. The events we saw in the past week were abhorrent and I am pleased the police acted swiftly to arrest four individuals for that offence of driving up and down Finchley Road. Equally, there was the violent attack on Rabbi Rafi Goodwin in Chigwell, and I am pleased to say that the latest news is that the police have arrested two individuals concerning that incident.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is poignant that today’s exchange on anti-Semitism coincides with the important Jewish festival of Shavuot, which has kept some of our colleagues away from this debate. One of the examples that accompanies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, is
“Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”
Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all public and private bodies adopt not only the definition but also the examples? Can the Government stress at every opportunity that the supposedly pro-Palestinian demonstrations of recent days have actually been pro-Hamas, and not in support of the Palestinian people?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this Government are very proud of the fact that they were the first adopters of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, and we are working very hard to ensure that that is fully embedded across our universities and local councils and, of course, every single Member of Parliament, bar one, has also signed up to that definition. It is important that we take that forward and we will continue to work very hard to ensure that we tackle anti-Semitism wherever we see it.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. The Jew haters and the women-despising thugs who threatened murder and sexual violence on our streets brought great shame to our nation. At the first chance, they exposed the thin veneer between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Does my noble friend share my sadness that many of the car convoys of violence came from my native city of Bradford, a city that has a proud record of co-operation between communities, not least through the Near Neighbours programme? Does he agree that we cannot allow the men of violence to define the relationship between communities? Will he commit to measures that combine strict policing and a strong social cohesion? We must, as a priority, remove fear from our streets.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend, with his experience as a leader of Bradford, is absolutely right. We need to combine that strict policing, where we do more than engage and the police act to ensure that we take the hate off our streets and online wherever it occurs, with an equally strong and robust approach to social cohesion. In fact, Bradford pioneered the Near Neighbours programme, which brings different communities, such as the Muslim and Jewish communities, closer together. We can learn from that.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
Is the Minister aware that the Union of Jewish Students has raised serious concerns that Jewish students and societies are now being targeted with really quite disgusting anti-Semitic abuse due to the conflict in the Middle East? Will he reassure Jewish students that the Government will clamp down on all forms of campus anti-Semitism and encourage all universities not just to adopt but to implement the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of this tension. The Community Security Trust has reported a massive spike in anti-Semitic incidents, but equally, Tell MAMA has seen a similar increase in anti-Muslim incidents of 420% in the past week. We are funding the Union of Jewish Students to do precisely that: to tackle these issues. We want to see the full implementation, not just the adoption, of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Jewish community will be very grateful to the Minister for what he said today. He knows that anti-Semitism is not confined to appalling attacks on a rabbi in Chigwell and threats to Jewish women in north London. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, to which the Minister referred a few moments ago, gives as an example applying double standards by requiring the State of Israel to behave in a way not expected of any other democratic nation. Does the Minister accept that there have been many examples of those double standards in the past week, particularly by broadcasters, and that this more subtle form of anti-Semitism contributes to an atmosphere in which the cruder forms breed?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend in the other House talked about how sometimes anti-Zionism is a subtler form of anti-Semitism. We need to root out even those most subtle of forms absolutely and ensure that we take these forms of anti-Semitism away from both the internet and the streets of our big cities.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
Just a couple of days ago and less than half a mile from my home, a motor convoy with loudhailers passed by calling for Jews to be killed and our daughters raped. I know that there has been a quick response from political leaders and the police, although I must say to what effect I do not yet know. I abhor Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. No decent safe society can live with either. I have never come across a Jewish group calling for the death or rape of Muslims. If I did, it would find me an outspoken enemy. What discussions have the Government held with the many law-abiding Muslim groups to encourage public expression of their anger and repudiation of the hatred of Jews? What concrete additional help can be given to the Community Security Trust to enhance community protection?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we continue to have our cross-government working groups to tackle both anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiments. We continue to work with a number of stakeholders to address those challenges. We also provide substantial support to the Community Security Trust. It is £14 million this year, but it has been £65 million to date. We will continue to support what those groups do, but they also provide important support for other minority and faith communities.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Polak, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, about the speedy action by the police were extremely welcome. For the sake of Holocaust survivors, such as my beloved sister, and the whole of the community, can we ensure that once prosecutions are brought, they are brought quickly and not delayed? Will the Government call on the Director of Public Prosecutions to account to the Government for the speedy way in which these cases should be processed?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I cannot talk about specific cases, but equally, justice delayed is justice denied. We need to see swift and sure justice in these matters.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister understand that while all decent people in the United Kingdom disapprove of anti-Semitism and find it abhorrent, there is particular resonance for the Jewish community in what was happening on the streets of London just a few days ago? In the 1930s, that is exactly the kind of thing that proved to be a precursor to a Holocaust. Does the Minister agree that it behoves all of us, not just the police and the judiciary, but those of us in this and the other House and journalists, to take the utmost caution in the language we use to describe events in the Middle East just now so that we do not inadvertently inflame the fires of anti-Semitism?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree with those sentiments. We need to react and enforce robustly, but equally to find the right tone to cover these sorts of events.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, but the time has now elapsed for this Question.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for being here to take this Statement. We keep meeting like this; it is over a year now. I wonder whether our relationship needs to move on.
The Covid variant first detected in India looks as though it has now seeded in 86 areas and is set to become the dominant strain in the UK within the next few days or weeks. Indeed, many experts think that it was a mistake for the Government to go ahead with the easing of lockdown restrictions implemented yesterday. I suppose that there must be increasing doubt about whether the further lifting of lockdown measures will be able to go ahead as planned next month. I will not ask the Minister to give any definitive answers on that because I absolutely accept that uncertainty is the name of the game. However, I quote one of the four tests that the Government set out for proceeding with the road map out of lockdown, which is if
“our assessment of the risks is not fundamentally changed by new Variants of Concern”—
in other words, if there are new variants of concern, that may be the issue. Is this still the case?
The Royal Statistical Society, which promotes the proper use of data, is concerned that the Government have failed to publish the information justifying their decision that stage 3 of lockdown easing should go ahead because the new variant threat has been met. Will the Government publish the framework for that decision and the data that fed into it so that people can be assured that the facts justify the policy? Can the Minister confirm reports in the Times that officials have drawn up plans for local lockdowns modelled on the tier 4 restrictions introduced last year, and that, under these measures, people will be advised to stay at home and non-essential shops and hospitality will be closed, if the new strain is not brought under control?
On Bolton and Bedford, I regret to say this, but it seemed that the Secretary of State reverted to a blame game yesterday, perhaps to deflect from the fact that the Government did not do enough to protect us from this new variant. He said that people infected by the new variant in hospitals in Bolton had refused or not taken up the vaccine and had chosen not to take the jab. I felt that was very unfair.
My honourable friend the MP for Bolton, Yasmin Qureshi, says that the vaccine is not easily accessible to some of the poorer and BAME communities in Bolton: for example, some people have to take three buses to get to the vaccine centre in the centre of the town. If you are not mobile and do not have flexibility in your working hours, or are a key worker and have caring responsibilities in a multigenerational household, you are not refusing the vaccine if you cannot get to it.
Turning to Bedford, the Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, has said that Bedford is now to be among the areas given surge testing, as the borough recorded the second highest rates of Covid-19 infection in the country, and that cases were doubling every five days. This comes after the MP, the mayor and the health chiefs all called on the Government to act quickly to prevent further spread of the variant in Bedford. For days they have felt ignored. They have felt that the Government wanted to recognise the new variant as a northern problem, which clearly is not the case because it is in Bedford. My honourable friend Mohammad Yasin MP said that, after a fair bit of dither and delay, he welcomes surge testing in Bedford.
Can the Minister tell us whether it is true that Bedford has no access to the Pfizer vaccine at the moment? This must limit a comprehensive vaccine campaign in that town; you cannot do a comprehensive vaccine campaign, especially if you are dealing with the under-40s, if you do not have two or three of the vaccines that are available. I am aware also that reports of many people choosing to delay their jab were about concerns over side effects and whether they would be available for work or might struggle to manage their responsibilities. So the Government must give resourcing and support on these issues and improve the flexibility, information and understanding at a local level.
The Minister is also aware that achieving the truly remarkable vaccine take-up among adults will still leave 20% of the wider population—our children—unvaccinated, meaning of course that the virus can still spread. So can he update the House on any plans to vaccinate the under-18s? It also remains unclear for how long vaccines prevent Covid-19. Initial studies suggest that it may be six months, or possibly longer. Well, those who were vaccinated in December are rapidly approaching that. So we need to know whether there will be declining protection from Covid and what assessment the Minister has made of this risk. Can he update the House on plans to roll out booster shots this autumn?
Finally, at this critical time when we need to work internationally, why are we the only G7 nation cutting our aid budget? How can the Government defend cutting our contribution to vital science and research projects? Given the Government’s total silence on President Biden’s support for the temporary lifting of patent protections to increase vaccine production, should we assume that the British Government do not agree with the President?
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for coming before the House to deal with this Statement, and also for his work ethic in dealing with Covid-19 over the last 14 months.
From these Benches, we have always said that we will support whatever is proportionate and follows evidence to keep people safe. The more that you delve into the Government’s reason for not including India on the red list at the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh, the more it feels like a big ball of candyfloss that initially seems tempting but disintegrates on touch. Yesterday, both the Minister and the Secretary of State said that India was not put on the red list at the same time as Pakistan and Bangladesh because of the positivity rate.
Looking at the figures for the two weeks before Bangladesh and Pakistan were put on the red list, the positivity rate for India was 5.1%. For Pakistan, it was slightly higher at 6.2%, yet for Bangladesh it was lower, at 3.7%. The same data—the Government’s test and trace data—shows that in the same two-week period, 50% of all new variants entering the UK, including those of concern, were from India: the largest country by far. Therefore, variants of concern and positivity rates show India to be on a par with, or ahead of, Bangladesh and Pakistan. So what data were the Government actually using, if it was not their own test and trace data? Can the Minister place on the record that data and the raw data which made him, and the Secretary of State, say that India’s positivity rate was three times higher?
Another area of concern is people entering the UK being huddled together at the border with people entering from red-list countries. One needs only to look at the significant Twitter feeds from yesterday of people arriving from green or amber countries, who were spending up to four hours in queues to get over the UK border and having to stand next to and mingle with people entering from red-list countries. Heathrow and Manchester Airports were responding that, despite asking the Government for more border staff to deal with the issue, none had been forthcoming.
This was planned. We knew that international travel was allowed and the Government knew that the traffic-light system was being introduced, so why have the Government not carried out the wishes of the airport operators to ensure that more border staff and more guidance are available to segregate those entering from red-list countries? This is a clear public health crisis at our border, and the Government have not, to date, solved it. So, as a matter of urgency, when will this public health breach right at our borders be solved?
Finally, as variants of concern continue to enter the country and replicate at speed, “isolate, isolate, isolate” becomes vital. Yesterday, the Secretary of State in another place indicated to Munira Wilson MP that the Government were worried that isolation might not be as robust as required, and that some pilots were taking place. Can the Minister outline where they are, what the parameters of the pilots are and when the results will be made public? Also, overwhelming evidence now shows that people on lower salaries must be paid their full wages and given support to ensure that they can comply with full isolation requirements. Will the Government now look at this as a matter of urgency?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the very detailed and thorough questions from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, and I am also appreciative of and touched by their kind comments.
The noble Baroness asked about the Indian variant and the uptake of the vaccines. I reassure her that we are doing absolutely everything that we can to ensure that there is a thorough uptake of the vaccine among all communities. She spoke touchingly about the feeling of blame associated with those in hospital who people hear have not taken the vaccine. I hear her comments, but there is no attribution of blame meant in this. It is a simple statement of fact that if you do not take the vaccine that is offered to you, or if you do not take two doses, and you then expose yourself to the virus, that is putting yourself in substantial danger, and it is a clinical observation that many of those who have ended up in hospital with severe disease are those who have not had the vaccine, even though they may have been offered it.
The noble Baroness asked about accessibility. She is entirely right that there are some people to whom we as a healthcare system have not made ourselves accessible enough. During this pandemic we have moved on from using the phrase “hard to reach” and we now think of it in terms of people who find us “hard to access”. She makes a perfectly reasonable observation in that respect, but I reassure her that we have absolutely bent over backwards to do everything we can to put the vaccine in front of all groups in the country, particularly those in areas such as Bolton, which we recognise have in the past been places where we have not got our message across.
I personally am hugely touched by the videos I have seen of people now queueing to have the vaccine. I applaud all community leaders and those who work with communities in Bolton, who have clearly mobilised a huge amount of public sentiment behind the vaccine programme. We are seeing a transformation in the penetration rates among some very important communities.
There is more that we can do. I am open to any suggestions from noble Lords on how we can do better, but I would like to reassure noble Lords that we have strained every sinew in trying to achieve vaccine equity across all groups in the country. That is true not only in Bolton but in Bedford, and I am disturbed to hear that people in Bedford feel they may have somehow been overlooked. I do not believe that is the view of the Vicky Head in Bedford, the DPH, and we have worked extremely closely with her. I assure the noble Baroness that cluster 2, linked to 12 cases in Bedford, was targeted immediately. An MTU went to the community on 8 May, and two community sites were opened up on 10 May. We have absolutely prioritised Bedford, as we have Sefton, Leicester, Nottingham and London—all areas where clusters have broken out. There is absolutely no question of prioritising one area over another. On the availability of the Pfizer vaccine in Bedford, that is news to me. I will be glad to look into that and to write to the noble Baroness accordingly.
On children, as noble Lords will be aware, this is an area in which some of the vaccine companies are making considerable progress in their clinical trials. None is categoric yet. It is too early to have agreed policy in this area, but the noble Baroness makes a very good point. Opening up the Covid vaccine, as we have with the flu vaccine, means that not only are children with some kind of vulnerability, particularly to long Covid, put into a safe place but that the transmissibility of that important age group can be reduced.
I am afraid we cannot know for certain the long-term effect of the vaccine until time has passed, but the CMO’s view is that the indications on the body’s immune system are extremely strong. At this moment it seems the vaccine is working, and our confidence is at a reasonably high point, but we remain vigilant. VoCs could emerge that either reduce the effectiveness of the vaccine or, for instance, effect some kind of decline in protection from the vaccine. That is why we have put in place contingent plans for boosters in the autumn. Those boosters might be of the existing suite of vaccines that are proving extremely effective. We are also looking for VoC vaccines that may be used to supplement the range of immune responses so that they cover any new mutations or variants that may emerge.
I cannot immediately recognise from the Bench the data the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, gave on the India VoCs. I wonder whether it was data that emerged after we made the decisions, because a lot of the sequencing data is retrospective; it takes between a week and 10 days to emerge from the Sanger Institute. That is one of the difficulties in making these decisions, which sometimes seem so clear-cut in retrospect. When you have the data available to you on the day, the decisions are not necessarily quite so apparent.
I do not really recognise the criticisms the noble Lord makes of the red list system. The red list system we have in the UK is an incredibly important shield and is proving extremely effective. Segregation is unbelievably difficult during travel. It is very difficult to segregate amber list and red list passengers on a plane, train or ferry. Within an airport it is very difficult to segregate people, because of the physical proximity. That is why travelling is dangerous, why we tell people not to travel and why, when people do travel, we tell them to isolate. Travelling is dangerous, and that is not news to us or to the people who get on those planes in the first place. The ultimate sanction here is that, particularly as we go into the summer, we tell people: travelling is not for this year. Please stay in this country.
On the isolation pilots the noble Lord referred to, we are running a large amount of work on pilots for isolation generally. If he would like to write to me about the particular pilots he was referring to, I will be glad to give him an update. I am afraid I am not quite clear at this stage which ones he is referring to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. We do not have that many Back-Bench questioners, but it is still quite good discipline if people keep their questions and answers as brief and relevant as possible.
Lord Popat (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his repeat of the Statement. It is indeed welcome news for people and the economy that we are able to move to step 3 in our road map. However, as the Health Secretary said,
“we must be humble in the face of this virus.”—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/21; col. 424.]
While the UK has had the highest vaccination enthusiasm in the world, does the Minister agree that it is deeply worrying that many people eligible for a vaccine, particularly among vulnerable age groups, have still not had one? This was seen in Bolton, where the majority of the 19 patients admitted to hospital with the new Indian variant, especially people from ethnic-minority communities, have not had a vaccine. What further support can the Government give to promote the better uptake of vaccines among ethnic minorities?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend refers to humility and he is right: we have all had to develop a stronger sense of humility in the face of this awful virus and this dreadful pandemic. It has taught us that, despite all our 21st-century healthcare systems, we are all vulnerable to its awful effects. His words are absolutely spot on. I repeat the statistic that 69.4% of adults across the UK have had the vaccine, because the overall story of the vaccine rollout has been one of incredible participation by the British public. Not only have I never been involved in anything quite so successful in my life but there are very few national projects anywhere in the world that have been as successful. I really applaud all communities in every part of Britain for the way in which they have stepped up to the vaccine. My noble friend is right that there are some communities in which those levels are not as high as they should be. That has led to higher transmission among younger people, and in a few cases that has led to severe disease among older people who, frankly, should have taken their vaccine. I urge everyone to step up to their opportunity.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
As the Minister, who has worked tirelessly during Covid, knows only too well, an outbreak anywhere can become an outbreak everywhere. Can he tell us how the UK plans to increase vaccine distribution globally through COVAX to control the pandemic and decrease the risk of further variants arising in countries with high rates of infection, particularly as the risk of vaccine-resistant variants will remain high for at least a decade?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the Tedros principle of us being safe only when we are all safe remains the most profound insight. The noble Baroness is entirely right: we must do more to try to help those in the developing world. The frustrating truth is that the world simply does not have enough capacity for the manufacture of these very complex and tricky substances. We are straining every sinew to try to deliver the 9 billion vaccines we need to deliver worldwide vaccination, but the rate of manufacturing is not as high as any of us would like. I take my hat off in particular to AstraZeneca, which has provided licences for the vaccine worldwide on a no-profit basis, but I also pay tribute to the other vaccine companies, which, despite what one might read in the press, are trying all they can to set up manufacturing sites all around the world. Progress is being made.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I too salute AstraZeneca for its noble efforts. However, I would like to take the Minister back to the SAGE meeting of 13 May, when the Government were warned:
“In the areas where numbers of infections are increasing rapidly … an even faster increase can be expected if measures are relaxed”.
The Government went ahead with relaxing the measures yesterday. I know that Mr Dominic Cummings can perhaps not be regarded as the most reliable of commentators, but was he not right to say that fast, hard and effective action is the best policy for the economy, as opposed to always delaying taking decisive action? When it comes to the next stage, can we be reassured that the decision will not be taken until the evidence in June is fully assessed and evaluated?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am a big supporter of the “fast and hard” principle. In our response in Bolton, Bedford, London and elsewhere, we have demonstrated that principle in our handling of the Indian variant. I point out that the use of testing and social distancing measures in schools has been enormously effective. One of the remarkable aspects of the infection rate so far is that transmission levels among school-aged children have not increased in the way that SAGE and others, including myself, once feared. We should take a “glass half-full” moment to applaud that fact. I reassure the noble Lord that we will absolutely make these decisions on the data. Space has been put in between the steps for exactly that reason, and we are not going to rush it.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister outline the Government’s plans for test and trace as lockdown is lifted, particularly in areas such as Bolton and Bedford where surge testing is currently being deployed? With former centrally based Public Health England staff being disbanded and senior civil servants returning to their own posts, what financial resources are being passed to the local resilience teams, run by local directors of public health, to operate test and trace, which will be so critical to controlling the spread of the virus alongside the vaccine rollout?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the outbreak in Bolton, Bedford, London and elsewhere has demonstrated, if that were needed, the paramount importance of keeping resources for test and trace at a critical level, and that is what we have done. Since the national infection rate is lower, there is a much greater emphasis on the kind of surge activity and outbreak management that the noble Baroness describes. Sequencing has proved to be an essential part of that process, and we have brought sequencing from the back of the laboratory to the front line of test and trace operation. Every single positive case is now treated as though it were a VOC, with the same amount of tracing and sequencing that a VOC would have had a few weeks ago. We have the full operation on standby. Should another wave of infections arrive, as it may well do with the relaxing of social distancing, we have the systems in place to be able to deal with it.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. The Indian variant is spreading not just across the United Kingdom but across the north Indian plains and into Nepal, a country ill-equipped to deal with such a pandemic. Given the speed of response and support offered to India, I simply ask my noble friend whether the Government will respond positively to Nepal’s request for 2 million doses of vaccine.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for the briefing on Nepal I had earlier from my noble friend. The scenes that we have seen in north-west India are heart-breaking. Nepal is such a good example of the kind of country that the global community needs to surround and support with vaccine technology that, frankly, is for G7-style countries to help to provide to developing countries. I take my noble friend’s point completely on board. I do not have immediately to hand the statistics about what Britain is doing for Nepal on the vaccine front, but I will be glad to write to him with any data that I can put together.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. With the move to stage 3 of the road map, university students can now return to campus. Most of them are too young to have received vaccines so students around the country will form a significant cohort of young people undertaking regular and frequent testing as a matter of course. What consideration has been given to the benefits of sustaining PCR testing and sequencing at scale in universities as a way of rapidly identifying and understanding new variants? Will the Government consider providing funding to support that in future?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the vice-chancellors and to the universities and colleges of Britain for the way in which they have embraced campus testing. It has been a salutary lesson in what can be done, and it has helped to keep infection rates down on campuses where there has been a small number of returning students to date. That is done mainly through LFD testing. Positive tests then have a complementary PCR test, and the PCR test is automatically sequenced if it is positive. The combination of LFD, PCR and sequencing is the right one for keeping infection rates down, but we tweak the formula as and when best advice comes in.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has hit the low-paid and the poor the hardest. The Government need to commit to a road map to a better post-Covid society so I invite them to make two pledges. First, at the very least, they need to reduce the NHS waiting lists in England from the present 4.95 million to 2.5 million, which was the case in 2010. Will the Minister pledge to do exactly that by the end of this Parliament or even sooner? If not, why not? Secondly, the poorest 10% of households pay 47.6% of their income in direct and indirect taxes, compared with 33.5% for the richest 10% of households. This condemns millions of people to poor food, housing and health, which is a key reason for deaths during this pandemic. Will the Government pledge to eliminate that injustice by the end of this Parliament?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I recognise some of the noble Lord’s insights. It is undoubtedly true that the low-paid and the poor have been hardest hit by Covid, both by the infection rates themselves and by the lockdown. That is a frustrating truth that is completely recognised and acknowledged by the Government. It is also true that the low-paid and the poor have health inequalities that have themselves made people more vulnerable to sickness, both from Covid and from the non-Covid diseases that have been exacerbated by limited access to some parts of the NHS. We are absolutely committed to reducing NHS waiting lists—that is an incredibly important part of the “build back better” mantra—but we need to do more to bring a degree of levelling up to all parts of society in order to address the symptoms that the noble Lord rightly describes.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the remarkable progress of the uptake of the vaccine in all communities, and I thank the Minister for coming to us with this Statement. However, I am sure he will understand that serious questions remain about the Government’s decision not to red-list being a direct cause of this dangerous Indian variant—I am sure that at some point the Government will have to answer fully to Parliament—and that it is not true, even as a clinical assessment, despite the media repeatedly and consistently suggesting this, that the uptake of vaccinations is the responsibility of certain communities. The Minister will appreciate the likely and even inevitable consequences of rising Islamophobia and hate crimes, as has been reported by Tell MAMA. What are the Government going to do to monitor and support local communities to ensure that they do not face such consequences? Also, echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, what plans and resources are in place to monitor and support compliance as we enter the next phase of the road map?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have to be honest with the noble Baroness: I am not sure it is helpful to try to connect healthcare policy decisions with a commentary on hate crime. The people who have not stepped up to the vaccine come from a very wide variety of communities; it is not one single community that has been singled out. We are talking about everyone from migrant workers in the apple yards of Herefordshire, to hard-working off-book sweat-shop labourers in east Leicestershire. In between there are people from many different communities who have not taken advantage of the vaccine opportunity. We are working really closely at NHS level to reassure community leaders and individuals concerned that the vaccine is safe and will provide protection. That is the right conversation to have.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
The bus industry has cleaned up its buses and introduced lots of ventilation, and people are wearing masks. Is there any hope that the amount of social distancing on buses will be reduced in the near future, because there is a lot of unused capacity?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the bus industry. Many noble Lords will remember those terrible stories at the beginning of the pandemic about bus drivers having an extremely high incidence of severe disease and even death. But the noble Lord should have hope as there is a really good reason why the buses will one day be full, and that is the vaccine. The vaccine gives us all hope that the kind of life we once had can be revisited, although we have to take some time to ensure that the vaccines are working as well as they should. We have to ensure that booster shots, if needed, are delivered. We have to ensure that the vaccine cuts through to all communities and that hygiene—the social distancing, handwashing and other personal hygiene disciplines which are going to be a long-term commitment by the entire nation—is truly imbedded in everyone’s habits.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the Statement repeat and congratulate him on the work he has been doing over the last many months. Does he agree that the public health messaging, which has been very good in all communities, should continue because we are going to get many other forms of variant? As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, says, this is going to be an ongoing issue, probably for a number of years, and continuous messaging will be key. Will he also tell me, given the recent new variant, what conversations he is having with counterparts from the countries concerned to see how that variant is reacting, what is happening there and whether it is reproducing rapidly or slowly, so that better informed decisions can be made in our own country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her insight. She is entirely right; this awful pandemic does have a silver lining, which is that it can be an inflection point for a complete transformation in our public health messaging. The work we are doing on communicating the threat of the variants is one example of that. The next front line will be the flu jab rollout in the autumn, where take-up rates have been okay but not great. I hope that, when the flu jab campaign begins this autumn, a completely different generation and spread of people will step up to that opportunity. We are working extremely hard to use the public mood and sentiment behind preventive medicine to full effect to ensure that the flu jab works, that therefore a much smaller proportion of the population will transmit flu, and that deaths and severe disease from flu will be reduced. That can be the legacy of this awful pandemic.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the vigilant focus described in this Statement that has been adopted by the Government, and that the response is being co-ordinated through the UK Health Security Agency. Could the Minister explain how England is working with the other three countries in the UK to ensure that a proactive approach is taken to the new virus variant, that the uptake of vaccines increases, that the monitoring of transmission continues, and to enable early intervention should the number of cases increase? In particular, what data are the Government collecting on the number of people in quarantine hotels testing positive for coronavirus and how many people have absconded from quarantine? Would the Government consider adopting a process similar to the electronic tagging undertaken in South Korea, to more accurately monitor the movement of people in and out of the country at its borders?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am enormously grateful to the noble Baroness for that creative and thoughtful question. The good news is that the number of absconding residents from managed quarantine is minimal; it can be counted on one hand and many of them have been retrieved. The bad news is that the positivity rate in managed quarantine is far too high. I do not have the precise number in front of me and do not want to guess at it, but it is clearly true that far too many people are getting on planes when they are infected and far too many people are catching the disease on their travels. When we think of how to manage any vaccine-evading and highly transmissible variants, we have to look to the red list for secure protection for this country. She asked another question I cannot remember, but I will be glad to write to her about it.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I was genuinely excited to be able to attend a Saracens rugby match last night, and I notice from my noble friend’s Twitter feed that he too was out last night enjoying a thoroughly well-deserved visit to Sadler’s Wells. My sincere thanks go to all those who have made this step to normality possible, particularly my noble friend. However, like others, I have concerns about the entry arrangements at airports. While I fully understand the difficulties of segregation and that international travel should be strongly discouraged, does he agree that more should be done to prevent passengers arriving from red, amber and green countries mixing—particularly at airport border entry points with those from red countries, where, as he has just said, there is obviously a high degree of infection?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I enjoyed the contemporary dance at Sadler’s Wells, which really lifted my heart, but I rather wish I had been at Saracens for that thumping victory and to see my favourite team doing so well after a difficult year. I very clearly hear the concerns of noble Lords about social mixing of amber and red route passengers at airports, and one reads about it in the papers. I reassure noble Lords that the amount of segregation in place in the airports is the focus of both Border Force and the Home Office. We are absolutely doing our best. We are looking at red list terminals, but the practicalities of that when there is a relatively low level of flights are very challenging indeed. I reiterate my point that if you are travelling you are putting yourself at risk, and there is no way we can pretend otherwise. If you are travelling, you should isolate yourself for a substantial amount of time when you touch down in the UK. This question of mingling in airports is, to some extent, a red herring.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that the B16172 variant of SARS-CoV-2 is now established in the community, but that only highlights the need to keep out further variants of concern that will inevitably arise around the world as the coronavirus runs rampant. Following the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, can the Minister reassure me about the security arrangements in quarantine facilities given the number of cases of transmission in New Zealand and Australia, who have long practised quarantine? How often are staff being tested? Are they being paid in ways that mean they do not have to take other jobs, particularly jobs where they may have contact with large numbers of people? Are ventilation systems being checked regularly?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right to cite the examples of Australia and New Zealand and the challenges they have had with staff manning managed quarantine facilities. I am extremely grateful to officials from both Australia and New Zealand for the very thorough briefings we had when we set up our managed quarantine facilities. We totally took on board their profound insight on that area and that was the number one thing they told us to get right. We focused on it, we have invested in it, and that has worked well to date.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all questions have been asked and answered.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. I ask Members to respect social distancing.
Queen’s Speech
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege and pleasure to open this fifth day of debate on Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. Today’s debate on justice, home affairs and cultural issues will allow us to explore some of the key themes that Her Majesty expounded in her Speech last week. Many of these matters are central to a well-functioning society, including the recovery of our justice system in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic; the prevention of violent crime and the delivery of justice for victims; the basis and operation of our constitutional settlement; the way that our immigration and asylum systems work in practice; and how the United Kingdom will respond to digital and technological developments, including online safety and the security of our communications. Given the wealth of experience on all sides of the House, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford and I look forward to hearing the contributions that will be made by noble Lords in today’s debate.
The last year was like none in recent memory and has been difficult for everyone. None the less, this Government have remained steadfast in responding to the Covid-19 crisis. The pandemic affected all areas of life, both private and public, and the justice system is no exception. The past year has been particularly challenging for our courts and tribunals, so I first, and importantly, want to express my gratitude to those working across the justice system, whose efforts over the last year meant that the wheels of justice never stopped turning. They are now turning faster: almost all jurisdictions are now completing cases at pre-pandemic levels.
However, we are aware that there is much further to go—so, as we begin a new Session and social distancing restrictions ease, one of our top priorities will be to accelerate the work already taking place to address the effects of the pandemic on courts and tribunals, and we will also use this opportunity to secure further improvements for our justice system. As such, we will implement measures to ensure that the Crown Courts are running to their maximum capacity, using every judge and courtroom available, with no limit on sitting days this year. We will learn from our experience with remote hearings and seek to retain them where appropriate. These measures will enable us to deliver swifter outcomes for victims who might otherwise see their cases delayed. We know the old adage: justice delayed is justice denied. We do not want to see justice denied to anyone, so we will work hard to speed up the justice system, as it emerges from the pandemic.
However, our commitment to delivering justice for victims does not end at trial, and it certainly does not begin there. We want to ensure that victims are supported and their rights recognised at every stage of the criminal justice system. During the last Session, we published a revised victims’ code, which set out the rights to which victims are entitled. We will now go further: we will work to ensure both the standard and the availability of victims’ rights, beginning with a consultation on a ground-breaking victims’ Bill that will enshrine the new code in legislation.
We are acutely aware that crimes such as domestic abuse, rape and sexual violence, which disproportionately affect women and girls, shatter not only the lives of the victims but also those of their families. The whole country was shaken earlier this year by the death of Sarah Everard, which was a harrowing reminder of the violence to which many—far too many—women and girls in our society are subjected. As such, in addition to the landmark Domestic Abuse Act passed last Session, we will continue to make supporting victims and survivors of these crimes a priority. We will publish the end-to-end rape review action plan, working to ensure that, at each stage of our justice system, from reporting and investigation to trial and sentence, rape cases are considered with the diligence and gravity that they deserve.
We will publish a new tackling violence against women and girls strategy and a domestic abuse strategy, which will work in tandem to drive real change in this area. We received 180,000 responses to our call for evidence to inform these strategies. The views of victims, survivors and the public will be at the heart of our approach. We will also review our national statement of expectations, to ensure that police and crime commissioners approach these crimes in a collaborative and robust way.
This approach reflects our wider strategy. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which has been held over from last Session, will further our commitment to being tough on crime and its perpetrators. We will give our police more powers to tackle crime, we will protect our emergency workers and increase sentences for those who would harm them, and we will establish a new, smarter approach to sentencing that sees our most dangerous criminals spend longer in prison.
I am aware that there has been a lot of discourse about the public order provisions in this Bill, much of which is based on a misunderstanding of what the provisions actually do and the genesis of the legislation. These measures have been portrayed by some as draconian and a dismantling of our civil liberties; this is both misinformed and wrong. The right to protest is a fundamental and important freedom—but so is the right to go about your business unhindered. These provisions allow police to take a more proactive approach in managing disproportionately disruptive protests, which place an unnecessary burden upon our citizens.
It is that sense of balance that permeates a lot of the work which this Government plan to deliver over the next Session, and nowhere is this more apparent than in relation to our work on the constitution and judicial review.
I am sure everyone will agree that our uncodified—I did not say unwritten— constitution is something to be both celebrated and preserved. That includes examining the fine and critical balance between the Executive, the judiciary and the legislature.
That is why we plan to introduce a judicial review and courts Bill, which will not only introduce many of the court recovery measures I mentioned earlier, but will work to restore the balance between our institutions of state. We want to protect the judiciary from being unnecessarily pulled into political matters. Let me be clear and unambiguous: this is not about abolishing judicial review. We will ensure the integrity of the judicial review process. But the idea, put about by some who should know better, that the judicial review process cannot be improved or that it must remain a no-go area for government is false. Public law is too important to be left only to public lawyers.
We are still considering the submissions made to the recent consultation, which itself built on the work by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and his team, and considered further areas for reform. We expect to increase the flexibility provided to judges by ensuring, among other things, that more flexible and effective remedies are available, and to review the merits of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cart.
Our desire to ensure that our society’s vital systems function as fairly and as effectively as possible extends to our plans for the borders Bill that we will introduce. This will implement the most significant overhaul of our immigration and asylum systems for decades.
At the heart of this Bill is a simple principle: fairness. Presently, we have a generous asylum system that offers protection to the most vulnerable people around the world through defined safe and legal routes. But this system is collapsing under the pressure of parallel, often extremely dangerous, illegal routes to asylum, facilitated by criminals smuggling people into the UK.
We believe that access to our asylum system should be based on need and not on the ability to pay people smugglers. When people are dying, as they are, we have a duty to act. The Border Force already has a range of powers and capabilities to deal with maritime threats, but we will use this legislative opportunity to strengthen them further. We will introduce new powers to target the increasing use of vessels by criminal gangs to facilitate illegal entry to the UK.
Over and above that, our ability to enforce immigration laws, passed by and with the authority of Parliament, is being impeded, contributing to a downward trend in the number of people, including foreign national offenders, being removed from the UK. Our Bill will enable us to remove more easily those with no right to be here. Our time and resources should be directed to protecting and supporting those in genuine need of asylum, and to reclaim control of our borders.
Cicero’s maxim, “Salus populi suprema lex esto”—your Lordships will of course require no translation—remains absolutely true. The safety and security of the people of this country must be, and will be, the primary concern of this Government. We live increasingly in an online world, as the television screens above me show, so we also want to ensure that the United Kingdom is the safest place to be online as well as offline.
That is why we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an online safety Bill to set a global standard for safety online. It will include the most comprehensive approach yet to online regulation, requiring platforms and search engines contained within its scope to tackle illegal content and protect our young people from harmful material.
Major platforms will also be required to set out, with clarity, their own terms and conditions about legal but harmful content for adults, and to enforce these rules consistently and transparently.
The Bill will also enshrine in law safeguards for free speech. We will use this opportunity to defend freedom of expression and promote the valuable role of a free press that now exists online as much as it does in newsprint. This will allow us to usher in a new era of accountability for technology giants, and to protect our children, ensuring that future generations have a healthy relationship with the internet.
We are also aware of the importance of ensuring the long-term security and resilience of our telecommunications network. The Telecommunications (Security) Bill will create one of the most rigorous telecommunication security regimes in the world. It will protect and future-proof our networks as technologies grow and evolve, shielding our critical national infrastructure both now and in the future. It will allow us to manage the risks posed by high-risk vendors.
We will also ensure that the national telecommunications system flourishes. We will introduce a second Bill, the product security and telecommunications infrastructure Bill, to allow us to deliver on our connectivity ambitions by making sure that telecommunications equipment can be installed, shared and upgraded as quickly and efficiently as possible, and by assuring consumers that the smart devices that we all now bring into our homes—the so-called the internet of things—are secure. This legislation will underline the UK’s continued global leadership on cybersecurity and allow consumer-connected technology to continue to grow.
We also have to look at the threat posed to us by hostile activities from other states—a threat that is ever-growing, diversifying and evolving. Unlike terrorists, who rely on grabbing the public’s attention, this sort of hostile activity operates in the shadows and remains hidden. Although these acts fall short of open conflict, the consequences for our democracy, economic security and prosperity are real. To address this threat, we will introduce a counter state threats Bill, which will modernise our existing counter-espionage laws to reflect the modern threat and introduce modern legislative standards. It will create new offences, tools and powers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile activity in and targeted at the United Kingdom. We will do this through reform of the Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920 and 1939, as well as the Official Secrets Act 1989, and the creation of a foreign influence registration scheme. The Home Secretary has published a public consultation on our proposals in this area, and the response to that consultation will help us shape the tools and powers at our disposal to make sure that they balance the protection of national security with the important rights and values that we all enjoy in the United Kingdom.
Lastly, we will introduce two new Bills to support the voluntary sector by reducing unnecessary bureaucracy for charities, and to unlock additional funds for good causes. The first is a charities Bill. Charities occupy a special place in our society, and the law should both protect and regulate them. The reforms that we introduce will remove or replace inappropriate and unnecessary burdens while safeguarding the public interest in ensuring that charities are properly run, so that charities will have more time and more resources to spend on their charitable objectives.
The second of these Bills is the Dormant Assets Bill. The dormant assets scheme has already released £745 million, including £150 million for Covid relief last year. Expanding the scheme using this Bill has the potential to unlock a further £880 million over the coming years.
These measures, as outlined in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, will set a clear direction for the future of our country. By implementing them, we will ensure that we are a country where swift justice is delivered to victims and meted out to perpetrators of crime, and that victims’ rights are respected and enshrined in the law of the land. We will ensure that our police, judges and border officials have the powers necessary to secure our society and protect our citizens. We will ensure that when they are online, as well as offline, our citizens are protected, and that our systems are robust and secure. In the wake of a life-altering pandemic, and a year of prolonged difficulty and disruption, we will ensure that our country has all the resources needed to build back better, stronger and safer. Over the coming weeks and months, I look forward to discussion, discourse and debate, with your Lordships and with others outside this House, about the many measures which it has been my privilege to outline today.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing today’s debate. It is a privilege for me to respond and open for the Opposition. I remind the House that I sit as a magistrate in London.
I look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, who brings unparalleled experience in the arts, particularly music. I look forward to her maiden speech, and I also look forward to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook. She has a background as a former MP and in local government, and I note that she went to the same university as my daughter, which is no doubt a good omen.
I shall speak on the justice-related Bills and refer briefly to the DCMS Bills, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy will speak on the Home Office Bills. By way of background, a decade of cuts by the Conservative Government has left our justice system weak and vulnerable—and that was even before the pandemic began. Half of all courts in England and Wales were closed between 2010 and 2019; today there are 27,000 fewer court sitting days than in 2016. The Crown Court backlog, now more than 57,000 cases, has increased from 39,000 before the pandemic. Rape prosecutions are at an all-time low. Victims are being told to wait up to four years to get their day in court, which of course leads many to drop out of the system. Convictions for rape, robbery, theft, criminal damage and arson, drug offences and fraud have fallen to a 10-year low.
The Labour Party has called for the rapid extension of Nightingale courts and war juries of seven jurors, in an attempt to reduce the backlog, but the Government have not accepted our proposals. Beyond the pandemic, we need to increase sitting days to clear the backlog, provide greater support for legal aid, embrace technology where it works and restore victims’ faith in the justice system.
On judicial review and the courts Bill, the Government propose to introduce reforms to judicial review to, as they see it, protect the judiciary from being drawn into political questions. The Government are unhappy that their own panel has not advocated the widespread changes that they wanted, so they have announced further consultations on various aspects of judicial review to get a different answer. I have a specific question for the Minister. Why have the Government announced a further consultation on the use of ouster clauses, when their own review explicitly said not to do this? The Labour Party believes that judicial review is a key part of our constitution since it gives members of the public and organisations a legal forum to challenge the Government and public bodies when they act unlawfully.
On the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is a carryover Bill, the Government say that this legislation will increase sentences for the most serious and violent offenders and ensure the timely administration of justice. This is a large Bill which is poorly thought through. It is a mess and could lead to unintended consequences; for example, we could have harsher penalties for damaging a statue than for attacking a woman. In recent months and years, the Labour Party has worked constructively with the Government to, for example, increase maximum sentences for front-line workers and increase sentences for terrorists. We would like a similar constructive approach to this Bill, and call on the Government to drop their poorly thought-out proposals and focus their legislation on tackling violence against women and girls. Why not use this Bill, as well as the victims Bill, to enact a more comprehensive strategy to protect women and girls? Indeed, yesterday the Labour Party published a “green paper” with a number of suggested policy proposals to end violence against women and girls, which could be adopted through this and Home Office legislation.
Having said that, we believe there are good and important parts of this Bill. Some of those have come from Labour MPs: Stephanie Peacock on dangerous driving, Holly Lynch and Chris Bryant on protecting the protectors, John Spellar on reform of the DBS system and Sarah Champion on sexual abuse by people in a position of trust—all this as well as reforms taken from the Lammy Review. We believe that the Government are undermining the parts of the Bill that we support through unnecessarily draconian measures on free expression and the right to protest. There is no evidence that I have seen that these more severe measures will do anything to reduce reoffending. The Minister said that many of the protests are misinformed, and I hope that he is right; we will look forward to exploring that when we come to the legislation.
I move on to the victims Bill. It has been a long wait for this Bill, which was first announced in the 2016 gracious Speech. In fact, Keir Starmer, when he first became an MP in 2015, introduced a Private Member’s Bill, co-drafted with the Victims’ Commissioner for London, which in many ways underpins this Bill. Speaking as a magistrate who sits in both adult and youth jurisdictions in London, I rarely see a victim in court, and it is also relatively unusual to have a victim impact statement read out in court—although I acknowledge that this has improved in recent years.
There are many things that we can do to improve the legal rights and the experience of victims, both inside and outside court. I look forward to working constructively with the Government to enshrine victims’ rights in legislation and protect those who suffer persistent anti-social behaviour.
I will briefly refer to the four DCMS Bills. The charities Bill will introduce a range of Law Commission recommendations. We support this Bill; we will be focusing on the issues of governance and transparency and on ensuring that they are not watered down through the Bill.
With regard to the Dormant Assets Bill, the Minister said that he hoped to get £880 million by unlocking further assets. We support that and look forward to working with the Minister on it.
Next is the product security and telecommunications infrastructure Bill. As the Opposition, we would be concerned about reforms to the electronic communications code. There is a lot of detail in this Bill, and we will wait to see it before we consider our approach.
The Telecommunications (Security) Bill is a carryover Bill. While there were some amendments in the Commons, we agree with its general thrust.
Finally, I want to talk about the online safety Bill. The Minister used some expansive language in talking about this Bill: he spoke of setting global standards to which other countries could aspire. However, nobody knows better than the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, the great strength of feeling in this House on the slowness of the introduction of the Bill. During the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act and many other bits of legislation there has been constant frustration at the fact that we are not getting on with this Bill. We understand that there will be pre-legislative scrutiny by both Houses, and that the intention is to enact a statutory duty of care, to be enforced by Ofcom that would require companies to prevent the spread of illegal content and activity online.
The Bill is presented as a once-in-a-generation opportunity for legislation, and the Government’s thinking appears to be a continuation of the self-regulatory approach that we have seen to date. This approach has failed our children. Online crimes are proliferating, and people’s rights online remain confused and unclear. The Government’s decision to water down its legislative proposals and hold back on criminal sanctions for company executives will continue to put children and others at risk.
This will be a complex piece of legislation, and it will be one of the most important in recent years. Although Ofcom has been named as the regulator, it is far from clear that it will have the powers or resources needed to address the issues that it will face. The noble Lord gave a good example of disinformation. We see it on an almost daily basis—in fact we see disinformation being spread about, for example, vaccines and their use literally daily. That is another reason why this legislation is so important.
Keeping children safe is the most important task we have. If children were being abused and put at risk in the same way offline as they are online, people would rightly go to jail. Criminal sanction for senior executives is the most direct way to get large corporations to take their responsibilities seriously.
We routinely co-operate across parties to amend legislation in this House. Sometimes the Government say that they welcome this approach. I hope that we can continue to co-operate with all corners of the House to improve this legislation.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I first pay tribute to her Majesty the Queen as we enter her Platinum Jubilee year. Her example of a lifetime of public service at the highest level is extraordinary. I am also greatly looking forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baronesses, Lady Fullbrook and Lady Fleet—the first of many valuable contributions to this House, I am sure.
As we consider the home affairs, justice and culture aspects of the Queen’s Speech, I remind the House of the comments of my noble friend Lord Newby, who said last week:
“The Queen’s Speech contains many Bills of second-order importance but none offering fundamental change”.—[Official Report, 11/5/21; col. 16]
I would go further. The Government seem to be continuing along the same path, following policies where the broadsheet analysis of the right-wing tabloid headline shows the negative unintended consequences of government policy.
One of our strongest sectors is culture, yet the only legislation in that space is the online safety Bill, which is an inadequate reaction to protecting children and other vulnerable internet users who are being exposed to things online that they would be protected from in the physical world. Meanwhile, there is nothing to encourage or facilitate our musicians and performers, who are facing the disastrous twin impacts on their livelihood of a global pandemic and restrictions on their ability to tour in the European Union.
We on these Benches believe in freedom and fair play—what some might call traditional British values. That includes the freedom to succeed no matter who you are or what your background or backstory is, and the freedom of the individual from unnecessary interference by government. Yet this Conservative Government seek to unfairly discriminate, further marginalising minorities and the poor, further limiting challenges to government overreach, and pursuing populist policies where the evidence clearly shows that they do not work. This is a Queen’s Speech of promising headlines with unintended negative consequences.
Proposals to ensure that speakers are not “no-platformed” in universities make it more likely those with radical views—ones that need to be heard, challenged and debated—are not invited in the first place. The electoral integrity Bill is a solution in search of a non-existent problem, and is likely to disproportionately disfranchise the poor and ethnic minorities.
Whether through the extension of treason offences, or longer and longer prison sentences for existing offences, not only are the Government pursuing a policy that has proved to be ineffective in deterring criminals, they are adding to overcrowding in prisons, making rehabilitation more difficult and radicalisation easier. Sedition has its roots in the perceived unfairness of society, and draconian punishment is one of those unfairnesses.
In their immigration proposals, the Government seek to penalise legitimate asylum seekers, contrary to our international obligations on refugee resettlement. This is not because they do not have a valid and lawful right to seek sanctuary in the UK, but because they arrive here by what the Government consider the wrong route. For the majority of those desperate enough to put their lives at risk by crossing the channel, there is no alternative safe and legal route to take. There is currently no way for those being bombed in Syria by their own President, or those caught between warring factions in Yemen, to claim asylum within their own country. All UK resettlement schemes are currently closed, with no plans or timetable for reopening them, nor for establishing new ones.
Instead of first establishing or re-establishing resettlement schemes and setting targets for the number of asylum seekers to whom the UK will give sanctuary, the Government are spending millions of pounds on barbed wire and enforcement patrols on the French coast. They are forcing legitimate asylum seekers into the hands of people traffickers—the only people who know how to get around the increased security measures.
One people smuggler, quoted by the Guardian, said:
“We thank your government for our full pockets.”
If you say to voters in the red or blue wall, “Look at these illegal immigrants crossing the channel”, you encourage xenophobia. If you say, “This is the only way these desperate people, who are not safe in their own country, can seek sanctuary here”, you encourage understanding. It is a choice, and the Conservative Government, through their immigration proposals, are choosing the former.
In the year of the 40th anniversary of the Brixton riots, this Conservative Government choose to ignore the recommendations of the Scarman report and instead condone enforcing the law over maintenance of the Queen’s peace, as we saw at the Clapham Common vigil. At the same time, they fail to address the unfairness, discrimination and waste of scarce police resources on disproportionate stop and search.
Placing further restrictions on protests might seem reasonable in the light of the Extinction Rebellion protests last year. I know from years of experience as an advanced public order-trained senior police officer that it takes several degrees of magnitude more police officers to enforce a ban on a demonstration than it does to work with organisers to ensure compliance with conditions. Outside London, the majority of police leaders consulted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said that it was not a lack of legislation but a lack of police resources that was the limiting factor in policing protests.
What are the consequences? Following the tragic case of Sarah Everard, the Mayor of London claimed that women and girls were not safe on the streets of London. The commissioner of the Met barely qualified that statement last week, when she said that the streets were
“not safe for everyone all of the time.”
The streets of London are not safe because police officers are increasingly being withdrawn from their beats to enforce bans on demonstrations and because they are targeting stop and search on black people, looking for drugs. You are eight times more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs if you are black, but no more likely than white people to be found with drugs. The overwhelming majority of stop searches are for drugs, not for knives. No wonder the black community still feels “overpoliced and underprotected”, as a black clergyman told the Macpherson inquiry into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence.
We all want the freedom to be able to walk our streets in safety and for our women friends and family to walk safely down any street at any time. For this to happen, we must restore a visible policing presence, as the National Police Chiefs’ Council said yesterday. We do not want even more of our police officers sitting in police vans, ready to enforce a ban on a peaceful protest —which is the likely consequence of the Government’s proposals. We do not want our police officers wasting their time stopping and searching innocent people in the vain hope of finding a small quantity of drugs. We want violent criminals to be in fear of the police, not for women and girls to be in fear of men.
Fair play is not just about protecting the most vulnerable. It is part of what makes us proud to be British. Fair play is not just about ensuring lawful protest and that black people feel welcomed and protected. It is about focusing scarce police resources on ensuring everyone’s freedom to walk the streets in safety. Freedom and fair play are what make our country great. This Government’s proposals are in danger of undermining that greatness.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall focus not on asylum but on immigration. I declare a non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch UK.
Noble Lords may have seen a recent article in the Times by the noble Lord, Lord Hague. He referred to extraordinary events in France, where two groups of retired military officers have declared that their country is disintegrating—yes, disintegrating. A subsequent opinion poll found that nearly three-quarters of the French public agreed. The main theme of the article by the noble Lord, Lord Hague—with which I entirely agree—was the vital importance of a shared national identity. His view is that its promotion in the UK has become a matter of urgency.
I have three important points to add. First, this will not be possible unless and until immigration is sharply reduced. For the time being, the public believe the Government’s claims that they are taking measures for this purpose. For reasons I have set out elsewhere, the Government will fail in this matter.
Secondly, recent work has shown that high migration, combined with the higher birth rates in some immigrant communities—and a generally younger age structure—are driving major changes across the UK. We now find that about a third of all children born in England and Wales have at least one foreign-born parent. In both primary and secondary state schools in England, around one-third of all pupils are from an ethnic minority background. In the population of Great Britain, the share of ethnic minorities, including other Europeans, has nearly doubled to 21% in just 20 years. In more recent years, more the 90% of our population increase has been due to immigration.
Thirdly, there can be no doubt that the whole nature of our society is changing very rapidly and at an accelerating pace. Meanwhile, the public are instinctively aware of this and are, albeit privately, very concerned. A recent YouGov tracking poll found that nearly 60% say that immigration has been too high during the past decade. That is about 30 million adults.
That is enough about numbers. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will be a valuable addition to this House. She put it very well in her report of December 2016:
“It is not racist to say that the pace of change from immigration in recent years has been too much for some communities.”
People are understandably uncomfortable when the character and make-up of a town change out of all recognition in five or 10 years.
In calling for a sharp and sustained reduction in net migration, I am conscious that I shall be strongly opposed by those who profit from immigration, whether politically or economically. My answer is clear: these are vital issues for the future of our country. Having been appointed to your Lordships’ House for my work in this area, I think it no less than my duty to speak for those who have entirely valid concerns which our political system is simply not addressing.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I too look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook and Lady Fleet. In my few minutes, I shall briefly mention women in the criminal justice system, the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Bill, violence against women and girls and the online safety Bill. I refer to my interests in the register, as Anglican bishop to prisons.
I begin by asking: when will we see a renewed timetable for the 2018 female offender strategy? While I welcome the implementation of some of the deliverables, analysis by the Prison Reform Trust shows that the Government have met less than half the commitments. The concordat published last year does not appear to have been progressed. Then there was that shocking announcement of 500 new prison places for women, totally at odds with the strategy’s direction to reduce the number of women in prison. What evidence is it based on, and why is the designated £150 million not being spent on women’s centres and implementing the concordat?
The Government have pledged to give every child the best start in life. I am a big proponent of prioritising the early years. But, related to today’s subject, I would say that if one of the justifications for the new prison places is to allow children to stay overnight with their mothers, this seems a strange way to implement the Farmer review findings. It would be far better if those mothers who do not need to be in prison were supported in the community with their children. Again, why are policy proposals seemingly ignoring evidence and expertise?
Perhaps that is a good segue into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. In our scrutiny, we will need to ask whether it is supported by the evidence available and reflects a clear strategy and ethos that can be justified ethically. While I welcome certain proposals, such as diversion and community cautions and empowering problem-solving courts, other aspects raise serious concerns. For example, the use of life sentences for younger offenders seems to undermine any chance of reform and redemption. The measures relating to longer sentences seem to ignore the fact that decades of lengthening sentences have done nothing to improve outcomes for offenders or prevent cycles of reoffending. Yet the myth is perpetuated that longer sentences will provide greater public protection. Rather than policies being driven by evidence, it seems that they are driven by populist views and some headline cases. Furthermore, there is a woefully little focus on rehabilitation and what happens during someone’s sentence. Thus, victims and communities, as well as offenders, are poorly served, and longer sentences will only put more pressure on our overcrowded prisons. It is also troubling that after all that has transpired in recent years, little attention is paid to racial disparities in the criminal justice system.
We did good work in this House on domestic abuse with the Act. Yet a number of issues remain, not least the vulnerability of migrant victims. The pilot project must be closely watched. I look forward to the publication of the violence against women and girls strategy, and, once again, I commend Australia’s framework for primary prevention. I would also welcome greater consideration of the contributions of faith groups in the future VAWG strategy.
I want to end by commenting on the draft online safety Bill. Within the commendable commitments to safety, there is still work to do. From my conversations with young people around physical appearance and self-worth, I urge the Government to encourage more diverse representation in advertising and to ban, or at least restrict, the use of altered images.
I must close. I will finish by encouraging the Government to ensure that future legislation is based on evidence and research and underpinned by a clear ethos of the flourishing of all people.
Baroness Fullbrook (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is the greatest honour and privilege to address your Lordships for the first time. I have received such a warm welcome and so much helpful advice from all sides of this House. I thank noble Lords. In particular, I thank Black Rod and the doorkeepers, who have answered all my questions with knowledge and cheerful courtesy. I must also offer my thanks and gratitude to both my supporters—my noble friends Lord Trimble and Lord Arbuthnot. I was the council leader in the constituency of my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot when he was a Member of the other place. His guidance, intellect and good humour saw us take on many issues together. My noble friend Lord Trimble is an inspiration of mine.
As a Glasgow-born descendant of Ulster Scots with strong ties in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, I was seen by my company as ideal to be sent to Belfast for my first ever audit assignment—my first ever proper job—as a young woman in the 1980s. That assignment lasted for two years during the hunger strikes and the Troubles, and I saw the devastation brought to all people of Northern Ireland during my time there. I went on to spend over 20 years in senior management roles with several international blue-chip companies, working mainly in Europe and Africa and, latterly, in the Middle East.
But back home, having never considered elective politics, I experienced first-hand the fear, misery and devastating impact that illegal encampments have on the lives of law-abiding people. But what truly astounded me is that local victims of this criminal behaviour came second to the lawbreakers by a long way. This experience dramatically changed the direction of my life, as I put myself forward and was elected as a councillor to Hart District Council in Hampshire. Within a year, I was leading the council.
Before entering the other place in 2010, I was for several years the first executive director of Women2Win, working alongside my new Whip, as well as my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington and the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May. By the time I had stepped down, we had seen Conservative women MPs triple in number, not through quotas or women-only shortlists, which I totally oppose, but through support, advice and training so that good, able women could navigate the political world—for women to contribute to their fullest. Many of those Women2Win alumni are still serving proudly in the other place.
I was the first female to represent the constituency of South Ribble in Lancashire. But through my passion for law and order I was drawn to the home affairs brief, and I was fortunate to serve on the Home Affairs Select Committee for five years in the other place, with a personal focus on policing, counterterrorism and the trade in narcotics. Given my experience of local government and on the Home Affairs Select Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to state my support for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill outlined in Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. This Government are committed to protecting and empowering our police by passing the police protection Bill and introducing new powers to tackle unauthorised Traveller camps while empowering the courts to tackle crime and ensuring a fair justice system. It is clear to me that this Bill contains several important measures to support the delivery of those commitments. I would like to mention some specific elements of the Bill.
Experience has taught me that unauthorised encampments create significant challenges for local authorities and cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. Unfortunately, as I have found all too often, current law enforcement provisions are simply inadequate to deal with the scale of the disruption these invasions have caused. Therefore, I support the measures to create the criminal offence of residing in a vehicle on land without permission. A person guilty of this offence will be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale—currently £2,500—or both.
If we are to look after our communities, we must ensure that the police are provided with sufficient powers to effectively and efficiently enforce against a range of harms caused by unauthorised camps. I believe this new offence and strengthened police powers will also deter the setting up of unauthorised camps in the first place. As we emerge from this tragic pandemic, it is right that the Government seek to lead with a programme that does just that.
I thank noble Lords again for their kind welcome to this House, and I look forward to working with all noble Lords for the good of the country.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Fullbrook. We have been friends for many years, since long before her distinguished career as a councillor, council leader and Member of the other place. She led her council with great style, committed to producing quality services at an affordable price. That commitment to public service was further evidenced by her time in the other place. Her full title refers to Dogmersfield, which is Anglo-Saxon for a field of waterlilies—a fitting title for a noble Baroness.
I would like to say a few brief words in support of the election Bill. Many of the measures are based on recommendations that I made to the Government a few years back. Voter fraud is, by its very nature, covert and difficult to prove. A system that relies on trust is vulnerable to manipulation. We have ignored those concerned with the administration of elections, and overseas observers, for too long. Now is the time to make our ballot boxes safe.
The most important provision is on postal votes: banning party campaigners from handling postal votes altogether; stopping the practice of “harvesting” by limiting the number of postal votes that one person may hand in on behalf of another; extending the secrecy provisions that currently protect voting in polling stations to absent voting, so that it will be an offence for anyone to attempt to find out who a postal voter has chosen to vote for; and requiring those registered for a postal vote to reaffirm their identities by reapplying for a postal vote every three years. Postal voting will remain on demand but require renewal every three years. The total number of people for whom someone can act as a proxy would be limited to four, regardless of their relationship.
There seems to be opposition verging on hysteria to the sensible provision of voter ID, which would bring the United Kingdom in line with other democracies. In this respect, the Government have moved further than I recommended by insisting on photo ID. I am relaxed about this for two reasons. First, the number of people possessing photo ID has increased since my report. The pandemic has given that a push. Secondly, the Government have shown flexibility about what photo IDs are permissible. We are no longer restricted to passports and driving licences, but a much wider selection—including various concessionary travel passes, work pass cards, Ministry of Defence cards and blue badge parking permits, and even my OAP bus pass—would qualify. The result is that 98% of the voting population has a form of ID that would qualify. That figure, for ethnic minorities, goes up a further percentage point to 99%. The Electoral Commission and the OSCE support the measure; both organisations have warned about Britain’s vulnerability to voter fraud for years. Neither organisation would support voter suppression.
I agree with the Labour Minister’s assessment introducing this same measure for Northern Ireland in 2003:
“The measures will tackle electoral abuse effectively without disadvantaging honest voters.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/01; col. 739.]
I also agree with the Labour official on the introduction of photo ID for Labour Party elections when he said,
“It is rare members have no form of ID.”
The Bill contains sensible measures that will make our ballot boxes safe.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech and look forward to clashing with her over the years to come. I look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet, making her maiden speech today.
The right honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden, speaking on the Queen’s Speech, said that he was concerned about an
“illiberal solution in pursuit of a non-existent problem.”
He was talking about the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has just referred, but he might have been talking about several elements of other Bills as well. As with so much, there are elements of each of the pieces of legislation that have been put forward in this Session of Parliament with which you can agree; other parts lead to very grave concerns.
Very briefly, I will mention the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. I have got no problem dealing with anarcho-syndicalists who misuse and abuse the privilege of freedom to encourage others to do things they would never otherwise have done. I think we need, however, to be absolutely sure that we do not put the police in an impossible position, where they are making impossible judgments based on changes in the law, which will either not be implementable, and therefore ineffective, or will cause the exact opposite of the problem that they were trying to resolve. I hope we will be able to deal with this in your Lordships’ House effectively, amending those parts relating to public order.
I want to concentrate, in the short time available, on the issue of immigration. The Minister referred to border officials having the resources. Tell that to the people, in the limited numbers that are currently allowed in, coming through Heathrow. Either the decision by the Home Secretary is because of incompetence or indifference or intent. It has to be one of those three, and if it is intent, then the lack of application of resources is causing not only major hold-ups but, in doing that, causing the likelihood of a greater spread of infection. If we cannot get that right in the months ahead, how on earth are we going to deal with the complex piece of legislation that creates two tiers of asylum seekers, in circumstances where we claim that we can send people back to countries that will not have them and were not aware of their presence in the first place? Having pulled out of Europol, no longer having the European arrest warrant, having disengaged effectively from working on organised crime across borders and detached ourselves as an island, it ill becomes the Government to then say that we are going to find ways of returning people to countries that will not have them.
We need a much more sophisticated approach. In the year leading up to the pandemic, 32,000 people were turned away because of the measures that were taken in 2003 to put immigration and security officials on European soil, enabling us to turn people back not just on Eurostar but at the border itself so they did not actually reach Britain. More of that effective work, across countries, tackling the criminals that the Minister quite rightly referred to in his speech, would be the way forward. I hope we will be able to do that in a way that, in reference to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Green, does not counterweight the decision to welcome Hong Kong residents—27,000 to begin with, but possibly half a million over the five years ahead—by making it impossible for other people to make their way to this country and claim their international rights. That would be a great disservice to the name of our country as well as, by the way, to those we are welcoming from Hong Kong.
In essence, there is a great deal we can do in this Queen’s Speech that will be extremely welcome out there—the victims Bill is an obvious one, and the online safety Bill is another. But let us also be clear that, if we do not get the measures right, instead of the bluster and frippery that substitutes for clear thinking and positive action, then we will let people down. In making it possible to take practical measures, we build trust. When we tell people—as I know from my time in Government—that we are going to do something that in our hearts we know is impossible, we lose their trust. While the Government are riding high at the moment, in a few years’ time some of the measures that have been outlined in the Queen’s Speech will catch up with them, and people will realise that they have been misled.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.
The Government say they want to build back better— an aim we share, as we do levelling up—but I have a major concern, already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Paddick. There is a deafening silence about the creative and cultural sector, whose contribution to the economy was £111.7 billion pre pandemic. Its huge contribution to well-being is not so easily demonstrated through figures, but we all know it to be true. It is a sector whose very nature is about levelling—about the communality of humanity—and it is a sector for which Covid has been nothing less than catastrophic. While the Government have been generous with their rescue packages, there is much that has left a terrible legacy.
First, there is the effect on individuals. The vast majority of cultural workers are self-employed; they are the ones who fell through the gap and who have largely found themselves ineligible for the support on offer. This has led to a damaging migration of people from the creative workforce. The Government’s skills agenda must recognise this and, in particular, that those hardest hit have been from lower-income, diverse and disabled communities. Does the Minister not agree that addressing this is an essential part of levelling up?
Secondly, live events were inevitably particularly affected. Help is at hand—introduce a Government-backed insurance scheme, as has been done for TV and film. But the Secretary of State has provided a positively Catch-22 response to this request: no support until live events are possible again and it becomes clear, which it will, that they cannot happen because of insurance market failure. This is too late. Live events involve planning; it is not a matter of switch on, switch off. Does the noble Baroness not agree that an indemnity insurance scheme should be put in place right now? It is not expenditure but investment.
Then there is the major problem faced over touring. Here, the restrictions of Covid have been exacerbated by the fact that the creative sector was dealt a no-deal Brexit. Can the Minister report on progress towards achieving a bespoke visa waiver agreement with the EU and bilateral agreements with member states that do not offer cultural exemptions?
Returning to skills, the acquiring of a skill begins at school, but successive Conservative Governments consistently and persistently undervalue and undermine arts education, first via the EBacc, then via proposals to scrap the performing arts BTEC, and now HE and the announcement that there is to be a 50% funding cut to arts subjects. “STEM not STEAM” has been the mantra—totally ignoring the fact that there should not be a choice between arts and science: they are symbiotic. The success of the iPhone is as much about the design genius of the UK’s own Sir Jonathan Ive as the tech genius of Steve Jobs, yet this Government say that arts subjects are not strategic priorities. This is the same Government whose industrial strategy prizes the creative industries as a “priority sector”. This is baffling. Can the Minister explain the disconnect? Will she listen to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, last week that the cuts are “misguided and ill judged”?
Finally, among the most successful drivers of our world-beating creative sector are our PSBs, in particular the BBC. PSBs held us together during the pandemic, providing news that people could trust and, in the case of the BBC, essential support for home schooling. What the PSBs need is prominence extended to all digital TV platforms. What they do not need is an underfunded BBC and a privatised Channel 4. This is a world-leading sector that we have. Global Britain needs it—so support it, do not unravel it. Culture, creativity and our public service broadcasters will be central to getting us through this next period, both the recovery and the renewal.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, there are two sentences in the gracious Speech on which I should like to comment. The first is:
“Legislation will be introduced to … restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.”
The second is:
“Measures will be brought forward to establish a fairer immigration system.”
The first I understand to be a reference to proposals in the Government’s response to the Independent Review of Administrative Law under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. The second is a reference to the proposals in the Government’s New Plan for Immigration.
Both of these documents were issued by the Government in March. They were both put out for consultation, but the consultation period in each case was only six weeks. Given that this period included the Easter bank holiday weekend, this surely was far too short to allow sufficient time for all those affected or interested to comment in detail on these far-reaching proposals—and, of course, the time allowed today is far too short, too. I do hope that time will be found for this House to debate them fully before the legislation is introduced. In the meantime, I will make the following points.
First, with regard to any reform of judicial review, it is important to note that most of these proposals can apply to England and Wales only. I leave it to others more familiar with that system than I am to comment, but Scotland has its own system of judicial review, which is devolved. On the whole, Scotland has been able to align itself fairly closely with the system in England, but it may not be willing to do that if the reforms are pressed too far. That could lead to forum shopping, as I was able to do under the then current rules when I was still in practice to successfully challenge the Government’s policy on aviation in Scotland. It should also be noted that the justification for the abolition of the so-called Cart reviews, which is questionable in England and Wales, is even more so on the figures that relate to Scotland.
Secondly, on the New Plan for Immigration, there is much to be concerned about. The new two-tier system that is proposed appears to be based on discriminating against asylum seekers depending on how they arrived in the UK. Those who use irregular routes of entry, involving passage through a third country, will be considered to be inadmissible. This seems to run counter to the overriding objective of the reforms, which we are told is fairness and access to asylum based on need. For most asylum seekers, unauthorised entry is the only means they have of entering the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out. Further, the fact that no successor agreement to the Dublin III regulation has been developed means that there are currently no safe and legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to enter the UK from the EU—so they too will be discriminated against under the proposed two-tier system. I find myself in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that a more sophisticated approach is needed to deal with these problems.
There is also an absence of detail in the plan about how the Government would secure a returns agreement with the safe country through which those who have used an irregular route will have passed, or how they will be protected when they get there. The proposal to remove support from those who arrived by an irregular route but cannot be returned is also very worrying. For them, that would mean destitution. Are we turning our back on our treaty obligations once again?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. In the gracious Speech, the Government have promised measures to ban conversion therapy. No one should seek to justify dangerous medical or other practices that are abhorrent, coercive or humiliating in the name of so-called conversion therapy, but freedom to carry out legitimate religious activities, such as preaching the gospel, prayer and pastoral support, must not be hindered or criminalised. People have a right to seek spiritual counsel, and threatening preachers who fulfil their God-given duty is a serious denial of religious freedom. Indeed, the coverage of this issue is quite prejudiced against biblical Christianity.
Preachers who faithfully expound God’s word and call people to repentance and salvation—will the Government’s proposed legislation limit or criminalise them? I note that the Education Secretary in the other place has heralded the Queen’s Speech as a “milestone moment” and that universities could be fined if they fail to protect free speech on campus. But recently a 71 year-old pastor was forcibly pulled down from the steps on which he was standing in west London and led away with his hands cuffed behind his back for exercising his religious liberty to preach. He suffered some injury to his wrists and elbow. Recently, Blackpool Council banned adverts from the Lancashire Festival of Hope and it took a court’s intervention to overturn that decision. Also, the Robertson Trust terminated a contract to rent its premises to Stirling Free Church and ordered it to leave. There is open hostility to the Christian belief in marriage. It makes me wonder: are we losing our religious liberties here in the United Kingdom? I challenge this Government to reaffirm their commitment to freedom of speech and religious belief.
In the gracious Speech the Government promised to increase sentences for the most serious and violent offenders, yet many in Northern Ireland fear that we are being told that those who brutally murdered our loved ones may never have to face the possibility of a criminal conviction or imprisonment. After the release of the report into what was termed the Ballymurphy massacre—I offer my genuine condolences to those families—I received a text which included photographs of 30 innocent victims of IRA terrorism with these words: “Where is our truth and justice?” The answer is, they have received none. There has been no justice for the families of Teebane, where 14 innocent construction workers were blown up. Eight were murdered and the rest still bear serious injuries. On that unforgettable night, I personally walked among the dead and assisted the injured into the ambulances. What about justice for the massacres of Kingsmill, Enniskillen, Warrenpoint and so on? Yet no Sinn Féin leader has been ordered to any dispatch box to unreservedly apologise for their evil deeds; nor have they offered to go and look the innocent families of their victims in the eye and tell them why their loved ones had to die, as Mary Lou McDonald asked our Prime Minister to do. There is one law for them and another for everybody else.
As for Ballymurphy, I note that no one has mentioned that, prior to those killings, seven British soldiers were murdered by the IRA, when it is widely accepted that Gerry Adams was the so-called officer commanding. I will read out their names lest we forget their sacrifice: British soldier George Hamilton, aged 21; Stephen McGuire, 20; Alan Buckley, 22; Eustace Hanley, 20; George Lee, 22; James Jones, 18; and Brian Thomas. They were all murdered in Ballymurphy by IRA gunmen.
I acknowledge that the pain and heartache experienced right across the community is the same but I will not allow Irish Republicans to equate British soldiers with terrorists. Neither will I allow to go unchallenged the vexatious claims against veteran soldiers or police officers simply for the promotion of anti-British propaganda. Successive Governments sent our young soldiers out for the purpose of protecting the community and preserving law and order, but every terrorist went out with lust for blood, deliberately aiming to leave some home in grief or a child fatherless. Justice demands that the legacy of our past in Northern Ireland is tackled, but to rely on some supposed truth-telling exercise is totally unacceptable. Remember that Gerry Adams still denies that he was ever in the IRA. My appeal to this House is that justice is not for the chosen few, nor for those who shout the loudest, but for all.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, we heard a beautifully balanced maiden speech by my noble friend Lady Fullbrook. I congratulate her and look forward to more.
The gracious Speech commits the Government to addressing “racial and ethnic disparities”. Bravo! Britain is not an outrageously racist society. My own personal life has been overwhelmingly enriched and indeed transformed by the opportunity to embrace friends and loved ones of a different colour and culture. I am not an exception; that applies to millions. I am not making an argument to sit back and be self-satisfied but an argument for balance, context, and for looking for the abundant good in society and building on it, not pretending that things are worse than they are and exploiting ignorance. Yet, sadly, we live in a post-truth world of fabricated hatreds, such as the anti-vaxxers, who deliberately and despicably target non-white communities, trying to weaponise Covid. Black lives matter—of course they do—along with Asian and Chinese lives, and Jewish lives. Yes, our commitment must include the fight against anti-Semitism, too.
Even the vocabulary of racism has been weaponised: a violence of language used to intimidate and browbeat ordinary, sensible people into assuming that they must be wrong. Even Tony Blair says that he no longer knows what he is allowed to say and think. Although why do we still refer to minorities? Is that the right word? Does it imply that anyone who is not white is somehow a little juvenile or less equal? Perhaps we need to look at things like that.
We have been making a right modern mess of some of this, allowing zealots to take hold of the argument and to throttle common sense to death like some modern-day thought police. We, the sensible, decent majority, need the confidence and sometimes the courage to remember that we stand on the shoulders of giants such as William Wilberforce, who was wise enough to denounce those who turn a blind eye to unpleasant reality:
“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.”
There is only one certain way to defeat racism—by levelling up, offering everyone equal opportunity, where colour is no longer used as an insult or an excuse. We must find the language, means, schools, jobs, inspiration and innovation to bring our communities together, to extend an open hand rather than the clenched fist. We must change the dialogue.
Nearly 60 years ago, another giant, Martin Luther King, caused the world to hold its breath. Sixty years ago—but we all remember it, do we not?—he said:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
It was a proposition he gave his life for: a proposition—a dream—that was worth dying for then, just as it is worth a new generation living by today. Levelling up, not tearing apart: I embrace that prospect—I cannot wait.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
One of the proposals included in the gracious Speech is the statement that legislation will be introduced to
“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts”.
The suggestion is that certain decisions of the courts on applications for judicial review are responsible for this alleged lack of balance. Having been personally involved in judicial review since its inception, I question whether this alleged lack of balance of power exists. I furthermore suggest that legislation, far from restoring the balance of power, could create a lack of balance which at present does not exist.
I can state this with added confidence because the Government set up an independent review of administrative law, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which as recently as March of this year published its report which set out its conclusions. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will shortly speak to the House and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. The report made no suggestion, as far as I could identify, that there was any lack of balance that needed to be addressed, saying:
“Judicial review is considered an essential ingredient of the rule of law … an essential element of access to justice, which is a constitutional right”
and:
“On balance, little significant advantage would be obtained by statutory codification, as the grounds for review are well established and accessibly stated in the leading textbooks”.
I have the privilege to be editor of one of them. In their response to that report in March of this year the Government said:
“This does not mean we think there needs to be a radical restructuring of Judicial Review at this point. Rather, there are aspects of the current system and the doctrine applied by the courts where it would be useful for Parliament to intervene and clarify how Judicial Review should give effect to statute.”
If there is no clear case for intervention, I strongly urge the Government to think again before intervening.
Judicial review was uniquely crafted—not by government and not in the first instance by Parliament, but by the judiciary—to achieve and preserve the proper balance of power between the different arms of government. If there is a need for fine-tuning, it is better that this is left to the judiciary to remedy rather than legislation. In saying this, I do not refer to the procedural amendments recommended by the Faulks committee; those I would warmly welcome in the majority of cases.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government’s legislative programme is inseparable from a well-functioning courts system. In its report, COVID-19 and the Courts, the Constitution Committee, on which I sit, applauded the monumental effort by all those working in the courts to maintain a functioning justice system during the pandemic. But recognition of those heroic efforts cannot obscure the scale of the challenge that courts in England and Wales face. Court funding fell by 21% over the preceding decade, the courts modernisation programme struggled to deliver, and legal aid cuts increased litigants in person. Therefore, when Covid-19 suddenly rendered courts reliant on remote technology, those very vulnerabilities exacerbated the devastating impact of the pandemic, and the need for more investment in the justice system was laid bare.
The Lord Chief Justice described the rapid adoption of new technology during the pandemic as
“the biggest pilot project that the justice system has ever seen”
and said that the shift to remote hearings provided an opportunity to
“take the best of this new way of working to improve access to justice”,
but the information to support improvements to the courts service was “just not available”. The pandemic shone a light on the absence of quality data. An opportunity to capture users’ experience in that “biggest pilot project” has been lost—yet without adequate data, the fundamental questions about the operation of our justice system remain unanswered.
The sudden move to remote hearings during the pandemic has been uneven in its impact. Senior courts and those dealing with commercial cases adapted relatively well. The lower courts, particularly those dealing with criminal and family cases, have had a much more difficult time.
The evidence reveals the practical challenges facing ordinary people in virtual hearings, including—among other things—limited broadband access; phones or iPads shared between users in a household; no private space; a dependency on pay-as-you-go phones and expensive data packages; sensory impairments; and limited digital literacy. Yes, they may use email, but electronic document management may prove impossible for many lay users. Remote hearings can make it difficult for lawyers and their clients to communicate, frustrate users if they cannot see or understand what is going on, and undermine litigants’ ability to engage. On the other hand, there was clearly evidence that court users with special requirements have benefited from remote proceedings.
The backlog of cases, which predated the pandemic, has reached record levels, undermining access to justice and public confidence in the justice system. In the criminal courts, the backlog now exceeds 530,000. The prison population fell by 6%; those in prison awaiting trial increased by 28%. Litigants and victims wait longer for justice. Unsentenced children in custody grew in number. More than half of children and young people in custody and 87% of children on remand in London were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. In family courts, the backlog exceeds 10,000. As the public advisory group of the Family Justice Board observed:
“For children who remain stuck in the middle of the court system, the detriment to them is immeasurable.”
The Government have committed to modernising the justice system and improving the experience of court users, but what targets are being set and resources allocated to reduce the backlog of cases? What is the time limit for the collection of key data points across all court services—physical and digital—needed to assess the vulnerability of court users?
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a number of noble Lords have said, the gracious Speech referred to the possibility of restoring balance in the constitution. It is well known that the constitution is not always easy to identify. In fact, one of my revered colleagues on your Lordships’ Constitution Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—says that he has spent his lifetime looking for it.
The combination of Brexit, a minority Government, division in the Conservative Party on the approach to Brexit and the rigidity of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act amounted to a constitutional crisis. The purported Prorogation of Parliament by the Prime Minister resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court that he had acted unlawfully and that Parliament should return. This was the second occasion on which Brexit had caused the Government to lose a major constitutional case before the Supreme Court.
It may be that these reversals were a factor in the Government’s decision to set up the independent review. They convened a panel, which I was invited to chair. The terms of reference were broad; the timescale short. Having received an enormous amount of very high-quality material, the panel was not ultimately convinced that judicial review needed radical reform. We set out our reasons, probably at too much length. While some of the panel, including me, preferred the decision of the strong Divisional Court to that of the Supreme Court in the prorogation case, we considered that it was very much a one-off and an unreliable basis on which to conclude that there was something structurally awry with judicial review, which is a vital ingredient in the rule of law.
However, we did accept that it was perfectly legitimate constitutionally for the Government—any Government —to legislate to reverse particular court decisions, whether they were the result of judicial reviews or, indeed, in any other context. We specifically pointed out two areas which we thought were ripe for reform and would need legislation, and they both involved reversing decisions of the Supreme Court. The Government have accepted our recommendations, and some of the judges involved in the decisions have graciously acknowledged that they did perhaps need revisiting. The question remains: will the Government go further?
I understand why the Government are concerned about judicial review. In his Reith lectures, Lord Sumption memorably described “law’s expanding empire”. But as we conclude in our report, it is inevitable that the relationship between the judiciary, the Executive and Parliament will from time to time give rise to tensions, and a degree of conflict shows that the checks and balances in our constitution are working well. We must trust our judges to identify cases which are—to use the words of a Court of Appeal judge—using judicial review as “politics by another means”.
A theme which we also hope emerges from our report is that the issue should not be characterised as merely a conversation between the Executive and the judiciary. We emphasise the importance of Parliament. If legislation is clear, there is little scope for judicial review. But while Governments continue to use framework Bills and Parliament does not prevent them doing so, it cannot be altogether surprising that government decisions are challenged in the courts.
I briefly mention one other constitutional principle: free speech. The online safety Bill, as it is now called, is an exciting and unprecedented piece of legislation. Our newspapers are mostly regulated—I declare an interest as the chair of IPSO—and it is time that social media, where most people gather their news and other information, should also be regulated to protect the vulnerable and safeguard the integrity of the news-gathering process. This legislation is to be the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny and no doubt will be closely scrutinised by both Houses. However, the Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, was right when he said last week that it was vital that the Bill did not compromise freedom of the press, whether in print or online.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook—who is not now in her place—on her excellent maiden speech. I also mention a maiden speech made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Lebedev. He said that, coming from Russia, he did not take freedom of speech or the rule of law for granted. Neither should we.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will talk about fraud, which is one of the great scourges of modern life but was largely ignored in the gracious Speech. More than 822,000 frauds were reported to Action Fraud in 2019-20, totalling £2.3 billion, but only a fraction of frauds are reported. It is estimated that the real number is around five times that. That is seven frauds every minute, and accounts for more than a third of all crime in England and Wales. These numbers represent people losing their life savings, their pensions, their house deposits. It is not just about money; being the victim of a scam is deeply traumatic and wrecks lives.
Why has fraud become so commonplace? There are two reasons: it is easy and it is low risk. Why is fraud easy? It is because so many businesses profit from facilitating it and have little or no incentive to stop it. I will give a few examples. Search engines and social media platforms take money to advertise fake pension and investment sites, fake online shopping sites, fake holiday letting sites and so on. To add insult to injury, they then make more money from the regulators. The FCA apparently paid £600,000 last year to post warnings on Google.
Web-hosting platforms are paid to host the scam websites. Telecom providers are paid for the calls and texts that plague us, and make things worse by failing to prevent false caller IDs. The banks are also facilitating frauds. All that stolen money has to be received somewhere, and most is processed through UK bank accounts. Instant payments allow the stolen money to be whisked away through multiple accounts and overseas before the victim has even realised that they are a victim.
Why is fraud low risk? The statistics speak for themselves: fewer than one in 13 reported frauds is actually investigated and less than 4% lead to a prosecution. Anyone who has dealt with the laughably named Action Fraud will understand why that is.
I welcome the fact that the Government have at last agreed that the online safety Bill will cover user-generated frauds, but they have chosen—it is a choice—to exclude most types of economic crime from the Bill, including frauds arising from fake adverts. It is perverse that the tech companies will be responsible for scammers’ social media posts but not for the adverts they are actually paid to publish.
The Government say that they will publish a fraud action plan, but only after the 2021 spending review, and that DCMS will consult on online advertising, but only starting later this year. This is not good enough. Every day that passes without action means more than 10,000 more frauds, more than £6 million more stolen, and more people losing their life savings and having their lives wrecked. We must push the risk of fraud back on to those facilitating it. The big tech companies, telecoms companies and the banks, with all their resources and know-how, could easily find ways to make life harder for the fraudsters, but they have proved that they will not do it voluntarily, so the time has come to create a real financial stick to encourage them.
At the same time, we must stop blaming the victims and make it easier to recover losses. The banks’ voluntary code has failed and should now be replaced with a compulsory code, under which the bank that received and processed the stolen money has to refund the loss automatically. Policing of fraud is critically underfunded. Training and resources are urgently needed so that scammers actually face some risk of being caught and prosecuted.
Fraud has become an epidemic that is wrecking lives. It must be made a much more urgent priority.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Hope, quoted the Government’s expressed desire to
“restore the balance … between the executive, legislature and the courts.”
It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, with whom I largely agree on this topic. It is misleading to talk in terms of balance rather than of function. In our constitution, the legislature makes the laws, the courts interpret and apply them in specific situations and, in theory, the Government obey them. The problem arises when the Government do not wish to obey the laws that Parliament or the common law have created and seek to reject courts’ interpretation of them.
It is not a question of balance. In a judicial review, the scales of justice do not weigh the interests of the Executive against the strictures of the law. The concept of the scales of justice in a court setting is that, where an individual or organisation seeks judicial review of a government decision, the judge’s duty is to apply the law without favour to either side. If the Government’s purpose in introducing a judicial review Bill is to carry out the recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, it will be unexceptional. No doubt we can argue about the details of the two main areas he recommends. If, on the other hand, the Government pursue the aims outlined in the Lord Chancellor’s statement setting out the further consultation to make areas of policy non-judiciable, that is an entirely different matter. The noble Lord’s committee would not support it, as he has made abundantly clear.
Ouster clauses are not effective because the courts assume that Parliament does not intend to give licence to a Government or to a Minister to break the law. Mr Brandon Lewis, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, attempted to introduce clauses that expressly involved the Government in illegality by breaking the Northern Ireland protocol. This episode demonstrated that Parliament will not stand for it. The attempt was defeated overwhelmingly by all parties, including former Prime Minister Theresa May and responsible and experienced Members on the Government Benches in this House.
I suppose it would be possible for the Government to introduce into a Bill or statutory instrument a clause that reads, “On questions of policy, a Minister can do what he likes”—or, to put it rather more formally, “A decision by a Minister under this Act shall not be set aside or voided by reason of illegality”. I very much doubt whether such a clause in its naked simplicity would get past a competent Attorney-General, never mind Parliament itself.
The Government can huff and puff when they lose a case, but that does not change the reality that they function within the rule of law as interpreted by the courts. As for the courts themselves, their decision in a particular case may have implications for the policy that the Executive wish to implement, but it is well understood that the system of judicial review does not permit a judge to substitute his own views or his own decision on the issue. All he or she can do is quash the decision that has been made and invite the decision-maker to think again. As for ousting the jurisdiction of the court, you can sum it up in seven words: “If it is illegal, it is justiciable.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register, in particular as a partner in the international commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft, and as chairman of its financial services division.
I warmly welcome the Queen’s Speech and, in particular, the atmosphere of renewed positivity and optimism in which our debate is taking place. Let us hope it does indeed prove to be the solid foundation for our nation building back better as we bounce back from the Covid-19 pandemic. A mass of criminal justice reform is adumbrated in the Speech, and I think we all confidently foresee some lively debates on matters including sentencing, online safety and immigration.
In contrast, the Speech is understandably quite light on civil justice issues. We are, however, witnessing the creation of numerous obligations and rights. We must therefore be mindful of the need to ensure that those do not spawn mass litigation in the civil justice sphere. The compensation culture—blame and claim—insidiously undermines civility within our society and is not in any sense a victimless activity. Someone has to pay for every settlement, not just the compensation that goes to the complainant but the full legal costs. It is an all-too-common characteristic of claims inspired by claims farmers that the lawyers earn more from cases than the claimants do. Might the Government therefore issue a call for clarity on the use of alternative dispute resolution to help avoid legal costs exceeding damages, which is the catnip for claims farmer activity and which we have all been trying to avoid?
I do not intend to focus unduly upon the recent indication on restricting the small claims limit rise for employer’s liability and public liability injury claims to just £1,500. We should entirely support restraint in employer’s liability claims where it is important that the rights of employees are protected. I would, however, urge everyone to be mindful of the possible unintended consequences of the injury limit for public liability claims, where claims farmers forage for rich pickings—no doubt all the more so, post whiplash reform.
We are also discussing cultural matters and it is a matter of considerable regret for many of us that there was no mention in the Queen’s Speech of reciprocal, visa-free travel and work for UK and EU performers and their crews. It was a great achievement—in no small part UK led—when the old era of complicated ledgers, carnets and other expensive and time-consuming paperwork was swept away, and a new and welcome freedom ruled for creative artists. Touring is the lifeblood for creative artists—musicians in particular—and it seems to be purely a question of whether the will exists to create a mutually beneficial arrangement. Particularly in light of the welcome news that quarantine requirements may imminently be waived for fully vaccinated UK citizens going to the EU, I join others in urging Ministers please to sort this problem out with the utmost urgency.
Finally, I strongly support the tribute to Her Majesty by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. For some time, I was honoured to be Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household, for which she kindly gave me four-and-a-half yards of British cloth, which my wife had made into this suit that I now proudly wear for the debate on the gracious Speech.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his special suit and the two noble Baronesses who will make their maiden speeches.
This past year has certainly thrown up a whole range of important issues for both Parliament and government to confront. I am privileged to be a member of your Lordships’ Select Committee looking at life after Covid and some of the long-term problems that we have to deal with, not necessarily through legislation. Noble Lords will be aware of our recently published report on the pandemic and the internet, which concluded that internet use over the past year had accelerated by a decade the changes in that world and exposed alarming inequalities in the digital society. It also exposed a lot of the problems with online life that have already been referred to in this debate.
One perhaps less immediately obvious topic on which the Select Committee has received powerful written evidence but has not discussed concerns the sensitive questions about how we care for the dying and our choices at the end of life. The tragedy of the daily death tolls reported on the evening news and the extraordinarily sad stories about bereavement in lockdown seem to have crystallised and stimulated a new interest—a determination that we must make changes for the better. These issues bring together the legal, ethical and medical dilemmas that we in this House have often debated.
However, I am convinced that there is now an appetite for a more open, evidence-based approach. Somehow, the pandemic has enabled us to talk about death in a way that reduces superstition and taboos. The organisation Compassion in Dying reports that calls to its information helpline have increased by almost 50% in the past year and that the number of people making so-called living wills—that is, refusing treatment in certain circumstances —has soared by 160%.
We are all, of course, acutely aware that the coronavirus has put unprecedented burdens on our healthcare professionals and their resources. At the beginning of the pandemic, there were disturbing stories about inappropriate rationing of intensive care and “do not resuscitate” decisions being made without proper consultation. That was troubling but it prompted open and honest discussion which has, in turn, produced useful developments led by the Care Quality Commission. It reported earlier this year and there is now, for example, a new ministerial oversight group established to improve the use of “do not resuscitate” decisions.
In our new post-pandemic world, we must also respect those people who want neither resuscitation nor intervention but whose preferred choice at the end of life may be a medically assisted death—still, of course, illegal here. Over the past year, the situation in which those who want to exercise that choice are forced to travel to Switzerland has become even more intolerable. Outsourcing this emotionally and practically difficult option to another country has always been regrettable and unethical. Today, Covid restrictions have made it almost impossible. We must now look again at our own law and its cruel blanket ban, which has led to an increasing number of reports of desperate suicides by dying people.
It is therefore extremely helpful that the Health Secretary has now asked the ONS to look at those reports and examine the statistics on suicide among the terminally ill. Mr Hancock has committed himself to ensuring that, in general, good factual evidence is available for future parliamentary debate on assisted dying. In this House, we will have that opportunity when the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on this subject is introduced. She is speaking almost next in this debate and I look forward to her contribution and, most importantly, to her Bill. Noble Lords will remember that five years ago, we supported the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer on assisted dying and I very much hope that we will support this similar Bill. The pandemic experience has created the circumstances for safe, compassionate legislation to give dying people the right to choose the death they want for themselves.
Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]
My Lords, tourism has been the sector most affected by Covid-19 and it will be the last industry to reopen. One in 10 jobs depends on it, yet there was no mention of tourism in the Queen’s Speech or the accompanying 163-page policy briefing, and there were no Bills that directly support the UK’s tourism industry. It has been taken for granted as a national cash cow for years but government policy is now slaughtering the UK’s £31 billion inbound tourism sector because the new traffic light system favours people leaving the UK to holiday abroad while doing nothing to encourage tourists to come here.
With many people working from home and businesses allowing more flexible working, UK residents will be able to travel to amber countries and then self-isolate on their return while working from home. In contrast, people in amber countries who want to travel to the UK for a holiday will have to remain in their hotel for 10 days, meaning that there is no point at all in coming.
The Government’s present position also risks making overseas travel the preserve of the wealthy. The cost of a Covid test for people travelling even to a green-list country is £150 per person, vastly increasing the cost of a family holiday. Travel to an amber country involves £450-worth of tests per person. Meanwhile, there is a baffling range of potential test providers all making a pretty penny from the process. Given that the UK’s testing capacity was radically expanded in 2020, there must surely now be scope to permit UK citizens, say, one set of NHS tests per year for travelling purposes.
The overall effect of the present arrangement is that the UK loses its most lucrative domestic travellers to overseas holidays and gets hardly any inbound tourists to make up for them. The potential inbound tourism revenue from green-list countries—the only countries whose residents can credibly visit the UK—amounts to just 3% of the UK’s normal inbound tourism revenue. The Government could boost that figure and support the half a million—or more—people in the UK whose jobs directly rely on inbound tourism revenue. They could allow fully vaccinated people from the UK’s main tourism markets, such as the USA, to come to the UK without having to quarantine, and they could also provide targeted support for businesses reliant on inbound tourism to protect jobs in this sector.
The industry also needs the Chancellor’s £1.6 billion business rate support, promised in March for the most severely impacted businesses that have not been eligible for other rates relief. Coach operators, tour operators and English language schools are desperate for this support, but there is still no word from the Government on which businesses are eligible or how they can apply.
The Queen’s Speech is always the product of negotiations within government, with Ministers and departments vying for a slot, but without a Cabinet Minister for tourism this sector misses out time and again. This year, of all years, surely the Queen’s Speech should have included a tourism Bill. The fact that there was no mention whatever of tourism is a bitter disappointment but, sadly, not a surprise.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB) [V]
My Lords, I swapped my slot with my noble friend Lady Meacher, at her request.
In the gracious Speech, Her Majesty the Queen referred to
“measures to increase the safety and security of … citizens”.
I pick for comment from that broad aspiration the proposed legislation to make it easier to counter threats to this country from other states: the counter-state threats Bill, to which the Minister referred at the beginning of this debate. We do not yet have a Bill, although we can get a reasonable sense of it from the Home Office consultation. The Minister described the aims of the legislation and—for once, despite the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that Cross-Benchers always disagree with the Government—I wish to reinforce what the Minister said in his opening remarks: modern tools and powers are needed to detect, prevent and respond to threats from states whose aim is to undermine the safety and interests of the UK.
In thinking about what I wanted to say at this very preliminary stage, I reflected that in my dozen or so years in your Lordships’ House I have rarely spoken about hostile state activity, despite many years of experience of trying to counter it, mainly in the Cold War. The fault is mine; my excuse is that successive Governments have not had the appetite to tackle the problem, rather preferring to rely on creaky legislation from the last century designed to deal with German espionage in the run-up to the First World War and Nazi espionage in the run-up to the Second World War. The Government moved to fill some of the legislative gap in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, but then recognised that more was needed. I strongly welcome their intention to legislate, and I look forward to seeing what the Bill says.
Why do we need it, and what are we talking about in 2021? I start with what we are not talking about. As a young intelligence officer, I remember interviewing a Russian intelligence officer who was distressed to discover that the papers in his carefully chosen dead letter box—a hollowed-out tree in which his agent was going to stow top-secret documents—had been eaten by squirrels. That is not what we are talking about any more; we are talking about activity at scale—industrial, economic and academic espionage, and cyberattacks to steal our secrets, distort data, spread lies, amplify disinformation, and, as I hope is of particular concern to this House, to interfere with and undermine democratic process.
I look forward to the scrutiny of this overdue legislation. I do not anticipate that it will have an easy passage, as it is a complex subject, but we need a law that is balanced and proportionate, recognising the public interest while allowing us to better defend ourselves against covert attacks, of which the scale and cost of the damage are not well understood.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am deeply saddened that I am not following on from my noble friend Lady Fleet, whose maiden speech we were much looking forward to. That she has been unable to speak is clearly the result of an administrative glitch and, for my part, I think the treatment of a new colleague in this way is unforgivable. I wish to say a word or two about the impact of the measures outlined in the gracious Speech on the media and, in doing so, declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, and note my other interests as set out in the register.
One thing the pandemic has certainly taught us is the need for reliable, verifiable news from trusted sources of information. But while the need for trusted journalism has never been greater, the threats to it are becoming existential as the revenues which fund it evaporate. More than 260 local newspapers have disappeared since 2005 and, in the past year alone, there have been more than 2,000 job cuts across the media in the UK. The situation is grave, particularly for the local and regional press, which are now in real peril.
How do the measures outlined in the gracious Speech help? The online safety Bill is welcome. It starts a journey of levelling up, if you will forgive me adapting the phrase; that is, levelling up the essential duties and responsibilities of the platforms to those to which traditional publishers have long been subject, both in terms of legislation and regulation. The draft Bill includes a robust and comprehensive exemption for news publishers from its framework of statutory regulation, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson said earlier. That is absolutely right. During pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, we must ensure that this exemption is both watertight and practical so that news publishers are not subject to any form of statutory control, and that there is no scope for the platforms to censor legitimate content. We have the opportunity with this legislation to lead the world in ensuring proper regulation of news content on the internet, and to show how that can be reconciled with protecting free speech and freedom of expression. It is an opportunity we should seize.
Although the online safety legislation will go some way to help support independent, trusted journalism, the measures to be contained in the health and care Bill relating to a complete online ban on advertising of HFSS products regrettably point in the other direction, and I shall not support them. Of course obesity is a real problem, but there really is no credible evidence that this ban will be an effective solution. In this House, we are always guided by evidence; let us see and scrutinise it.
Advertising bans are objectionable because of the interference with freedom of expression, but they are even more objectionable where no compelling case can be made for them. They appease lobby groups but rarely have real impact. In effect, the Government’s case is that a ban might reduce calorie consumption among children by one-third of a Smartie each day—fine. But at the same time, the TV ban will take around £200 million out of the UK TV market each year, as well as revenue from UK publishers, at a time when broadcasters face huge challenges from the market disruption caused by other platforms. I declare my interest as vice-chairman of the ITV APPG.
This will directly impact employment in the creative industries when we should be investing in them as part of our drive towards global Britain. There is no evidence that this measure will help tackle obesity, but it will gravely damage the media.
We have not yet seen the detail of the Bill, but I urge the Government to think again about how they approach this issue, in particular to see whether there is a self-regulatory and more proportionate response in place of the blunderbuss of statute brought forward with no evidence.
Finally, I mention one thing not in the gracious Speech: legislation to give the Digital Markets Unit statutory powers to underpin a code of conduct to ensure fair trading, open choices, trust and transparency in digital advertising and, above all, to compel tech companies to pay for the content they carry.
Reform is long overdue. It is now more than two years since both the Cairncross Review and the Treasury’s Furman review recommended radical change to ensure the future of quality journalism, and nearly a year since the CMA’s excellent report on the issue was published. They all reached the same conclusion: change must come, and soon, if we are to save the free press. There has been progress, including the establishment of the Digital Markets Unit within the CMA, but it is not enough.
We need a competition Bill as soon as possible to give the DMU the statutory powers it needs to tackle the platforms. It is an opportunity for the UK to show it is leading the world in dealing with a problem—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind my noble friend of the four-minute advisory speaking time.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK’s media is in jeopardy. Time is not on our side. Let us make sure that the legislation we pass this Session helps and does not hinder.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, in declaring my interest as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, I highlight an opportunity to improve the criminal justice system for the benefit of victims and their families, witnesses, defendants, court officials and jurors that would enhance the quality of justice and save public money. I hope that impressive list of benefits has grabbed the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson.
The issue is the provision of interpreters in our courts and tribunals. The opportunity is to insert a simple amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. In a nutshell, the problem is that the chaotic system used by the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service allows far too many cases of unqualified or underqualified, inexperienced pseudo-interpreters to do such a bad job that, quite apart from damaging the reputation of properly qualified linguists, it can cause mayhem in the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice, adjourned hearings, defendants remaining in custody and an undermining of trust in an important public service.
The notorious case of Iqbal Begum led to the establishment of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters in the early 1990s. The Court of Appeal had quashed a conviction for murder against a woman when it was realised that the interpreter at her original trial had not known the difference between murder and manslaughter and, though fluent in English and Gujarati, could not speak Punjabi, the language of the accused. In another case the defendant was accused of perverting the course of justice, which the so-called interpreter managed to translate as, “You are accused of being a pervert”. In another, the interpreter’s English was so poor that he could not distinguish between a marital partner and a business partner, which led to the judge assuming the defendant was being evasive.
The national register is an independent, non-profit organisation whose purpose is to safeguard and regulate the quality and professionalism of interpreters. Registration depends on stringent criteria for training, qualifications and experience. There is a code of professional conduct and a disciplinary procedure uninfluenced by any political or commercial interest.
In 2011, however, the MoJ outsourced interpreting to reduce costs. Reduced pay and conditions for interpreters resulted in an exodus of the properly qualified ones and an influx of the unqualified. The MoJ list is not a patch on the national register. You can get on to this list just by having a GCSE pass or a low-level two-week foundation course, or just by being bilingual, even if you have never set foot in a court before. The list is outsourced to a private company and, despite the MoJ’s claim that compliance with targets has been high, the increase in aborted hearings and general dissatisfaction among lawyers and clients alike tell a different story.
The courts are out of sync with other parts of the justice system. The CPS continues to use the national register, and the new flagship Police Approved Interpreter and Translator scheme has blazed a trail for high standards. It respects all parties and, combined with the register, could be a really effective model for the courts too.
We could get all this right very easily. Part 12 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill provides for British Sign Language interpreters to assist jurors. I suggest just adding a new, simple clause to provide for spoken-word interpreters to be appointed only from the national register in order to raise standards, improve justice and save public money. It is ironic that one clause in the Bill creates a new offence for a BSL interpreter intentionally or otherwise to influence the jury. I contend that to continue to allow incompetent, unqualified spoken-word interpreters in our courts is itself, by default, a serious way of influencing the outcome of proceedings in the most negative way possible. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, even though he will not reply to this debate, will indicate that he is willing to meet me to discuss my proposal.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech and very much regret that we have not been able to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. I hope she will be able to address the House before too long.
Culture is listed as one of today’s subjects for debate, but the gracious Speech makes no reference to it. Of course, there is important legislation—notably the online safety Bill—coming from the department with “Culture” in its title, but culture in the wider sense, including the arts, once again has no place in the Government’s programme.
I return to funding for higher education and how it will affect the future of our hugely successful creative industries. In doing so, I remind the House of my interest as a deputy chair of the Royal Shakespeare Company and a trustee of the Artis Foundation.
The Government propose that funding to higher education courses in the C1 price group, including music, dance, drama and other performing arts, art and design and media studies, should be significantly reduced because they are not among the Government’s “strategic priorities”. This proposal is wrong-headed in so many ways that it is hard to know where to begin. The fact that the proposed reduction per student is not huge in cash terms is irrelevant. The wrong-headedness, so ably identified last week by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, resides in the attitude behind the decision. If followed through, this proposal will reinforce the message that schools, parents and students themselves are already getting, because of the narrowing of the national curriculum, that these subjects are of less value, in every sense, than others.
The Government supported the recent decision of the Russell group of universities to abandon its facilitating subjects list, which by excluding arts subjects had such a damaging impact on their status. Now the Government seem to be facing in the other direction. Why?
Furthermore, the proposal is likely to widen existing inequalities in higher education, decreasing participation rates among students with disabilities and from lower socioeconomic groups. The Office for Students consultation document makes that clear. How can it be in line with the Government’s levelling-up agenda to cut funding to the courses most successful in attracting such students?
Finally, the proposal is incomprehensible when viewed in the light of what the Government have done for the cultural sector over the past year, which has been generous and life-saving. More than £1.5 billion has been invested in supporting arts organisations through the Culture Recovery Fund, and yet more through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. Despite some problems, which have been mentioned already, such as the continuing impasse over the provision of cancellation insurance for live events, these interventions were enlightened and I gladly acknowledge their significance, but what is the point of spending all that money on protecting our cultural infrastructure while simultaneously signalling that the skills needed to create the work that they present, for which the UK is celebrated throughout the world, are not worth acquiring? Who do the Government think will be leading these organisations and keeping them alive in future if not students from the very programmes that the Government are now seeking to sideline through underfunding? This is bad politics, bad economics and, above all, bad education. I hope the Minister will encourage her colleagues at the Department for Education to think again.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.
It has been clear during the pandemic that we are increasingly dependent on digital technology and online solutions, but what is the reality in the digital economy of the Government’s levelling-up agenda? How are we mitigating digital online harms and digital exclusion? When we look at the risks and opportunities in adopting new technology, are we adopting the right values? The DDCMS Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, has recently set out 10 tech priorities. Some of them are reflected in the Queen’s Speech but many do not yet measure up. Two of them are
“Rolling out world-class digital infrastructure nationwide”
and
“Levelling up digital prosperity across the UK”.
We were originally promised spending of £5 billion by 2025, yet only a fraction of this, £1.2 billion, will have been spent by then. Digital exclusion and data poverty have become acute during the pandemic. It is estimated that 1.8 million children have not had adequate digital access. It is not just about broadband being available; it is about it being affordable, and about devices being available.
“Unlocking the power of data”
is another priority. Yes to this, and to
“Championing free and fair digital trade”,
so I welcome today’s response to the national data strategy and the national data strategy forum, but this must go hand in hand with a strong commitment to data governance, increasing public trust in the sharing and use of data and the work started by the Open Data Institute in creating trustworthy mechanisms such as data institutions and trusts.
Another priority is
“Keeping the UK safe and secure online”.
Amen to that, and to the secure-by-design consumer protection measures now promised to meet the challenges of internet security, but the draft online safety Bill now before us is not yet fit for purpose. Protection should be risk-based, not platform-based. In particular, there is the exclusion of commercial pornography where there is no user-generated content and the societal harms caused by, for instance, fake news—misinformation—so clearly described in the report of the Democracy and Digital Technologies Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. Educational and news platforms are excluded in total. In addition, there are no group actions, no focus on the issues surrounding anonymity—"know your user”—no reference to economic harms, no focus on enhanced PSHE or the promised media literacy strategy, and little clarity on the issue of the algorithmic pushing of content. Where is the commitment to working with the IWF?
On the question of
“Building a tech-savvy nation”.
I welcome a greater focus on FE, the jobs and skills White Paper and the new Bill, but the pace, scale and ambition of government action does not match the challenge facing many people working in the UK. I welcome the work of the local digital skills partnerships, but they are massively underresourced. Broader digital literacy is crucial, as the AI road map pointed out.
With regard to
“Fuelling a new era of startups and scaleups”
and
“Unleashing the transformational power of tech and AI”,
catapults should become more effective institutions as a critical part of our innovation strategy. I welcome the commitment to producing a national AI strategy later this year, but it should contain key elements, such as the development of approaches to AI audit, compliance, and risk and impact assessment, and proposals to regulate high-risk applications such as live facial recognition and deepfakes. I welcome the priority to
“Leading the global conversation on tech”
and the recent G7 digital communique, but we need to go beyond principles in establishing international AI governance standards and solutions and agree on a digital services tax.
In closing, there are a number of major omissions in the Queen’s Speech. Where is the commitment to set up a new digital markets unit, to develop our own sovereign data capability and to tackle the gig economy in the many services run through digital applications? This last should be a major priority, and it is a gaping hole in the Queen’s Speech.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.
It is a privilege to contribute to this debate, yet once again we are obliged to come at the subject of culture somewhat obliquely, focusing on those areas where it ought to be but is not. Much is made in this gracious Speech, as in the last, about the UK becoming a global science superpower, a world-leading R&D environment with innovation central to tackling major challenges. We are told that the Advanced Research & Invention Agency will support the creation of ground-breaking technology with the potential to produce transformational benefits to our economy and society.
However, the central role of the arts, humanities and creative industries in delivering that vision is ignored. We know that research in these disciplines is not currently eligible for R&D tax relief, and I urge the Government to remedy that in their planned diversification of R&D funding. A unified definition of R&D that valued arts, humanities and social science alongside the scientific and technical would not only support legitimate research in the creative industries but ensure that technological solutions were informed by cultural and behavioural insights, making adoption more likely, and it would encourage knowledge exchange across disciplines, where innovation is most likely to occur.
In this context, the proposed cuts to funding for arts courses make no sense. Not only would they impact talent pipelines and deepen inequalities in the creative sector, they would impact on the wider innovation ecosystem, because other industrial sectors rely on a flow of creative workers to imagine, design and communicate new concepts. Cutting arts subjects at a time when we are nailing our colours to the mast of innovation is, sadly, further evidence that this Government consider arts education as “nice to have” and fail to understand the role of arts graduates in the innovation ecosystem. The Secretary of State for Education made that clear last week when he wrote:
“The record number of people taking up science and engineering demonstrates that many are already starting to pivot away from dead-end courses that leave young people with nothing but debt.”
What is in the Speech is the long-awaited online safety Bill. A key concern will be to ensure that the Bill effectively balances freedom of expression with protection for users’ rights online. In that regard, I will be interested to understand what is meant by a new protection for
“content of democratic importance”.
The Explanatory Notes say this refers to government policies and political parties, but it raises questions about how that would impact the freedom of individuals to initiate online debate or campaign on topics that are not “live political issues”—a quote from the Government’s press release—but, rather, issues that voters believe current policies overlook.
I am equally curious about the definition of “harmful content” as that which will have, or indirectly have,
“a significant adverse physical or psychological impact on an adult of ordinary sensibilities.”
The Bill adds that this ordinary adult should be assumed to have any combination of characteristics, but does not say if they are the protected characteristics of the Equality Act 2010. If they are, how will the Bill protect from harms related to body image, weight or appearance, given that those characteristics are not covered by that Act? This threshold is central to the Bill’s powers over legal but harmful content, but is not elucidated. I foresee endless court time devoted to determining whether my sensibilities are more ordinary than the next person’s.
The online safety Bill has been a long time coming and, as our lives have moved increasingly online, the need for a regime that balances freedom of expression with the protection of rights has become more acute. I look forward to working together across the House to ensure that the Bill effectively meets those twin aims.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, this debate includes the work of the DCMS and thus enables us to focus on sport, recreation and an active lifestyle. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I have constructed a 10-point plan to focus attention on what I hope will be cross-party support for action to promote these objectives. First is the formation of a new office for health promotion, mandated to drive improvement in the nation’s health, tackle obesity and improve mental health—not least that of the 1.5 million children predicted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists to need new or additional mental health support as a result of the pandemic. There is a major opportunity for a new start, leading to policy formulation for an active lifestyle at the heart of government.
Second is an education recovery plan, ensuring that no child is left behind as a result of the education and extracurricular activities that they may have missed out on during lockdown. This is against a background where almost 70% of parents have said that their children were less active during lockdown—and 10% have said that their children had been completely inactive. The creeping scholarisation of childhood continues to erode free play at school and home in favour of academic, sporting and cultural activities.
Third is laws to modernise the planning system, which plays a crucial role in providing access to high-quality facilities so that everyone can play sport and be physically active. In this Bill, there is the opportunity to put that mantra into practice.
Fourth is legislation to set binding environmental targets. Despite its ability to entertain and promote health, sport can also degrade the environment. To remedy this, we can turn sport and recreation into a positive force for environmental change by adopting sustainable practices.
Fifthly, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is an important measure for all of us who have long campaigned for an extension in the position of trust provisions to capture those who lead activities in sporting and religious settings. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is not only an outstanding sportsperson but a true campaigner who achieved this change. Now, at last, the loophole in the law that meant that some adults who held a position of power over a young person, including sports coaches, could abuse that power will be remedied.
Sixthly, during Covid, there have been a range of welcome DCMS funding measures to support sports and clubs, including a £300 million sports recovery package to support major spectator sports in England. We will have the opportunity to assess how effective all these measures that are focused on sport have been and whether they have achieved their stated objectives.
Seventhly, the online safety Bill will establish a welcome duty of care to ensure the safety of users online. Sport has led the way. The recent boycott of social media by English football, supported by other sports and international governing bodies of sport, sends a clear signal that social media companies must be held to account for protecting their users.
Eighthly, Tracey Crouch MP is one of the very brightest and most knowledgeable Sports Ministers of her generation. Her fan-led review of football comes on the back of the Prime Minister’s commitment that government would do whatever it takes to tackle the problem of sports governance. There will be forensic consideration of ownership models, governance, financing and ensuring that supporters play an integral part in the running of football, combined with all-party calls for a football regulator.
Ninthly, the levelling-up White Paper will, I hope, lead to legislation to provide the opportunity for access to modern, built-for-purpose sports and recreation facilities, which should be central to this goal—for, as Danny Kruger MP said in his maiden speech, social infrastructure should be treated as seriously as economic infrastructure.
Tenthly, the Professional Qualifications Bill offers backing to ensure that regulators share information with counterparts to support them, as professionals move between jurisdictions—a key concern of sports coaches, British mountaineers and ski instructors looking to continue work in the Alps. Couple that to the need to reform modern-day ticket touting in the secondary online ticket market through the online safety Bill, and end on consideration of the recommendations of your Lordships’ National Plan for Sport and Recreation Committee, when completed in 2022.
This is a 10-point action plan—for it not just culture for which the DCMS is responsible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, and I hope that she enjoys her time in the House as much as I do. I listened with great interest to the Minister, who delivered, in his usual emollient way, all these incredibly nasty pieces of legislation that the Government are bringing in. Although I will try to stay coherent as I speak, I am actually spitting with fury, so I ask for that to be taken into account.
We have to understand that there are a lot of Bills in this Queen’s Speech, and, given that this is the third Speech of the Prime Minister in two years and that most of the legislation that he has announced has not actually happened—sometimes it is on its third, fourth or even fifth iteration—I am staggered that there are so many Bills in it. Again and again, the really important stuff, like the Environment Bill, gets put off, which will be very embarrassing when we come to COP 26.
However, of course, the Government always find time for the really nasty bits of legislation, like the spy cops Bill and the overseas operations Bill. I worry about this trend of the Government, which is why I have chosen to speak today, on the topics of crime and justice and home affairs, because this is where the Government do some of their worst work.
Much of the proposed legislation is designed to fight political proxy wars, rather than trying to improve people’s lives and create a better future, which is probably what the Government’s job is. For example, the electoral integrity Bill is an excuse to make it harder for people—particular people, not just any old people—to vote, while giving the Conservative Party more power in an attempt to extend the life of this Government, possibly for decades.
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill seeks to put financial penalties on universities and student unions for not wanting to listen to speakers with fundamentally stupid ideas. I do not understand it, and it gets a bit confusing when the Government, apparently so concerned about free speech, are also bringing in a Bill designed to criminalise and ban free speech and the right to protest—because protest is free speech. As such, we are being asked to crack down on free speech in one Bill but to force people to listen to speakers whom they fundamentally disagree with in another. It will be very interesting to see, over time, just how this plays out in court and how these two pieces of legislation interact.
Next up on the nasty list are the Government’s plans to make it harder for people to claim asylum and refuge, which are horrendous and plain cruel at a time of such global instability—much of which we have caused —especially because global migration will increase. We will carry on trashing the planet and will make huge areas uninhabitable, and, as we continue to sell weapons to tyrant regimes and war criminals, there will be more political instability in all sorts of countries. We are responsible for a huge number of the people who come to this country seeking refuge, and we should accept that and that it is our duty to make them welcome.
There are some important pieces of legislation tucked into the Speech, but I feel that those are the ones that will fall through the cracks and that we will probably not get around to. This is very distressing because it will be the most regressive laws that come through and that the Government support. This is really appealing to the darkest parts of human nature and it is not good for our collective psyche, not just here in the House but in the wider society. As such, I promise you strong and relentless opposition.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. I start by echoing the pleas of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for more attention to be paid to culture and media issues in these debates. I hope that the good points made already by many noble Lords around the House will be picked up by DCMS. I declare an interest as a member of the Communications and Digital Committee of your Lordships’ House. However, what follows are my thoughts on the online safety Bill, prefaced in the gracious Speech.
In Our Digital Future, published yesterday, the Labour Party made it clear that we want empowered citizens who do not merely have access to the internet but are equipped with the skills and tools to make the most of technology and who are protected from those who use it to cause harm. The online safety Bill shares these aspirations, and, in so doing, reverses the history of international internet technology governance, based as it is on a 1990s presumption that this would be best left to companies and technologies, which had little legal ability to govern the things that people did on the platforms.
Thankfully, democratic Governments have begun, at last, to appreciate the extent of the harms that arise for citizens and businesses due to a loosely governed internet and its patchy adherence to human rights. In that spirit, I welcome the draft online safety Bill. The Government have got a lot right, particularly the adoption of the duty-of-care approach, the focus on systemic measures and the roles to be played by Ofcom, the DMU and the ICO. However, there are some gaps and concerns which have been referenced already, including the very long lead time before the Bill will actually reach the statute book, democratic accountability and a worry that the Bill underplays the current dangers to children and vulnerable users.
However, the welcome pre-legislative scrutiny will help sort out these issues. I hope it will focus on the following points. The internet gives everyone a voice—a really important point—but the resulting cacophony can mean that minority voices are lost in their entirety. Forms of expression which in the past were tolerable, even if they offended, are amplified to the point where action may be required to moderate volume and identity. But that brings real threats to freedom of expression and to quality journalism. How can these tensions be resolved? What content should be treated as illegal and who decides what should be treated as illegal but harmful? If there are forms of activity that were lawful in the past but should now be made unlawful, surely Parliament needs to set these new laws, lead and give clarity. If platforms are to determine their community standards, what role should be played by the regulator—or regulators—and will it have the resources and the powers it needs across the piece?
Online platforms have a responsibility to protect users against fraudulent and scam content as well as other harms. The Bill needs to rise to the broader challenge to democracy posed by digital technology itself, and we will need systems of regulation that protect that. As the Bill recognises, the platforms are a big part of the solution to online harms. They hold the technical expertise, the resources and the access to clean up online spaces, but they do not have the legitimacy to make decisions about what constitutes a free society and they should not be asked to do so without appropriate democratic oversight by Parliament.
Lord Beith (LD)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, and the many distinguished speakers in this debate who fastened on the Government’s words that legislation will be introduced to restore the balance of power between the Executive, the legislature and the courts.
Try as I may, I cannot find anything in the gracious Speech which restores the balance by correcting or reducing the ever-growing power of the Executive. I can find plenty of examples of the opposite, in both legislation and policy. It is all about strengthening the already overmighty Executive. In four minutes, I shall try to give four examples.
First, there is judicial review, reviewed in an excellent report by the committee chaired very ably and knowledgeably by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which the Government clearly intended should come up with severe curtailment of judicial review. It did not. In a courteous letter to me, the Lord Chancellor rather gave the game away. Having commended the committee for its empirical evidence, he said, “However, we feel that the analysis in the report supports consideration of additional policy options to more fully address the issues they identified.” In other words, “We’re from the Government and we are here to help you by protecting you, the judiciary, from yourselves and ensuring that you don’t do any more protecting of the people.”
In all their arguments on this, the Government fail to recognise that in a system where the Government so often control the Commons with a large majority, it is particularly important that the courts can insist on adherence to the law and, when rights are threatened, to see that there has been proper decision-making, and that what is proposed or done is clearly and explicitly within the intentions set out by Parliament.
The second example is the sentencing legislation that began in the previous Session. It gives the Home Secretary power to extend a prison sentence indefinitely on the basis of matters which have not been tested in court, subject only to whether the prisoner can prove a negative to the Parole Board—that he is not dangerous and did not commit offences for which he has never been tried. Serious issues of public safety are involved—I recognise that—but I do not see that we can leave the Bill in its present form without crossing a boundary between the role of the Executive and the role of the judiciary.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister is appointing lots of new Peers. This is not an attack on the noble Baroness whose maiden speech we heard earlier, but the overall effect of what the Prime Minister is doing is to block the means by which this House has agreed, voluntarily, to reduce its own size. I was a member of the group which advocated for the proposals. Failure to tackle the growing size of an unelected House undermines the reputation that the good work of so many Peers would otherwise earn. I think the Government like having a second Chamber whose legitimacy they can easily challenge, rather than a reformed House, which would be more widely seen as an appropriate body to hold the Executive to account.
My fourth example is in today’s other area: culture. I declare an interest as being involved in a number of heritage charities that have benefited, or need help to survive, from the recovery fund. I am worried by all the briefings from DDCMS that board-level appointments in national cultural institutions need to be the subject of closer ministerial attention to ensure that various areas and views are better represented. As a northerner—you cannot live further north in England than I do—I might welcome that, but not if it becomes more use of ministerial patronage to enforce politicians’ prejudices on highly valued institutions of precious national importance or just another version of patronage and jobs for the boys.
Ministers like power, and invariably want more of it. Legislating by decree and press conference during the Covid-19 crisis has given them even more of a taste for it. Our job is to do our best to restore the balance by defending the rule of law and restoring and deepening parliamentary accountability.
The Earl of Arran (Con)
My Lords, it is now more than 15 years since I sat on a Select Committee in your Lordships’ House. It was established to look at draft legislation on assisted dying for the terminally ill. As a committee, we had the privilege of travelling to the Netherlands, Dignitas in Switzerland and Oregon, which then stood as the only state in the USA to have legalised this practice.
We were led with great distinction by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern as chairman and the 10 other distinguished members included the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is in the Chair today.
We heard in Oregon that the practice there was working well and had been integrated into palliative and hospice care systems, and its safeguards were protecting against any possible abuse. Regrettably, in 2006 this House declined to support a new law based on Oregon’s experience, although it did lend its support to similar proposals in 2014 and 2015, only for the Bill to fall due to lack of time after three full days of debate, including two full days of consideration in Committee. As a House, we gave our support to tightly safeguarded legislation—that is, two doctors independent of one another would have to assess a person’s mental capacity and prognosis, and the entire process would be overseen by a High Court judge. These were, and continue to be, the most safeguarded and conservative proposals anywhere in the world. They were supported by your Lordships’ House and by more than 80% of the British public.
It is now more than five years since we have had a substantive debate on this issue and public demand for changing the law has not subsided. Nor, indeed, has international progress. Oregon’s example has been followed by 10 additional American states, with New Mexico becoming the 11th jurisdiction in the USA to permit assisted dying earlier this year. Altogether, over 70 million Americans live in states where assisted dying is permitted. Tasmania this year became the third Australian state to do so. New Zealand held a referendum on assisted dying last year, which passed with an overwhelming majority. In Europe, too, the Low Countries and Switzerland have long permitted euthanasia and assisted dying. They are being joined by Spain and Portugal, whose Parliaments have approved new laws in the past few months. Important court judgments are likely to lead to similar legislation in Austria and Germany.
Even closer to home, Ireland is currently debating assisted dying; a vote in the Dáil passed the Dying with Dignity Bill in October. In Scotland, too, Holyrood will tackle this issue again in the near future and looks likely to succeed in legislating for assisted dying.
Perhaps influenced by the growing clamour for law change and the mighty evidence that assisted dying can be introduced safely and fully integrated into modern end-of-life care, doctors’ views are shifting in support of assisted dying. Two years ago, the Royal College of Physicians dropped its long-standing opposition to assisted dying and the British Medical Association is poised to do the same later this year. In a survey of nearly 30,000 doctors the BMA found that 50% of its members supported a change in the law, compared to 39% against. This progress is fast spreading across the English-speaking world and in predominantly Catholic countries closer to home. As more and more countries legislate, we gain more and more evidence that assisted dying can be legislated for safely and with huge popular support, giving dying people the right to choose how they end their lives.
I say very simply: we did not ask to come into this world; might we now be allowed to say how we would wish to depart from it?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to move to issues of modern slavery. I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery and as a vice-chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
The Government are rightly proud of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which is a splendid piece of legislation, but it urgently requires further implementation. The position that we hold as innovators in dealing with modern slavery across the world is slipping. I will refer to several parts of the Frank Field review of the Act, of which I was a member. The most important gap is in the supply chain. Much of the transparency of supply chain legislation—Section 54—requires it to be mandatory for the large companies to report effectively on their supply chain situation. Serious penalties are being discussed, but so far there has been no commitment by the Government and no action. They must act on the proposal for an enforcement body. The Home Office should look across the Atlantic to see how the USA is now dealing with hot goods and the measures that it has in place to stop the importation of goods or produce obtained by forced labour. The Government must make the legislation effective to ensure that goods and produce provided by forced labour overseas are stopped before they enter the country.
The guardian provision for trafficked children is excellent, but pilot schemes are no longer necessary; it should now be rolled out across the country. It extends only to the age of 18, although the review gave good reasons to provide support up to 21 or even 25. There is concern about the position of very vulnerable teenagers transitioning into adulthood without appropriate support. There is a real risk of those young people being re-trafficked. According to Safe Passage, there are 10,000 unaccompanied refugee children in Europe. They are in danger of abuse and of being trafficked. The UK has brought in a considerable number of children, which is admirable but not sufficient. Since Brexit, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said earlier, Dublin III is no longer applying, and under current and intended immigration rules it is estimated that 95% of children may not qualify to be admitted.
The proposal to penalise children who enter the country illegally is entirely contrary to the Government’s welfare commitment towards children. Compensation for victims, and reparation orders, appear to have made no progress. There remains a considerable lack of support after victims have received a positive NRM decision, only partly filled by the wonderful work of NGOs. This places victims in danger of being re-trafficked and leads to non-effective prosecutions where the main witness—the victim—cannot be found.
Finally, the dramatic cut in overseas aid has had a devastating effect on modern slavery projects. This should be a matter of great concern to the Home Office. The Government have, in the past, been generous in supporting the setting up, with the USA, of the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery in 2017. The impact of the cut in funding is to reduce the current year’s expected funding from an estimated £7.6 million to £1.1 million. Among its effects is the cancellation of initiatives in Bangladesh with the IOM to stop forced labour in unregulated clothing factories, which adversely affects 10,000 victims, including 1,000 children under 14, and a project in India to help 8,000 children in Mumbai. As chair of the National Commission on Forced Marriage, I remind the House that forced marriage is an aspect of modern slavery.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. I am especially pleased to welcome such a fine Ulster Scots lady into your Lordships’ House.
The pandemic has had a detrimental impact on the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. Indeed, following the gracious Speech, the Government admitted that a levelling-up White Paper will appear only at some point later this year. Meanwhile, by breaking his cast iron promise not to place a post-Brexit regulatory border in the Irish Sea, the Prime Minister made a conscious decision to level down Northern Ireland by making it more difficult for businesses there to compete and denying local shoppers access to many goods. I cannot overstate the sense of betrayal felt in the Province over the Prime Minister’s actions and the Government’s refusal to fully acknowledge the ever-growing list of problems that the sea border has created.
The subject we are dealing with today is culture. In the year of Northern Ireland’s centenary, I am sorry to say that Boris Johnson has chosen to undermine our British culture. He has placed on us a position where we must follow rules set by the European Union, over which the United Kingdom Government, Northern Ireland Assembly and local voters have absolutely no say. It is the greatest diminution of British sovereignty since a previous Conservative Government signed the Anglo-Irish agreement 36 years ago. That should not rest easy with Her Majesty’s Government, nor indeed with those who support them in the Lobbies of your Lordships’ House.
There are two references to victims in this gracious Speech, one being how the Government intend to
“address the legacy of the past”
in Northern Ireland. On the eve of the English local elections, the Government advised two friendly newspapers that they would ban future Troubles-related prosecutions against soldiers and police officers. What was less prominent in this briefing was that these rules also apply to IRA/Sinn Féin and loyalist terrorists. It is not often that all the Province’s political parties come together to agree on something, but they are united in their hostility to this news. Concerns were shared by victims’ groups right across Northern Ireland. What the Government were proposing was an amnesty that would have treated police officers and members of the UK Armed Forces in precisely the same manner as the terrorists who were seeking to murder them. It is appalling; it is unacceptable. Those who suffered loss want justice and they should receive it if we are to address the legacy of the past.
I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister’s dereliction of duty last week in the way he treated the families of those killed in Ballymurphy half a century ago does not augur well. His predecessor David Cameron may not be winning many friends at the moment but his Oral Statement delivered in another place on the day of the Bloody Sunday report was published in 2010 and gained him a huge number of admirers. Mr Cameron’s apology to the Bloody Sunday families was sincere, honest and offered in full public view. In contrast, Boris Johnson’s words to the Ballymurphy families were conveyed in what amounted to a circular email to their solicitor a full 48 hours after the report was published.
Victims on all sides deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. The Prime Minister’s—I would say—tactless behaviour was entirely the opposite. Legacy issues have bedevilled Northern Ireland for far too long and the Government must finally show responsible leadership to allow us to move forward.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the new plan for immigration will, we are told, increase the asylum system’s “fairness and efficacy”. We certainly need more fairness and efficacy, but the Law Society and refugee and human rights groups warn that this plan spells the opposite, with
“dire consequences for children and young people”,
according to the Children’s Society.
I can do no better than to cite the UNHCR’s devastating critique. This
“discriminatory two-tiered approach … will undermine the 1951 Convention and international protection system, not just in the UK, but globally.”
A commitment to resettlement and improved safe and legal pathways, which are urgently needed but for which there is no detail, cannot,
“substitute for or absolve a State of its obligations towards persons seeking asylum at its borders”.
The inferior temporary protection status offered to irregular entrants who stay in the UK is incompatible with international refugee law. We are told that the
“human consequences …will be very serious’.
The UNHCR has offered to work with the Government
“to adopt a more sensible, humane and legally sound”
approach. Could the Minister tell us the Government’s response to this offer, how their plan will work, given the reported refusal of all EU countries to co-operate, and what are the plans to open up safe routes?
More positive is the commitment to correct what is described as
“historical anomalies in British Nationality law which have long prevented individuals from gaining British citizenship or registering for citizenship, through no fault of their own.”
This is a real injustice suffered by the children of British Overseas Territory citizens of a certain age, denied citizenship simply because their parents were not married. It should have been rectified years ago.
With regard to registering for citizenship, there has been a long-standing concern across the House about the barriers faced by children who were born or have grown up in the UK who have to register their entitlement to citizenship because of their parents’ immigration status. In February, the Court of Appeal ruled that the exorbitant fee is unlawful because it was set without consideration of the best interests of the child. Can the Minister assure us that the consequent Section 55 best interests assessment will be published, and say when?
This shameful policy reflects the failure to put children’s best interests at the heart of policy-making. Twice during the Queen’s Speech debate, ministerial responses have ignored calls for a Cabinet-level Minister for children. I trust this will not happen today. Among other things, such a Minister would help to ensure that children are treated as a priority for the levelling-up agenda.
Given the prominence of that agenda, it is incomprehensible, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has commented, that there is no sign of the employment Bill, which we were promised would protect and enhance workers’ rights. The Government have responded that the Bill will be introduced when the time is right. But surely, if we are to “build back better” from the pandemic, this parliamentary Session is exactly the right time: the right time to address endemic insecurity, especially among the lower paid; the right time to introduce promised leave, which needs to be paid, for around 5 million informal carers who juggle paid work and care and who have borne such a heavy burden during the pandemic; and the right time to reform shared parental leave, so as to ensure greater paternal involvement, as mothers have paid the price during the pandemic due to increased childcare responsibilities. When will the responses to the long-standing consultations on both carers’ and parental leave finally be published?
The briefing note on the speech includes a welcome acknowledgement that levelling up involves living standards. This means that it must address poverty and in particular child poverty, which is worsening in terms of both numbers and depth. We need investment in what the Biden Administration term the “human infrastructure” of financial support. At a minimum, the Government should now commit to maintaining the £20 UC uplift and its extension to legacy and related benefits, and to improving support for children, given the mounting evidence of how families with children have suffered disproportionately over the past year. The forthcoming levelling up White Paper must address these issues—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the advisory time limit for this debate is four minutes.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
I am just finishing.
The forthcoming levelling up White Paper must address these issues if it is to offer any hope to the millions who are struggling to stay afloat.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I make no apologies for drawing the attention of the House yet again to the state of our prisons. The United Kingdom continues to have the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe. In England and Wales, there are 131 prisoners for every 100,000 people in the general population, compared with 90 in Spain and 69 in Germany.
Sentence lengths have greatly increased in recent years. The average sentence for an indictable offence is now 58 months, which is more than two years longer than in 2008. Mandatory life-sentenced prisoners now spend on average 18 years in custody compared with 13 years in 2001.
We still send large numbers of people to prison for short periods: 47% of those entering prison under sentence are imprisoned for six months or less. Community sentences are significantly more effective than short prison sentences in reducing reoffending among comparable offenders, yet the use of community sentences has halved in the past decade. As a result of the higher use of custody, most of our prisons are overcrowded: 80 out of 121 currently hold more prisoners than their certified “normal” population.
Safety in prison has deteriorated over the past decade, during which the number of deaths in prisons has risen by over 50%. For every 1,000 prisoners, there were 741 incidents of self-harm in the period 2010-2020, compared with 282 in 2014. Over half of British prisons have found it more difficult to provide resettlement support to help prisoners avoid reoffending on release. Over the past 10 years, there has been a marked decline in prison inspectorate ratings of our prisons for purposeful activities and resettlement.
Covid-19 has caused particularly acute problems for the prison system. During lockdown, the vast majority of prisoners have spent 23 hours or more out of every 24 in their cells—2,000 of them in conditions that amount to solitary confinement. But even before lockdown it was clear that purposeful activity in our prisons had suffered a marked decline in recent years.
The latest projections predict a prison population of over 98,000 by 2026. The Government have announced plans for a significant programme of prison building. Despite this, last year’s report from the Public Accounts Committee, Improving the Prison Estate, estimated that the demand for prison places could outstrip supply by the next financial year. We all know that prison building programmes take time to deliver additional places, and this one will be no exception.
Against this background, the Government are introducing the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which contains a raft of provisions for lengthening sentencing further, including measures to ensure that most offenders serve lengthy minimum sentences and to increase the time served under discretionary life sentences. The Government estimate that these measures will increase the prison population by a further 700—the population of a medium-sized prison—by 2028. The Government’s impact assessment of this acknowledges that there is little evidence that these measures will deter offenders or reduce the level of crime.
I have one simple question for the Minister: will the Government adopt a policy objective of reducing, or preferably ending, overcrowding in our prison system, with clear target dates? It is a question that can be answered with a yes or a no. If the Government were prepared to adopt a clear objective along these lines, they would gain the support of noble Lords in all parts of this House.
Tucked away in the gracious Speech is a sentence which will require lots of attention in coming months:
“Measures will be brought forward to address racial and ethnic disparities”.
Nowhere are these disparities more obvious than in prison sentences. I see that my time is up, but I intend to take this matter up in future debates, and I will write formally to the Minister on this issue.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall keep this contribution brief and to the point. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that, as a former Metropolitan police officer, I shall confine my remarks to policing.
This past year or so has seen probably one of the most challenging times for British policing. Tasked with ensuring that people remain safe during the pandemic and act within the law, policing has often met with derision and contempt—not only from certain elements in our society but, I regret to say, from politicians at all levels. That was particularly evident immediately after the Sarah Everard vigil which, as your Lordships will recall, took place on Clapham Common on Saturday 13 March. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate report says that
“what began as a quiet, sombre affair, with a minute’s silence for Ms Everard at 6 pm became a rally, complete with microphones, a public address system, placards and a dense crowd. Police made nine arrests as they moved to disperse the crowd. Photographs and video footage of the scenes, including police officers detaining people, were widely circulated on social media and published in the media.”
My word, the main news channels had a field day. They were rapidly supported by politicians, keen to get on the critical bandwagon. I made a note of them, but there were far too many to recall here in a four-minute speech.
The inspectorate concluded:
“When the decision to move to enforcement was made, our review found nothing to suggest that officers acted inappropriately or in a heavy-handed manner. In fact, we found evidence of patience and professionalism during engagement prior to, during and after arrest … Our inspection has led us to conclude that police officers at Clapham Common worked, in sometimes challenging circumstances, to maintain public safety and keep the peace. Unlike the public, who chose to be there, the police were there because they serve to keep us safe.”
Sadly, none of the critics had the courage to come forward in light of the findings to withdraw or apologise for their remarks.
We parliamentarians task the police to ensure our safety during this pandemic. As politicians, the very least we can do is to offer our support in these challenging times. I look forward to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill coming before your Lordships’ House, in particular the elements of the Bill which balance the rights of protestors with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered. It will enable the police to better manage the highly disruptive protests of which we have witnessed and tolerated far too many of late in the vicinity of Parliament, with the accompanying criminal damage to our monuments. The Bill contains many new and welcome aspects. I support it, as I do the draft victims’ Bill which at long last acknowledges the current shortcomings in our responsibilities to the most important people in the whole of the criminal justice system—the victim.
I have no doubt that there will be much debate around these Bills. I look forward to lending them my support and, in particular, our very deserving police service.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on 17 September 2019, I attended the first day of an historic sitting of our Supreme Court. It was subsequently to rule unanimously—as I had repeatedly warned and argued—that the Government’s prorogation of this Parliament was a grave and unlawful abuse of power. As I walked out into the lunchtime sun, with just one young female colleague, we were the target of a noisy, at times abusive, and even racist demonstration. Noble Lords may remember the mood. Despite a counterdemonstration, there was a negligible police presence; however, neither group surged. It was unpleasant, but I was unafraid for my safety and would never have dreamed of making a complaint. Nor did I hear a complaint from anyone associated with government—quite the contrary. I do not believe that the streets outside Parliament or our higher courts should be islands of tranquillity, nor that I should be protected from offence, let alone dissent. I fear that this Government display a thinner skin.
The Minister is a commercial lawyer of considerable distinction. I am merely one of the public lawyers whom he mentioned in his opening remarks. Indeed, I am one of the activist lawyers to whom his colleague, the Home Secretary, often refers disparagingly. However, I hope he will agree that I have always tried to disagree with him kindly and well.
In my view, the best way of protecting free speech and democratic dissent is to show and not tell. These values cannot be imposed, like some kind of one-way system, with the stroke of the town planner or a parliamentary draughtsman’s pen. Freedom of expression, liberty and equality under the law constitute the ultimate two-way street. I urge the Government to recognise this and not continue to prosecute a culture war in which there is one law for some—especially the Executive.
For many public lawyers and vulnerable people, including the desperate refugees some of us spend our lives representing, attempts to clip the wings of judicial review look nothing short of retribution for the prorogation case of 2019 to which I have referred. It is like losing 11-nil in the FA Cup final and coming for the referee with a baseball bat. Attempts in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to curtail peaceful but noisy and impactful protest by law seem like a response to the growing international recognition of the Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion movements that will just as easily be used against vigils such as that for Sarah Everard. It is an illiberal dog whistle at a time when the Government should be attempting greater post-pandemic unity and equality—the rule of law, not more divide and rule.
An essential government free speech czar for universities is an oxymoron indeed, not least when these institutions are bound by Article 10 of the human rights convention —our first amendment if you like—and subject to judicial review. Perhaps the Government would do better not to threaten such protections and demonstrate the tolerance and civility that they demand of others.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook—I thank her for her maiden speech. I warmly welcome the online safety Bill, referenced in the most gracious Address. I declare my interest as a board member for the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation.
It is my view that the online safety Bill represents a major step forward in preventing harm to children, vulnerable adults and our wider society. The Bill places a robust duty of care on content-sharing platforms and creates a major new regulator by extending the remit of Ofcom. Those designing the Bill have listened carefully and have risen to the challenge of scoping a regulatory framework for new and rapidly changing technologies. The internet is used by over 90% of adults in the United Kingdom. There are many benefits to that use, as we have seen during the pandemic, but also great potential for harm. As the memorandum from DCMS indicates very clearly, this landmark regulation will end the era of self-regulation. The Bill is likely to prove a key benchmark, not only for the United Kingdom, but for governments around the world.
The technology is evolving rapidly, and the Bill provides flexible mechanisms for responding to new developments through the evolution of codes of practice and the powers given to the Secretary of State. The extra time given to develop the Bill has been well used; however, the legislation and frameworks are needed very urgently as other noble Lords have said. Will the Government set out their assessment of the timescale, from the publication of the Bill to the date when the regime will be working? Are there ways to accelerate this, including a request from the Government now to Ofcom, asking it to prepare to receive powers under the online safety Bill.
Will the Government please clarify what has happened about their intention to deal with the vital questions of age verification and access to pornography sites, which seem not to have been included, as I thought was promised? Finally, will they clarify the ongoing role of Parliament in further improving the legislation offered and in the SI-making process, where the Secretary of State seems to have the initiative?
The Bill will make a very substantial contribution in translating the deep values of our society, the worth of each individual, public responsibility and care for children into the online world, and I look forward to it becoming law.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I must admit to being disappointed that the gracious Speech did not include details of the criminal justice catch-up and recovery plan, for which the Ministry of Justice is responsible, because one of the main effects of the Covid pandemic is that virtually all rehabilitation work with prisoners has ceased. Coming on top of Chris Grayling’s disastrous transforming rehabilitation programme that virtually destroyed our world-class probation service, that means that there is a great deal of catching up and recovering to be done, as the Minister admitted in his introduction.
For the last 26 and a half years, I have advised successive Home Secretaries and Justice Secretaries that if they did not introduce a strategy for imprisonment, coupled with the management structure common in every business, hospital or school, in which named people are made responsible and accountable for certain functions within that business, hospital or school, sustained improvement would not happen, which it has not. In the case of prisons, I have advocated that directors should be appointed for every type of prison and certain types of prisoners, such as lifers, sex offenders, foreign nationals, the elderly and those serving indeterminate sentences. Directors would be responsible and accountable to the Secretary of State through a chain of subordinates, starting with the Minister for Prisons and going down through the Director General of Prisons to individual prison governors, who would be responsible and accountable to the director of their type of prison. I now advise the Secretary of State for Justice that without introducing such a management structure, he will not be able to catch up on, let alone recover, all that has been lost. It is essential that prisons and probation are included in the Government’s job creation plans mentioned in the gracious Speech.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech, and I refer to my interests in the register.
As other noble Lords have said, the draft online safety Bill is an important part of the Government’s legislative programme, but I am extremely concerned that in its latest iteration there is no mention of gambling, despite earlier intentions. Two years ago, the online harms White Paper made numerous references to gambling, which it described as an example of “designed addiction” and as demonstrating a
“fragmented regulatory environment which is insufficient to meet the full breadth of the challenges we face”—
challenges which the draft online safety Bill was partially seeking to rectify. But now, it appears, gambling is to be omitted from the Bill. When she winds up, will the Minister confirm that this is the case and explain why? This absence is extremely worrying, since the Bill could provide a vehicle to address many of the growing concerns about online gambling.
I chair Peers for Gambling Reform, a group of over 150 Members of your Lordships’ House pressing for the reforms recommended in the Select Committee report on gambling. Those reforms range from curbs on sports sponsorship and advertising to the introduction of a mandatory levy to fund research, education and treatment, and from establishing a gambling ombudsman to classifying loot boxes as gambling and so regulating them accordingly. Of course, we also need measures to tackle illegal gambling, the advertising of legal gambling companies on illegal websites and the use of drones filming sports events to give their owners an unfair gambling advantage.
These and other reforms are urgently needed. Two million people are affected by gambling-related harm; over 60,000 children are problem gamblers; and, on average, sadly, there is one gambling-related suicide every day. But online gambling is a particular cause for concern. Smartphones enable 24/7 unsupervised gambling. Yet, in comparison to land-based gambling, it is far less regulated. After all, the key legislation was enacted before the first iPhone was launched in 2007. For example, there are limits on stakes and prizes for land-based games but not for those available on the internet, where over 40% of all gambling now takes place.
The Government’s gambling review is of course welcome, but it looks increasingly as though the Government are shying away from taking action. Unless available legislative opportunities, such as the online safety Bill, are used, it could be many years before the Government deliver on their promise to tackle gambling-related harm. After all, the last major gambling review began in 1999, but it took a further eight years before new legislation was enacted. Given the scale of current gambling problems, we simply cannot afford to wait another eight years.
Even gambling operators believe the online safety Bill should be used, for example, to crack down on unregulated gambling operators. But some reforms can be made without new legislation, yet even in such cases, there is evidence that the Government are not pushing ahead as quickly as possible. For instance, the Gambling Commission is using its existing powers to consider affordability—how to ensure that all gambling operators use a common system of checks to ensure that customers can afford to gamble at the level they choose. But newspaper reports now suggest that the Government want to take this responsibility away from the Gambling Commission and incorporate it into a wider gambling review, which will lead to unnecessary delay. Can the Minister confirm this and, again, explain why this much-needed reform should be delayed?
Reforms to gambling are urgently needed, and the Government must not delay.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and I congratulate the two noble Baronesses on their superb maiden speeches, which were a delight to listen to.
I welcome the overall thrust of the Queen’s Speech, and I thought the Minister was extremely impressive in laying out for the House exactly what the programme entails. I want to concentrate on that part of the Speech that referenced Northern Ireland veterans. I would like to give it a cautious welcome, with some concerns. When I was in the other place, I was the founder of the all-party veterans’ support group, which has now become a full-scale APPG. I took a close interest in the Dennis Hutchings case, and I declare an interest because I have met him a number of times and know him well. As noble Lords will probably recall, Dennis Hutchings was serving in Northern Ireland in County Tyrone in 1974 and was part of a patrol that resulted in the killing of one John Pat Cunningham. The case was fully investigated at the time; there was absolutely no question of any of the soldiers on patrol being charged, and they were told to get on with their military careers.
Fast-forward to 2010 and the Historical Enquiries Team, when these soldiers were investigated again, including Dennis Hutchings. He was told once again that there was no case to answer, that his case had been thoroughly investigated, and that he should get on with his retirement and enjoy the rest of his life. Eight years afterwards, in 2018, he was arrested in a dawn raid and has been charged with murder.
Obviously, that case is sub judice, but I can refer in detail to the Joe McCann case and the two members of the Parachute Regiment, Soldiers A and C. This case involved a notorious and wicked IRA killer. Soldiers A and C were charged with murder. The case was expected to last at least six weeks. As noble Lords will know, the case folded after a matter of days when the judge ruled that evidence gleaned from the original investigation and from the HET was not admissible. We now know that the former deputy head of the HET actually recommended that there should be no prosecution because no new evidence was available. Frankly, it is staggering that this case went ahead.
I am very concerned, because we are told that there are more than 200 cases in the pipeline involving veterans in Northern Ireland and that a number of them will go to prosecution quite soon. We know about the soldiers who have been charged as a consequence of involvement in the Bloody Sunday killings and the recent Ballymurphy inquest. I am concerned that no one has mentioned the impact on the lives of these soldiers and the fact that very few of these prosecutions will probably now have much chance of succeeding.
This leads me to the commitment in the Queen’s Speech on Northern Ireland veterans. The details are fairly sketchy, but HMG have made it clear that they are looking at some form of amnesty or truth and reconciliation commission. I am very nervous about this, because it would certainly imply at first instance some form of equivalence between soldiers and police officers doing their duty and those terrorists who had one sole aim in life: to go out there to maim and kill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown, in his typically passionate way, pointed out that these soldiers and police officers had no alternative: they were doing their duty, whereas terrorists did have an option.
I suggest to the Minister that there is a way forward that does not involve new legislation. In future, the Attorney-General should sign off all future prosecutions. There should be an override for the UK AG in terms of national security, so that every single case, be it terrorists who killed or soldiers involved in killings, would have to be signed off by the Attorney-General. Victims would know that these cases would not go uninvestigated and soldiers, veterans and police officers would be able to sleep at night knowing that unless there was compelling new evidence they would not be prosecuted.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I begin by reminding the House of my interests as master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, and chair of the Art Fund. Before I turn to issues of culture, I want to record my serious disappointment at one item in the gracious Speech: the decision to undertake a period of further consultation before bringing in legislation to ban conversion therapy for LGBT+ people. I have to ask the Government: what on earth is there to consult about? Conversion therapy is wrong. It is deeply damaging to those it is imposed on. It should be banned as rapidly as possible. This is an unacceptable delay and, worse, it might be a way of smuggling in exceptions to a ban. The legislation should be brought forward without exceptions now.
I want mainly to address issues of culture, especially the Government’s rather obvious decision that culture war is their thing. They are at it with universities, flagging up in the gracious Speech the imposition of a duty to promote free speech, with an enforcer appointed by government. I am all in favour of free speech, especially in universities, where education is surely enhanced by the expression and contest of ideas and opinions, examined, tested and challenged as appropriate. But the last thing we need is the Government deciding what free speech should be allowed and what should not.
Every bit as worrying, however, is what appears now to be a government-directed imposition of their version of correctness on our national museums and galleries. We have seen it in the recent decision not to renew a distinguished academic’s term of office as trustee of the Royal Museums Greenwich simply because his work focused on issues of decolonisation. We have seen it also in the letter sent by the Secretary of State a few months ago to museums and others telling them that they should not explore issues of contested heritage with a critical eye. The Government are trying to tell museums what they can and cannot do. This really is not on. There is a very precious thing called the arm’s-length principle, which is supposed to define the relationship between government and museums. The Government are tearing this principle apart.
Our national museums and galleries are the great storehouses of our nation’s culture, history, science and wisdom. They contain the things of beauty that we have collected over generations. They reflect our nation’s identity in all its complexity, diversity and glory. It is vital that this complexity, diversity and glory are displayed and explained to the public in the best and most effective way, and the people who know best how to do that are the curators and directors of those museums. The last people to know how to do it are Governments and politicians. I say this in all earnestness to the Government, as a former Secretary of State: I would not have dreamed of trying to tell museums what they could display and what they could not, or what they could say about it and what they could not. The Government, quite simply, must get out of the way.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, began this debate by saying that the wheels of justice never stop turning. I remind the House that in the last gracious Speech in December 2019, we had the promise of a royal commission on the criminal justice system. Subsequently, there were five Questions in this House, and every single time there was evasion from the Ministry of Justice, which said that the purposes of the royal commission were still under consideration. Now it has been abandoned, unless the Minister can tell us in his reply that it will be coming back. That is a massive disappointment to all of us who have been concerned about the reality of justice for those who feel that miscarriage rather than fairness is the normal experience.
This gracious Speech rightly and understandably prioritises victims, and everybody will have sympathy and understanding for that. But there is very little understanding of the needs of those who are in prison now or who may face prison and where miscarriages of justice are normative. I identify myself wholeheartedly with the brilliant speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Paddick, who both identified the treatment of prisoners. A junior Minister in the Ministry of Justice—Alex Chalk MP in another place—issued a statement just the other day saying that prison leaders should not refer to people in prison as “inmates” or “residents”; they must be referred to harshly as “prisoners” so that they can experience the reality of their vileness and crimes. This is not a right and responsible attitude to take towards those who must deserve dignity and human rights. The Government should not be playing to the agenda of the Daily Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph in seeking to constantly push up sentences and to make prisons harder and harsher.
There are those who would respond by saying, “So you are on the side of prisoners and the vile?” Well, let me cite the example of one young man who came to see me just three weeks ago. A young man by the name of Brandon, 24 years of age, was falsely accused and held on remand for 11 months in 2020, during which he was held in his cell for 23 hours and 45 minutes of every single day. When the charges against him were subsequently proved to be false, there was no apology, no compensation and no support. He was crushed as an individual and released with no recognition of the injustice done to him simply because police officers decided that he was to be a target. He now desperately needs support and help.
We see today in the newspapers the wonderful story of the brilliant law firm Hogan Lovells, which spent eight years fighting for compensation for two black men in North Carolina who have just received $75 million as a consequence of falsified convictions 31 years ago when both men were teenagers sent to prison on an inappropriate, inaccurate and non-just basis. This is the largest-ever payout in American criminal justice and the case was pursued entirely pro bono by the international law firm.
In the UK, we do not have a system whereby the Criminal Cases Review Commission brings forward such cases with any speed or determination. We simply allow those who are in prison to falter and fail. I have in my hand just one week’s worth of letters from prisoners telling me of issues of injustice and miscarriage in their cases. One man in particular, whose mother and aunt died as a result of the coronavirus, as a consequence sought to ask the prison if he could watch his mother’s funeral on YouTube. He was denied the opportunity to see his mother buried. That is not fairness and justice, treating prisoners with dignity or a recognition of their human rights.
We therefore urgently need a royal commission and for it to recognise that, yes, there are victims but there are also people whom injustice has locked away for too long.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook. As a woman of Glasgow heritage, that alone should undoubtedly make her a great asset to this House.
It is hard to select which pieces of the Government’s legislative programme are the most dispiriting, but let me start with the Lord Chancellor’s plan to ratchet up sentences of imprisonment. This is mere populist posturing. It has already been mentioned—I mention it again because it is about wider Europe—that we have the highest prison population in Europe, surpassed only by Russia and Turkey. We are not talking just about western Europe but about the wider Europe of members of the Council of Europe. We are up there at the top of the league table, and it should be no source of pride to us.
I was rather saddened by the Minister’s woeful slogan, “Tough on crime, tough on the perpetrators of crime”. I know that he seemed proud of it. However, while it may be a little jibe at the Labour aphorism, “Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime”, the difference between a slogan and an aphorism, which is why I choose the word “aphorism”, is that there is a nugget of truth in an aphorism. The truth in that aphorism about having to deal with and look to the causes of crime is because there one has a real sophisticated project on trying to drive down crime.
At the moment, our prisons are crammed full, with there being virtually no skills training, rehabilitation or education. Yet the level of illiteracy is high among our prison population. It means, therefore, that their ability to survive in society is harder. There are no anger management courses. It is truly abysmal that there is such an absence of courses to address drug addiction, alcohol addiction and misogyny, which is the backdrop to so much crime against women. We also have a depleted probation service, as was described by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Probation officers are so hard-pressed that they have no capacity to carry out the risk assessments that are key to the prevention of reoffending.
My great friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, spoke of women in the criminal justice system, about which I, too, am concerned. In 2018, 62% of women in prison were serving sentences of less than six months. Since then, it is believed that that figure has increased. We have the extraordinary business of women being in prison, the vast majority of whom are serving sentences of under six months. Think about the consequences of that. A woman’s children are taken away from her and put into care; she loses her accommodation because the contract is terminated and she is evicted; and of course in prison, as I have mentioned, she is not able to avail herself of much in the way of support. Women in prison have usually been the victims of domestic violence, child abuse and all those things that we know often lead to people committing offences at the behest of controlling men.
It saddened me that, when the Attorney-General was asked on “Woman’s Hour” why we were creating 500 new places for women when the majority of women do not commit violent or serious offences, the response was that 50,000 new police officers were being created so that there would be many more arrests and therefore there was a need for many more prison places. That does not seem like a very imaginative way of dealing with criminal justice or preventing crime.
I turn to the other Bill that is an absolute travesty, the asylum reforms, which my noble friend Lord Blunkett made the arguments about very clearly. It is a shameful rejection of our obligations in international law. It should be remembered by everyone in this House—we are the last generation that really remembers this stuff; I remember my father, having coming back from the Second World War, telling us stories of the horrors—that the reason why the 1951 refugee convention was created was the problems that many had in getting out of Nazi Germany and away from persecution. The drafters of the convention made it very clear—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Sorry. They made it clear that we have to treat a person as a refugee, not simply according to the way in which they made their way to another country.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Smith: we cannot delay the business of dealing with the persecution and misery faced by homosexual people in conversion therapy. That is a promise that was made, and I hope the Government stick to it. This is not about a failure to protect religion; it is about preventing people from being treated horribly—exorcised and so on—in ways that are inhumane and do not recognise their essential sexuality and humanity. Please proceed with that Bill.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook. Maiden speeches are never easy, and in these circumstances they are very difficult indeed.
As a number of people have said, the gracious Speech foreshadows the internet safety Bill, which is intended to address some of the real harms inflicted on society, particularly on the young and the vulnerable, by the abuses and misuses that have become apparent over the nearly two decades since the Communications Act 2003.
I welcome the promised pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill is large, complex and comprehensive but far from oven-ready. I hope, for example, that we will take evidence from the NSPCC about its concerns that the draft online safety Bill leaves out of scope a large number of commercial pornography sites that have the potential to cause harm to children. My noble friend Lord Foster has referred to the absence of gambling reform; the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, drew attention in his report to the absence of any attempts to curtail harm to our democracy; and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, mentioned scams and fraud, so there is much for the Select Committee to consider.
Over the coming year, we will have the opportunity to produce legislation that is genuinely world-leading in bringing the internet within the rule of law, but much will depend on how Ofcom perceives its role. When Ofcom was first mooted as a regulator, I remember it being said that “Murdoch’s lawyers will eat them for breakfast.” That has not been the case, thanks in part to the amendment to its powers proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, during the passage of the 2003 Act, which gave Ofcom a hierarchy of responsibilities, the first of which was to protect the interests of citizens. It is that hierarchy of duties that gives Ofcom the power and flexibility to intervene where broader public interest issues are involved. It will be Parliament’s job to ensure that Ofcom retains those powers and that flexibility in the new regulatory landscape that we will be mapping out in the Bill.
Another success of the 2003 legislation was the carving out of the rights and responsibilities of our public service broadcasters. Among those responsibilities was to provide access to the work of the independent production companies. The result has been to see what was a cottage industry develop into a worldwide success story, employing some 75,000 people and attracting upwards of £3 billion a year in inward investment. There is a very real danger that the very successful ecology of our media industries could be irreparably damaged by financial interests and ideological vandalism. It is essential that the new broadcasting settlement recognises, as did the 2003 Act, the need to protect prominence and other benefits in return for the unique contribution to our culture, creative industries and regional and national identities which the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 provide.
As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, we are in a culture war between old values, which have helped shape our liberal democracies over the last 100 years, and the challenges to those values thrown up by the new technologies. It is the responsibility of Parliament now to make sure that we are in a good place to win that war.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, whose wisdom I look forward to hearing more often, for an excellent maiden speech. I also refer to my interests, stated in the register, in policing and housing.
A number of Bills mentioned in the gracious Speech will require our police to enforce new laws and regulations. We have already seen considerable disquiet expressed regarding what might amount to a very significant reduction in the ability of the public to engage in peaceful political protest, particularly where such protests directly or indirectly impact on others. I will reserve more detailed comments on this Bill for when it reaches your Lordships’ House, although I note the wise comments made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. For now, I want briefly to lay it alongside my experience of 12 months of rapidly changing coronavirus regulations.
On many occasions, the precise boundaries between regulations—matters that police can enforce—and guidance, to which they can only direct our attention, have been seriously blurred. Meanwhile, ministerial statements have put pressure on our police to issue fixed penalty notices, but the Crown Prosecution Service is quite clear that an adequate chain of evidence will be almost impossible to achieve.
I fear that the nine Peelian principles, which have shaped UK policing since 1829, are being eroded. Behind those principles, carved out in the years immediately after the Manchester Peterloo massacre of 1819, lies the central tenet that the power and authority of our police come from the consent of the public, not the power of the state. The will of the people cannot be collapsed into the ambitions and policies of the Government of the day, no matter what mandate or majority it may hold in the lower House of this Parliament. Our police must never be turned from agents of the public into agents of the state, let alone the enforcers of mere ministerial policy. I look forward to some robust debates in this House during the forthcoming Session.
I turn briefly to two other matters. Several weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister for Housing, assured me that he would arrange for national representatives of those living in unsafe apartment buildings to meet not only himself and his staff, as they have been doing, but representatives of Her Majesty’s Treasury. I know that the noble Lord has made strenuous efforts to fulfil that promise; meetings have been arranged but then postponed or cancelled due to the Treasury not being available. It is simply not good enough for a major department to delay and obfuscate in this way. I would be extremely grateful for reassurances, either in this debate or in writing straight after, that this matter will be promptly rectified.
Finally, I am grateful that legislation to ban conversion therapy is now under consideration. I share that sense of urgency of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who both spoke in the last few minutes, and pray that the necessary consultation will be focused and time-limited. The General Synod of the Church of England passed a motion to outlaw such therapy several years ago, and by massive majorities, including my right reverend friends on these Benches. However, I fear that too much emphasis may be placed on the methods such so-called therapies employ. Good criminal law concentrates on the impact on the victim; scrutiny as to the traumatic impact of the particular techniques used by perpetrators is far better entrusted to the courts, which can carefully weigh up the evidence in each case, rather than make it central to the legislation.
I look forward to our debates throughout what will be my first full Session as a Member of this House.
Lord Bird (CB)
It is wonderful to be able to talk about justice, home affairs and culture. Based on my own experience, if you want to sort out justice and all the problems of people who end up in the justice system—often people from poverty and need, people who have a predictable road to failure from the very beginning—you do not sort it out through courts, probation and all those things. You give them something to do.
My own pathway out of wrongdoing was to become involved in culture. I became a posh geezer because I started to go to art galleries and read books. As I have told this House exhaustively over the last four or five years, I learnt to read at the age of 16 in a boys’ prison, in a library supported by the local authority. We know that local authorities support 3,000 libraries in England and 350 museums.
In my humble opinion, if you want to change something, you have to change it tangentially. If you go on looking after the poor by simply giving them money—not giving them an opportunity to move on, social mobility or the chance to read, write and learn all the skills necessary to get out of poverty—you end up with this almost arithmetical, dead, dry belief in what justice is. Justice is often something that happens because you have given somebody the chance of some education, some social training, some culture and some arts along the way.
I declare my interest not just in that I used this cultural system to become who I am today but in that I am a VP of the Local Government Association—I think we are all VPs of the LGA; there seem to be a load of them. I am fascinated by the fact that we have an industry that is bigger than the automobile or aerospace industries, oil and gas or life sciences. It is called the cultural industry and it brings in circa £111 billion a year. That is where we need to spend our money. Pre-Covid, it was growing faster than any other industry in the United Kingdom.
What is so beautiful about culture, the arts and sport is that they create social mobility. We know it is not fashionable to like social mobility, largely among people who have social mobility. However, I assure noble Lords that if you do not have social mobility, what you need is social mobility—then you can say, “I don’t like social mobility, because I’m now socially mobile.” Is that not brilliant?
I want the House to recognise the role of local authorities. They are the bedrock— they are the libraries and galleries. They are providing the necessary services that grow this enormous tree in the United Kingdom called the creative industries.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the great oratory of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who I have not had the pleasure of hearing in person in this Chamber before. I think we are all very much looking forward to hearing more of that in person, rather than down a video link. On the subject in question today, I was really struck by the level of ambition and scale in the scope of the legislative agenda outlined in the gracious Speech—it certainly is a packed programme, as the late Mr Ronnie Barker might have said. Despite the breadth of the subject matter, I find myself following pretty closely in the footsteps of my noble friend Lady Fullbrook and, indeed, of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I compliment my noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her most excellent maiden speech. It seems that our arms will be closely linked in various provisions of the upcoming police and criminal justice Bill.
I will concentrate my remarks on the criminal justice area. It is imperative that at all times we ensure that legislation in this field aligns closely with the legitimate expectations of society to be properly protected and for the police to be given the authority to deliver common-sense, pragmatic solutions supported, in large part, by the general public. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower said, we are extremely fortunate to be served by highly trained, dedicated police officers who operate under tremendous pressure and, in these days, under a quite extraordinary level of scrutiny. The role of the police and the breadth of the areas in which they are now obliged to become involved often puts them in the unenviable position of having to act as umpires in very delicate fields which were previously not their preserve, but the public expect be protected, whether at home or online.
At home, burglary has an exceptionally low clear-up rate: I understand it is in the order of 3% or thereabouts, and it would be a matter of huge regret if the impression were to be given that this was not a high priority. Similarly, there is a perception developing that certain crimes are now just tolerated and treated more as an irritating part of modern life, rather than as the fraud, intimidation and theft they really are. I am talking now about crimes that are delivered through online, digital means. I do not think they should be referred to as digital crimes; they are not, they are fraud or theft that happen to be delivered through a digital medium, be it automated text messages, automated voicemails, emails or other methods of communication.
As I was writing this speech, two text messages came through to my device purporting to be from high-street banks advising of suspect transactions. Other members of my family at the same time, and other friends I checked, had received the identical approach for theft, essentially. I think there has to be a change of mindset around this. There must be hundreds of millions of such attempts at fraud happening every year in the UK alone. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that we should not tolerate this level of attempted and, no doubt, successful fraud. He is very much more of a technical and industry expert than I am, certainly, and very much of that activity may well originate from overseas, but this is a technologically enabled crime and I believe it is time that the UK authorities and their agencies took a more aggressive, technologically enabled approach to prosecute, disrupt and close down these gangs. I noted what the noble Lord said about the role of the banks in all this, and that is certainly an area where I would favour closer attention. Of course, I welcome the work of the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau and Action Fraud, but it is clear that an epidemic of digitally enabled fraud is under way and a new approach is required.
Finally, before I close I want to comment on the provisions of the reintroduced Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. It is very clearly wrong for groups of people to be able to commit trespass with vehicles, to drive on to land they do not own and do not have permission to be on, to set up camp, with associated very often serious criminal behaviour, doing what they want, disrupting the life of the law-abiding majority and sheltering behind the knowledge that legal powers do not exist to deliver a swift resolution. If ever there was one, this is a classic area where the public are bewildered that these powers do not currently exist. The Bill would correct this and give the police the powers they need to restore the peace, which would be a clear win for common sense and for justice.
Lord Bach (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on an excellent maiden speech and, secondly, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount.
This is the first time in five years I have not had to declare an interest when addressing the House. I stood down as Police and Crime Commissioner for Leicestershire and Rutland only last week, and from now I look forward to once again playing a slightly greater role in the House’s debates, not least on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which I suspect will take up quite a lot of time later this year.
Given the recent publication of the Home Office’s first report into police and crime commissioners, and, of course, in the context of the gracious Speech, I want to speak a little about my experience as a police and crime commissioner—perhaps setting out a few early thoughts on leaving the role.
PCCs, police and crime commissioners, are now an established part of the policing scene: after all, they have existed for eight and a half years and have been through three sets of elections. Their role is probably not what the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, had in mind when he persuaded the then leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, to introduce them. However, they clearly play a significant role in every police force area.
On the whole, PCCs have shown moderation and good sense whatever political party—or none—they belong to. The Home Office and the police have always been concerned that this would not be the case. Thankfully we now have an association that is worthy of the name. It is now well lead and provides an excellent service to all its members. However, I have concerns that now, for the first time, there are no independent PCCs and one party has many more police and crime commissioners than the other. There may be something of an outbreak of party-political grandstanding. I hope noble Lords agree that that would be a grave mistake. It would put the police in obvious difficulties as they are, of course, politically neutral, and members of the public—to put it mildly—would not like it.
While it is obviously the principal role of a police and crime commissioner to hold the chief constable in their force to account and to ensure that the force is efficient, effective and legitimate, there are other major roles that PCCs must treat as seriously. There is the requirement to protect all from harm, to make people feel secure and to care for victims of crime. This exciting and crucial responsibility can be done only in partnership with other public bodies: the police, local authorities, probation and the health services—not least the mental health services. Partnership is great and it is our best hope.
However, what makes this task so much more difficult than it needs to be are the bad decisions taken year by year by the coalition Government to dramatically cut the money the police had and that local authorities have. Of course, the present Government have changed their view as far as the police are concerned, but I have to end by saying that one can see the damage those early decisions did every day.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. I was sorry to see the gracious Speech did not mention anything about the health and well-being of injured police officers, especially as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is being considered by Parliament at the moment and was touched on in the gracious Speech. For many years I was a trustee of the Police Rehabilitation Centre at Flint House in Oxfordshire, following which I was invited to become president of the Police Treatment Centres, which are in Harrogate and Auchterarder in Perthshire. So, I declare that interest and also my other interests as set out in the register.
The PTCs are a two-centre police charity, founded 120 years ago, delivering first-class treatment to police officers and retired officers who have been injured on or off duty, or who need special support. Attendance on the psychological well-being programme alone has increased 87% in five years—an indication of the increasing need for such support as our police officers face ever more serious and traumatic incidents. The PTCs cost about £5 million each year to run, and 90% of those costs come from individual officer donations. The rest of the money comes from commercial activities run by the charity and fundraising. Of course, it has been extremely difficult this year. Some forces also give us grants, and I would particularly like to mention the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which gives large grants to us every year, again from its own officers. However, we estimate we have lost income of around £400,000 since 2020 to date.
The Government do not give any grants or provide any financial support to the PTCs, unlike that which is given in huge amounts to the military charities, running into tens of millions each year; nor does the NHS give us any money, unlike that given to Combat Stress or Help for Heroes. Yet we save it considerable amounts of money by providing treatment that it would otherwise have to provide for these officers. Independent reports by Robert Gordon University on the efficacy of the PTCs, in 2017 and 2019, suggested that they delivered a cost benefit of £3.80 for every £1 spent, in terms of value back to taxpayers, which translated into a saving for forces and taxpayers of over £16.7 million. In 2019, we treated 3,777 police patients, of whom 2,935 were serving officers and others were retirees or day patients.
Our excellent CEO, Patrick Cairns MBE, a former senior army officer, has commented that from his personal experience, and speaking to thousands of police patients every year, he believes we deliver career-, relationship- and life-saving treatment. Some officers who contemplated taking their own lives have been helped so successfully that they have credited their stay as a turning point in their battle, after suffering extreme psychological trauma. Officers and patients who are entitled to treatment come from all over the United Kingdom. The demand for support from the centres increases every year, with a 7% increase in attendance from 2018-19 alone. The Government should be putting regular funding into the PTCs, so I hope the Minister will recognise that this is an exceptional charity which enables the return of more police officers to the front line as a result of the intervention and support given. I hope she will take this proposal back to the Secretary of State for consideration.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I want to say something about refugee policy and add a few words, perhaps at the end, about the press and electronic media and, if time allows, a little bit about delays in the courts.
I hope when we get the borders Bill that, as a result of the consultation going on, it will be much improved compared with the policy statement of last March. My first point is that the Government propose to discriminate on the basis of how people make their journey to find safety. I believe firmly that the method of travel should not determine the right to asylum. I further believe that such discrimination would be illegal and a breach of the 1951 Geneva Convention. I am assured that this is so by many people, NGOs and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In any case, the policy would be unworkable. Is there any reason to think that European countries would accept the return of asylum seekers who, according our Government, have travelled here by the wrong route? Can we see the French Government accepting people who have come over here on dinghies or in the back of a lorry? I do not think so. If that policy—which our Government want—was adopted by all countries, the accident of geography would mean that Greece, Italy, and Malta would have had to accept thousands, indeed millions, of people who reached those countries for safety.
Obviously, we in this country cannot take all refugees. I argue, however, that we should take our share of responsibility along with other European countries. The Government have closed the two main routes for child refugees in Europe, both under my amendment to the 2016 Act and by not seeking to negotiate the continuation of the family reunion provisions of the Dublin treaty, which expired at the end of December when we left the EU. It is important that the Government ensure that there are safe routes to the UK for refugees. Of course, the Government are right in wanting to undermine the traffickers, who cause so much misery and so many deaths on the seas. It is the absence of safe routes that ensure that the traffickers are kept in business—it is a godsend to them. Clearly, we need safe routes for refugees to come into the UK.
Secondly, we should give priority to the family reunion rights for refugees. What could be a more fundamental right than the family reunion of people who have fled danger in their country?
Thirdly, what is to happen to the child refugees who are now in northern France or on the Greek islands? We cannot just say no to them and say that they have to take a legal route to the UK. In effect, we are saying, “There is no legal route for you and you have to take your chances on the back of lorries or in unsafe boats and dinghies”—something the Government have been anxious to prevent. The way to prevent it is by opening the doors again to safe and legal routes. That has been put very clearly by a British writer born to Somali parents in Kenya called Warsan Shire, who reached the UK at the age of one. She wrote that
“no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land”.
That seems a clear summary of what we should be about as a country.
I turn briefly to the internet safety Bill and related measures. It is ironic that at a time when the future of local and national newspapers is in doubt, many are struggling to survive because online giants such as Google and Facebook are paying nothing for news content. It is the social media or online platforms that should pay news providers for the news. In 2019, Google and Facebook took 80% of the £14 billion spent on digital advertising, and national and local news titles took only 4%. The Australian Government have shown the way to do it; we should do likewise.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her wonderful maiden speech today, and my Front-Bench colleagues on the way they have introduced this debate.
I will focus on—and make a plea to my Front Bench that in bringing these Bills forward they look at—knife crime. I had a failed attempt to bring a Private Member’s Bill to look at knife crime monitoring; it did not get into the ballot. I hope that I can use these Bills to ask the Government to consider making sure that those who have gone to prison and have been released and those who have been cautioned for carrying a knife are monitored for at least six months after they have been released or cautioned—I think we will get cross-party support. I say this on behalf of all those families whose children have been murdered because of knife crime.
I bring this to the House after speaking to a mother who lost her 16 year-old son because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. A person who had been released from prison and was carrying a knife—he had been in prison for knife crime—decided to stab this 16 year-old in the heart, and he died. That mother and her bravery in trying to find support for not just herself but other families has moved me to plead with my Front Bench to have a look at this.
I do not know how it would work; I am sure that the clever people that work with Ministers will be able to find a route. I hope it will not be a huge cost on resource. However, we owe it to the victims and their families to be able to assure them that people who have committed a crime are at least watched to ensure that they get the support that they sometimes need, or that the public are protected from another incident like the one that this lady in Leicester experienced. I am from Leicester, and Leicester has a high rate of knife crime. So I plead on behalf of all the families undergoing this kind of experience. This lady herself has reached out to other parents to see how she could support them. We should not, however, let people undertake this support among themselves without providing support ourselves. That is my plea.
I was not going to touch on this, but having listened to a few other speeches I will finish with a few comments on migrants. Most migrants do not make the dangerous journey because they want to. Nobody would want to leave their families behind and come across dangerous waters. The Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we need to deal with this issue. However, I firmly believe that we keep looking at this the wrong way round. Let us help the countries build their own infrastructures so that people feel safe to live in their homes in their own countries. That applies to economic migrants. Where there is war and risk to life, the argument is very different. I hope, however, that in the 21st century we look at the levelling-up agenda not just in the context of the UK. Covid has taught all of us that we are only as safe as everyone else is, so we have to help level up not just in our own country but globally.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I had the privilege of being on the Select Committee on the Social and Economic Impact of the Gambling Industry, which reported in July 2020. I draw attention to my declaration of interests in that report, in particular to my work as a barrister in the field of claims by problem gamblers against gambling operators. I also sit on the executive committee of Peers for Gambling Reform. I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, as the chair of that body. What I will say now is a coda to the powerful speech that he made a couple of hours ago.
The Select Committee report—and, for that matter, just about everyone who has considered gambling in the online age—identifies the scale of the problem that we now face. The liberalisation of the statutory regime that occurred when the Gambling Act 2005 came into force went too far, even at that point, but in any case online gambling was at an embryonic stage then. Some noble Lords, but probably not all, may know that it is now possible to turn one’s smartphone into a casino within seconds and gamble on virtual slot machines, poker tables, roulette tables, whatever takes one’s fancy. The only limit, in practice, to the amount that you can wager is the amount that you are able to deposit by debit card. You can play multiple tables or machines. The speed of play is far quicker than anything available in the physical world. The games are artfully designed. Most people can resist the temptation and gamble safely and enjoyably—and the liberty to do so must be protected—but many cannot. It is not an easy thing to measure, but one not implausible estimate is that there are 2 million problem gamblers in the UK.
Realism is required, it seems to me. It is unrealistic and unfair, really, to expect gambling operators to take effective steps to minimise problem gambling. There is an obvious conflict, which can be briefly expressed as, “The bigger the problem, the bigger the profit on the bottom line”. The stakes are high for the operators. Gross gambling yield in the UK, which is defined as the amount retained by the industry after the payment of winnings before payment of operating costs, is now a little over £14 billion a year. It might have risen over lockdown; we shall see.
Fundamental changes are needed and they will have to be enforced. Some changes certainly require primary legislation. Many important and necessary changes do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said. The Gambling Commission has extensive powers and it can be required to use them. It is able to control or prohibit the use of so-called VIP schemes and is beginning to develop provisions based on the difficult but important concept of affordability. The 2005 Act itself provides machinery enabling the imposition of a statutory levy that could fund research and treatment. Inexplicably, that has not happened yet.
Primary legislation will probably be required to create a gambling ombudsman. This is essential. The ombudsman will have powers to call for documents and information that will bring to light any improper exploitation of problem gamblers. The operators will then be very strongly motivated to act appropriately.
To my mind, it is a little troubling that it seems the online safety Bill will have nothing at all to say about gambling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I hope that the Minister might be able to address that omission in her closing remarks.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech, and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, because this is the first debate I have spoken in since he joined your Lordships’ House and has been sitting on the Front Bench. I will focus my remarks on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, and the contentious measures in it about protests and demonstrations. I support the Bill and those measures, although I regret that they are necessary. I will explain why.
Over the past five years, we have experienced a series of shocking political events that have exposed how divided our society has become. For me, the most graphic illustration of that division was the demonstrations and protests in April 2019 that brought parts of central London to a standstill for several days. To be clear, I am talking not about the subject of the protesters’ demonstrations but about how they went about their protest.
Until then, I think most of us assumed that it was not possible for people, in the name of any cause, however noble or important, to block other people’s rights of way and to get away with it. The inconvenience and cost of the disruption that the protest caused was reason enough to be angry, as was the inertia of the police in the face of such disruption. But what dismayed me was the realisation that common consensus among law-abiding people was breaking down—the common consensus that nothing justifies one group of citizens wilfully and deliberately obstructing other law-abiding people from going about their business.
One thing that has always united the vast majority of us, regardless of our differences, is what is acceptable behaviour in public, including when it comes to how we protest and demonstrate in support of things we believe in or are against. My regret is that we now have to legislate to make something that never used to be in doubt undeniable in law.
Of course, one thing that is still uncertain is whether there will be prosecutions or convictions in the light of this legislation. Only a month ago, a jury acquitted protesters who had caused criminal damage to private property, even though the judge directed the jury that there was no defence in law for their actions. I would welcome the Minister’s reaction to that.
That brings me back to what has caused this fracture in society and why I believe that Parliament has no choice but to act. As hard as it may be for some noble Lords—and Members in the other place—to accept, the political realignment we are seeing in Britain is in part because many voters cannot be sure that people such as parliamentarians and political and social campaigners, who may have different views, stand for and share the same belief in upholding common standards of behaviour which unite all law-abiding people. As regrettable as this legislation may be, it is necessary because these same citizens need us—Parliament—to stand up for them and what unites us with them.
The gracious Speech said that the Government will legislate to
“level up opportunities across all parts of the United Kingdom”.
I believe that all sides of this House support this goal but, if we really want to achieve it, we should keep in mind that the inequality and unfairness that people feel is not only about lack of economic opportunities. It is also about the erosion of standards which all of us must uphold if we are all to have an equal opportunity to succeed.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech.
It is no surprise that there was no mention of the arts and creative industries in the Queen’s Speech, yet I wonder if we have not reached a critical juncture in their future. This is not just about Covid and the effects it has had on the arts. Organisations are struggling, and many freelancers have still not received any support, despite the welcome—if necessary—recovery fund. This is also about the longer-term effects of Brexit, alongside the Government’s stance on the future of skills in this country.
The Government should urgently reconsider the proposed 50% cut to the funding of higher education courses in arts subjects. This would be not only disastrous in its own right but destructive in ways the Government may not yet fully appreciate. The arts sector has been unanimous in its condemnation. Andrew Lloyd-Webber has rightly called the proposals “idiotic and short-sighted”. They are so for a number of reasons, not least because, as a society, we should not have to make a choice between science and technology on the one hand and the arts on the other. As the Incorporated Society of Musicians says in its helpful briefing, it is “a false dichotomy”. To say that such courses lead to dead-end jobs, as Gavin Williamson put it last week, is quite simply wrong. Apart from anything else, the arts and creative industries are of great financial worth to this country. They are—and should be—considered a significant aspect of its future.
There is too the incalculable, central importance of innovation and creativity of design, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, discussed in his excellent speech last week. This has also been mentioned by other noble Lords today. Design is both the bridge and glue between the arts and sciences. It gets no mention in the build back better plan. I raised a concern about design in education in an Oral Question on industrial strategy on 26 April. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, replied,
“design and innovation are going to be key and crucial”.—[Official Report, 26/4/21; col. 2065.]
I agree. If so, there should be greater opportunities to study art and design in schools and beyond, not fewer. This is a strategic priority.
We still need a government-backed Covid insurance for live events, even at this stage, in mid-May. Festivals are still being cancelled. Hundreds will be cancelled without insurance. This will continue beyond the summer, for events both large and small. In response to my Oral Question on 27 April the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said,
“we need to be absolutely confident that any scheme would result in an increase in activity”.—[Official Report, 27/4/21; col. 2146.]
With respect, is that not why we need insurance, because of the uncertainty which may yet persist? It is required until some form of commercial insurance can be made available. This is what Governments are for.
I raise again, as I did last year, the concern over whether new planning laws, which will encourage housebuilding and allow freer rein to developers, will also lead to the closure of community and arts buildings and spaces, including studio spaces, arts centres, theatres and music venues, as well as discouraging new spaces. We need to keep an eye on this.
With the continuing destructive effects of Brexit, the performing arts urgently need a bespoke visa waiver agreement, additional to the TCA, to be negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, alongside much else that needs to be resolved, including work permits, cabotage and carnets. These are not teething problems but a direct result of us leaving the single market. The Carry on Touring campaign has its online summit on these concerns on Thursday, and I hope that many Members, especially Ministers, will attend that important event.
Finally, as recommended in a new report by the Writers All-Party Parliamentary Group, we need a creators’ council, whereby many of these concerns can be directly communicated by artists, including freelancers, to government. This is an excellent idea which has growing support, and I hope that the Government take note.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in response to the gracious Speech, I shall very briefly look at some issues concerning the police. I know only too well that policing is an area of public service that is rarely absent from the headlines; whether it be in reality or depicted on film or television, people will have their own perception of what policing is really like in the real world. I am often asked whether “The Sweeney”, “The Bill” or “Line of Duty” are true to life. I can put your Lordships’ minds at rest: murders do not get solved in an hour and junior officers, as much as they would like to, do not arrest senior officers, handcuff them and march them to the cells through the office past all their colleagues. It may be good for ratings, but it is not the real world.
It is sometimes said that a country is judged by how it treats its prisoners. I believe that it is also judged by the way in which the police treat the public. In the UK, thank goodness, we are policed by consent. This is demonstrated—to the astonishment of visitors—by the fact that in Britain the police are largely unarmed, apart from a baton and sometimes an unlethal taser. In my days on the beat, other than in large metropolitan areas perhaps, police officers lived in the areas that they policed; we lived in police houses in villages and towns, and local people knew who we were and where we were. There was often an office attached to the house, and we would get to know the locals, particularly the villains. There were no computers then, of course, few cars and a paper-based intelligence system, provided by an excellent relationship with law-abiding members of the community, who often tipped us off. It was epitomised by that excellent TV programme a few years ago, “Heartbeat”, which many of your Lordships will have seen.
Before I am reduced to tears, I shall explain the point that I am leading to. Policing is not about being an occupying army exercising force; it is about citizens in uniform acting on behalf of the community to keep order. I appreciate that society has changed, but I hope that our values have not. We need to get back to community policing where possible, but that requires feet on the ground, visibility and, most of all, approachability. I therefore welcome the previous commitment to recruit 20,000 more officers. When will that undertaking be completed? In modern Britain, police officers should also be representative, so could the Minister also comment on whether ethnic or racial minorities are applying to join in sufficient numbers?
Finally, as a training instructor I used to jokingly tell recruits that our customers were always wrong—but seriously, unlike in many other organisations, serious complaints are quite rightly dealt with independently. “Who polices the police?” is an important question. It is essential that such matters are seen to be dealt with fairly and appropriately, and above all speedily, for the benefit of the complainant and of the officer involved. Some of those investigations can drag on for years to the detriment of the complainant and the police officer concerned. In the interests of fairness and justice, can the Minister assure the House that the Home Office will try to ensure a far quicker turnaround in the complaints procedure?
Lord Farmer (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her fine maiden speech.
I will touch on four areas in her Majesty’s gracious Speech. First, I share others’ reservations about the online safety Bill repealing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act: despite its limitations, this would have prevented children inadvertently seeing online pornography on commercial sites. I understand that the Government wanted to cover user-generated pornography, but much work had already been completed on the planned DEA protections, which could have been in place for the last 18 months.
This new Bill must deliver, as a minimum, all the Digital Economy Act’s child-protection measures—yet it leaves unmentioned pornography or age verification. Can the Minister assure the House, first, that the clear and unambiguous research showing considerable harms to children of easy access to pornography will be given paramount consideration in this legislation; and, secondly, that cyber-libertarian ideology, which holds that internet regulation is impossible, unworkable and unwanted, will not hold sway?
Secondly, will the Government’s legislation to ban conversion therapy extend beyond uncontrovertibly cruel and coercive efforts to change someone’s sexuality or gender, risking criminalising faith leaders, parents and friends approached by those who are ambivalent and confused, say, about same-sex attraction? In Victoria, Australia, it is illegal to engage in prayer that does not affirm same-sex attraction. Yet, ironically, this discriminates against gay Christians who, for deeply held faith-based and other personal reasons, want to remain celibate but are, in a cruel twist of coercive liberalism, denied support to uphold a freely made decision. Ed Shaw, pastor of Bristol’s Emmanuel City Centre church describes how the only people exerting unwelcome pressure on him to change his beliefs and behaviour have been
“gay Christians who have rejected orthodox church teaching—and the wider culture that thinks I am crazy to embrace it.”
Thirdly, as a co-founder of the Family Hubs Network, I welcome the Government’s commitment both to ensure that children have the best start in life, including by rolling out family hubs, and to address lost learning during the pandemic so that every child’s education enables them to fulfil their potential. Speaking as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for 22q11 Syndrome, the second most common genetic syndrome after Down’s, I ask the Minister how educational catch-up will be achieved where learning difficulties associated with genetic conditions such as 22q make this far more difficult?
Finally, I welcome the integrating imperative of the health and care Bill. However, integration cannot mean overmedicalisation. If hospitals become the default hub for integrated care systems, this could make integrated services less, not more, available to those who struggle most to travel, such as those on low incomes and those with significant childcare responsibilities. Hospitals are not best placed to deliver social provision with significant health implications, such as family support. In Essex, local family hubs enable prevention by integrating paediatric health with all the other support families need to thrive.
Parenting impacts greatly on children’s health and is a recognised public health issue; well-functioning couple relationships are associated with many health gains for adults and help to make families safe, stable and caring for children. In summary, to be effective for people rather than systems, integration needs to include local support for good-quality relationships and nurture these health assets.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly about a DCMS issue that I hope will lead to legislation in the current Session but was not in the Queen’s Speech: the outcome arising from the Government’s decision to establish a fan-based review of football, chaired by Tracey Crouch MP. Noble Lords will remember that this was prompted by the furious reaction of supporters to the monstrous plan by the six wealthiest clubs—the majority of them foreign-owned—to break away from the FA Premier League to form the European Super League.
That episode demonstrated the inability of the English game to reform itself. It has been given plenty of opportunities to do so over the past 30 years, with numerous reviews of the governance of the Football Association, and inquiries into racism, hooliganism and so much more, but little has happened. The power balance within the game is flawed, and there is chronic financial disparity and deep-seated unsustainability, with clubs driven out of business and much-loved community assets destroyed, as greedy owners have been allowed to profit from the sale of stadiums, with supporters ignored or treated with contempt.
The European Super League was the latest attempt to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a small number of owners regardless of the disastrous effect on the remaining clubs, but there have been others, such as Project Big Picture and the proposed expansion of the UEFA Champions League. In the face of all this, the organisation which is supposed to be the governing body of English football, the FA, has appeared weak and divided, its credibility shot to pieces. Vested interests have prevented football speaking with a united voice.
I mentioned the succession of reviews that have attempted to solve these issues. I declare an interest as I served as vice-chairman of the Football Task Force 22 years ago. We attempted to tackle the issues which alienated supporters, such as hyperinflating ticket prices and exorbitant prices for merchandise, as clubs declared themselves businesses and made fortunes for their shareholder chairmen by floating on the stock market. The Football Task Force published two reports which were broadly accepted, on racism and disabled access, but the third and final commercial report, which addressed issues ranging from replica shirts and ticket pricing to the involvement of PLCs in the game, and aimed to deliver a fair deal for supporters, was strongly opposed by the Football Association, the Premier League and the Football League. In that final report, the majority of us made it clear that if football could not reform itself, the Government should legislate and introduce statutory regulation.
Therefore, I welcome the inclusion, in the terms of reference of Tracey Crouch’s review, an assessment of the need for an independent football regulator charged with implementing regulation and compliance, backed by legislation. I am sure that one of the documents that she will study will be Manifesto for Change, published six months ago by a distinguished group that includes the former chairman of the FA, David Bernstein, former Sports Minister Helen Grant MP, who is promoting a Private Member’s Bill in the Commons to establish a regulator, Andy Burnham, the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, and Gary Neville. I conclude with a flavour of what they say:
“Clubs take excessive financial risks to achieve promotion, particularly incurring huge salary commitments. Relegation leaves clubs with parachute payments that temporarily meet unsustainable wages. Competing clubs consequently have to match such wages, creating an inflationary spiral … Stadiums have been sold off for commercial exploitation, fit and proper person tests are carried out in a weak and inconsistent fashion, fans, the lifeblood of the game, feel let down and neglected.”
This has not changed.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I confess that I felt a frisson of excitement at seeing the long-awaited Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill in the gracious Speech. At last, free speech is on the agenda. The Bill is a valiant attempt by the Government to counter the chilling effect of censorship on campus and to strengthen the legal duty to uphold open debate—hurrah for that. I have some reservations. Will it lead to an overly litigious framework that interferes in institutional autonomy? Can you really use fines and threats to guard academic freedom? I am always nervous of outsourcing political battles to lawyers, especially when the problem is less procedural and more cultural.
To those who insist that free speech on campus is hyped-up reactionary scaremongering, tell that the Lisa Keogh, a law student at Abertay University, facing a career-threatening disciplinary action for discrimination for merely arguing biological facts about men and testosterone and women and vaginas in a seminar on feminism. Or say it is exaggerated to the teacher training student at Manchester Metropolitan University who has been threatened with a formal fitness-to-practise panel after raising the disgraceful lack of educational solidarity shown to the Batley Grammar School teacher suspended and forced into hiding, and branded Islamophobic, for showing a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad in a lesson on religious tolerance.
Campus cancel culture is a real and present danger, but I have chosen to speak today because if the Government posit themselves as a champion of free speech on campus, I am worried that aspects of two of the Bills listed here seriously threaten free expression off campus. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill gives the police enormous new powers over public space and threatens, I would say, the very purpose of protest. It is most likely playing on the popular irritation with the undoubtedly anti-social, nihilistic and misanthropic tactics of groups such as Extinction Rebellion. It focuses on the noisy and disruptive process that may cause distress and may inconvenience public services. In other words, the police could stop any protest if assessed as a risk of being too noisy or disruptive. The police already have an armoury of draconian powers that frankly, it seems to me, they fail to enforce consistently. Is it because of a seemingly more politicised or partisan police force, or is it confusion about when or how to intervene? The police do not need more laws, but better leadership. What the public need is the freedom to demonstrate dissent—from Black Lives Matter supporters to anti-lockdown demonstrators—however unpopular their cause to some.
Parts of the online safety Bill have united civil libertarians across left and right, described as
“a frightening and historic attack on freedom of speech.”
The Bill imposes a duty of care on big tech providers to remove content that is lawful for adults but said to be harmful—harmful not in the JS Mill sense, or meaning physical harm, but using concepts stolen straight from the campus safe space canceller’s playbook. Harmful is anything assessed as risking
“a significant adverse … psychological impact on an adult of ordinary sensibilities”
—whatever that is. This vague and subjective diktat will inevitably mean Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram being empowered to double down on removing controversial or offensive views even quicker, and invites platforms to snoop on users more routinely. All of this is to be enforced by Ofcom, the state regulator that this year enlarged the number of protected characteristics, in its hate speech guidance for broadcasters, from four to 48—a catch-all so large that many speeches in this place would fall foul of it—creating ever more people who say they are a victim. That same Ofcom has shamefully elided gender critical feminism with transphobic hate speech too often. The Bill also gives Ofcom the power to police disinformation or misinformation. That should at least give us some pause, if not chill us. In a democratic society, citizens should be free to make up their own mind whether they trust what they read, sources and so on.
The Government boast that the online safety Bill will make the UK the safest place to go online. The danger instead is that it makes the UK a world leader in monitoring and sanitising dangerous views online. I have heard many eloquent and passionate speeches from my noble friends here, opposing laws used to criminalise protest and free speech, but usually they are talking about other countries, such as Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. I hope to hear equally compelling opposition closer to home, and that the Government will resolve their split personality approach. Are they free speech champions or world-beating censors?
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on a fine maiden speech. I am sorry that we will have to wait for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. Congratulations too to the Chancellor on the initial financial interventions he made to try to keep business and the arts still standing, but there is pitifully little in the Queen’s Speech on that desperately challenged creative industries—in particular music, in which I declare my interest as listed in the register.
The decision to concentrate the Chancellor’s resources on existing and proven organisation— understandable in many ways—has left many individuals to fall through the support net. I of course accept that one cannot please all of the people all of the time but, sadly, a confluence of government policies means that we now have a profoundly worrying outlook for the creative industries, despite the fact that the Government are always at great pains to point out that they value and acknowledge the billions of pounds that these industries generate for the Exchequer.
I have a quick question for the Minister. If 20,000 football fans can sing “Abide with me” at Wembley, why can a socially distanced choir still not sing together? If, indeed, real value is given to what creativity has brought to this country—not just financially but socially and aesthetically—surely we ought to be securing its future by investing in the opportunities and training that we give to succeeding generations. Yet we seem to be doing quite the reverse. First, disastrously, the arts came off the national curriculum and, while hubs do a certain amount for music, once again many fall through the system. Now we are told that there is to be a 50% cut in higher education for arts subjects. What are we to make of that? What do the Government think that says about their priorities, in particular for the less privileged—those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and who we are keen to see level up?
My noble friend Lord Bird potently made my point: social cohesion improves when people are given the creative means of self-expression. The number of children and young adults who find their way into music, art or dance because of enlightened exposure at a tender age is remarkable. Whether it is the London Symphony Orchestra, a string quartet or Radiohead, the ability to learn an instrument or read music at school had led to our having the musicians and composers who have brought this country worldwide admiration and income.
So what of these artists? Frankly, the post-Brexit agreement, or lack of agreement, on touring is disastrous. We are told that the DCMS is in consultation with representatives of our cultural organisations, and that advice will be offered on how to deal with visas and work permits for the 27 countries involved. However, that is shutting the stable door after the horses have bolted. We were assured by the Prime Minister that the problem would be sorted, and recent legal scrutiny commissioned by the Incorporated Society of Musicians suggests that it could and should have been. In fact, no visible progress has been made at all. Oliver Dowden’s statement to the Culture Select Committee last week did not, I am afraid, encourage me that we were about to see any significant change. The rules still vary from country to country. Some only allow up to 14 days’ stay and we still have no prospect of a solution to the road haulage problem. The Government seem to be paralysed, unable or unwilling to help.
I believe, and have been assured, that the truth is that the EU wanted this vital exchange of ideas and performances much more than our Government did, or do. Let me put it another way: in order to preserve the Government’s absolute obsession with their immigration red lines, the creative industries and musicians in particular were sold down the river—a river flowing now towards the open sea where they will doubtless meet the fishermen who feel that they too were sold unfulfilled promises.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am enthused by the fact that the online safety Bill will have pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, I am so enthused that, if the Whips are listening carefully, I am prepared to offer my services to sit on such a Joint Committee. One of the reasons for that is because I see a weakness in the Bill, not in its wording but in its structure. It is missing enabling powers to allow civil society to take action over online hatred. It has often been posed that we need the police to do this or that. Frankly, that is a logistical nonsense when it comes to online abuse and hatred.
I cite the example of football. If the perpetrators of the racist and other abuse that footballers receive had to have their identity provided by law, the banning orders that football could bring in would be a far heavier sanction, in terms of their impact on the behaviour of many individuals, than the fines the courts could apply. The football banning orders legislation of, I think, 1989 could be tweaked to add the concept of online harm so that, where there is a criminal conviction for football-related online crime, a football banning order for six to 10 years could be immediately added. That would have a huge impact on the behaviour of football supporters, both spectators and those online. Sky television and others, using their own civic powers, could well be persuaded to join in by removing the ability of the online abusers even to watch from a distance the football that they would be banned from attending. That is one example of how civil society could assist.
On the issue of football, I am hearing a lot of talk from politicians about how, with the European Super League, we could potentially emulate Germany. I spend a lot of time working with German football and have done for many years. I fully understand the tripartism that has been in Germany post-war, but it is not as simple as people think. People think that there is a 50+1 procedure in German football. If we take the 18 clubs of the Bundesliga, Volkswagen owns Wolfsburg, Leverkusen is owned by Bayer, and Red Bull owns Leipzig. Hoffenheim has a wealthy individual who has put in a vast amount of money. That has not been fan ownership. Bayern Munich is the classic example: every major German multinational is on its board. That is where the key decisions are made, not on the supervisory board. That is an illusion that some, in particular in the other House, are running on at the moment.
It would be far better to give powers by law to football supporters—I would deem the best definitions to be in the football banning orders legislation, which gives definitions; I would use season ticket holders as the empowerment group—to allow 75% of football season ticket holders in a particular club to veto new competitions the club goes into, shifts in location and changes in the registered colour of the club. That would give fans what they want. I am sure that could be tagged on to some legislation during this Session.
Baroness Kidron (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests, particularly as chair of 5Rights Foundation and deputy chair of the APPG on Digital Regulation and Responsibility. Like others, I welcome the long anticipated online safety Bill and the provisions it will make for children. The change in the Bill’s name from “online harms” to “online safety” reflects the journey the Bill has been on, and the widespread acceptance that we must stop arguing over what is and is not acceptable after children have suffered harm, and instead seek to tackle risks inherent in the technology they are offered and make it safe from the get-go.
Less welcome is the change of language from the promised “duty of care” to a list of “duties of care”. It is the expectation of parents, teachers and children up and down the country that the Bill will introduce a duty that, both philosophically and legally, requires the tech sector to think first before it puts its products and services in the hands of children. While specific duties can improve the safety, transparency and fairness of digital products, it is dangerous to set a path in which each special interest or expert group fights to include or omit every potential risk. Risks are interconnected and cumulative; they impact on different users in different ways; and they can expand and contract across different services and across time. We have been promised an end to the “Move fast and break things” culture of the sector, and the Bill must introduce a duty to care as a matter of principle, not a laundry list of pre-circumscribed duties.
As drafted, the Bill spends the bulk of its pages on rules that pertain to content. This undermines the stated ambition to tackle risk at a systemic level, as it leaves only cursory mention of the algorithms, functionalities and operating practices that drive user experience. No doubt we will revisit this, but before we lose ourselves down the rabbit hole of how to police content and who owns the truth, we must first ask whether companies are responsible for recommendations that they monetise. What is the legal status of a company’s published terms and community rules? What oversight does the regulator need to identify manipulative nudges, dark patterns or unfair practices? Or—my own personal favourite—if a company can confidently identify a 14 year-old child to target them with a Home Office awareness campaign on child abuse, should they simultaneously be able to recommend to the same 14 year-old self-harm content or extreme diets, or enable adults to direct message them with pornographic material? If the Bill does not take a systemic approach to curbing what have become industry norms, then children will continue to suffer the lack of what in every other industry is simply the price of doing business.
We have many months to scrutinise every line of the Bill’s 145 pages, but some things cannot wait. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, I believe that the Government must ask regulators to bring forward minimum standards and codes of practice on urgent matters such as age assurance, safety by design, child impact assessments and algorithmic oversight, with the stated intention that they will be absorbed into the Bill, just as they are planning for guidance for video-sharing platforms. We need this Bill badly, but it is cruel to make children wait years for protections they could have now.
There are some startling omissions, some unwelcome exceptions and some shifts in emphasis that we must contest, but ultimately the biggest work of Parliament will be to ensure the Bill’s enforceability. The current matrix of duties and responsibilities of the regulator are neither fully independent nor properly enforceable, and this must change. I understand that there are pressures from all sides, but the UK delivering systemic change on behalf of UK children that will, over time, become the new normal for children the world over is a great prize, and it is my sincere wish that that is the prize Her Majesty’s Government have in their sights.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this important debate and I begin by congratulating my old friend and now noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her excellent maiden speech—I know she will make a fantastic contribution to your Lordships’ House. I also refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests. My speech will be in two parts. In the first one minute and 40 seconds, I intend to cover culture, and let me say how grateful I am to the Government for the support they have given culture during the pandemic, including the £1.57 billion they have invested in our many cultural institutions and, indeed, for taking a wider definition of a cultural institution, such as a music venue—something that I have long supported.
I have followed with interest my good friend the Secretary of State’s comments on the anti-woke crusade that he and the Government have embarked on. I noticed his interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph, which provoked some thoughts in my head about levelling up. I think he made a valid point about having more and varied trustees of museums, but my sincere yearning is that he and our cultural institutions use the lessons of the pandemic to really lean in—if I can use that colloquial expression—to digital. Digital is no longer an add-on, and the opportunities for our cultural institutions to provide fantastic, in-depth content for a wide variety of audiences, not just in the UK but all across the world, are almost infinite. The UK has a huge opportunity to take a lead here, because very few, if any, cultural institutions around the globe have seized this opportunity.
That is my one ask of the Government on the culture front, although I note the excellent remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, which resonated because of his enormous, high-tech microphone, both about touring in Europe, which really needs to be sorted out—we have gone backwards to the situation that still exists with touring in the USA—and about the bizarre attack on the arts and humanities in schools and universities.
Having run 16 seconds over my allotted time on culture, I now turn to technology and note the online safety Bill, which is due to come to this House. The Government have already received an offer they can barely refuse: to have the noble Lord, Lord Mann, on their pre-legislative scrutiny committee. They may well take up that offer, if only to keep the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, from scrutinising the Bill in the way she has scrutinised previous legislation.
It is quite clear from the remarks made during this debate that this Bill will receive a great deal of expert attention, not least in your Lordships’ House. I say simply that this is novel, new legislation in which the Government are attempting—quite rightly, in my view—to put in place a regulatory structure that is very much needed. It is so much more complicated than anything that has ever been done to regulate content. Regulating broadcast and radio content has been relatively simple up to now. As the impassioned speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made clear, there will be some extremely complicated and grey areas.
Nevertheless, we should not resile from applauding the Government’s ambition to introduce what, in very simple terms, I think we all want: clear terms and conditions for the people who use these platforms and clear protection when they are assaulted and attacked on them. To be assaulted, attacked and taken down is very different from people expressing their views in an open society. It is quite right that protections are put in place by the platforms and that government and civic society have a role in policing how the platforms go about that.
Those are my two simple points, and I apologise for going 17 seconds over my allotted slot.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her excellent maiden speech. With her wide experience, she will clearly be an asset to your Lordships’ House.
For a time I was privileged to be the president of the Howard League for Penal Reform. That and other experience, including my 50 or so years as a criminal lawyer, have left me completely unpersuaded that increasing sentences and the population of prisons in general, and filling an ever more challenged prison estate, achieves any public good whatever.
When I was in another place in the 1980s, many of us were horrified that the prison population had passed 35,000. That horror attracted people in all parties at the time. It has now more than doubled, without any obvious sign of the country facing less crime, whether serious or not. Is the United Kingdom a better place because there are now more than 80,000 people in prison? I confidently say no, and there is no intellectual basis for saying that it is.
I urge Her Majesty’s Government to focus not on building more prison cells but on creating more and constructive opportunities for offenders to achieve a lawful life without serving time. I commend strongly the work already done by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who spoke very eloquently in that regard.
I will add something that I and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, agree on—that young offenders should be able to graduate out of their criminal records. We heard a wonderful speech earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, who has been able to reach your Lordships’ House, which I suppose is some height of achievement, despite having had a record as a youngster. But most youngsters do not reach your Lordships’ House. They cannot even get a job because when they apply for a job—for example, in the public sector—their old prison record is available to those who wish to employ them. Should that really happen to a 30 year-old found guilty of possessing cannabis when he or she was 15 or 16? I think not and I am astonished that the Government have ignored this device over a long period.
I turn next to treason, which has not yet been mentioned in this debate, but does arise from the gracious Speech. The Government wish to restore the law of treason in some amended form. It has not been used since the conviction in 1946 of William Joyce—Lord Haw-Haw, as he was known, although he was not a Member of your Lordships’ House. The motive for reintroducing treason is completely oblique and disreputable and the Government must recognise this. It is to avoid—to circumvent—the necessity of proving a specific crime or criminal intent by foreign terrorist fighters, such as the likes of Shamima Begum.
I regard as extremely serious and reprehensible the decisions and actions of British people who become foreign terrorist fighters. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned a somewhat eccentric jury decision. It will be nothing compared with a jury faced with the option of convicting someone for treason who has been a foreign terrorist fighter. Indeed, I have heard it said—I may even have said it myself to juries over the years—that the most democratic thing most jurors ever do is serving on a jury. They are not going to let it happen in cases like that.
As a coda I will add this: both the noble Lord the Minister who opened this debate and the noble Baroness the Minister who will close it are very good listeners. I think we should listen to them. During the past year we have had the luxury of voting in huge numbers against everything, but we have seen the mandate the Government have. I urge your Lordships that we should now be responsible and go for the art of the possible, not the luck of the improbable.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, it is always good to follow my noble friend Lord Carlile, even though it does generally make me feel boringly understated. Before touching on judicial reviews, as I hope to have time to do, I want to say a little about the proposed penal legislation. I have time for only one or two headline points, really.
First, on the question of terrorist offenders, let me say this: I recognise that they pose particular problems. Unlike all other categories of offender, terrorists are driven ideologically; their very purpose in life is to commit murder and mayhem and on entering prison their sole wish is to be discharged so that they can resume those activities. They have absolutely no intention of being reformed or rehabilitated so their tendency is to feign reform, and we have seen an appalling illustration of that recently. In their case, therefore, life sentences and indeterminate sentences seem to be altogether more acceptable and logical than in the case of other offenders.
That said, like others, I say that the UK imposes far too many indeterminate and long sentences overall. We impose more indeterminate sentences than all the other countries of the Council of Europe put together. The most egregious of these, as I have said many times in this Chamber, are the IPP sentences. That scheme was abolished and discredited in 2012 and yet there are still nearly 2,000 people detained under it, almost every one of whom is years beyond their tariff terms, and ever larger numbers of those released are now being recalled. To those who have not read the Prison Reform Trust report No Life, No Freedom, No Future, recently published with a foreword by myself, I say please do so.
My last headline point on crime is to deplore, along with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and many others here, the Government’s almost invariable reaction to any public concern about some offence, which is to increase the statutory maximum. They often introduce a statutory minimum and then what follows is always inflation; the sentences and the prisons get ever more overcrowded, with all the problems that that creates. The result of all that is ever less opportunity for rehabilitation. In the longer term, these longer sentences will produce more crime, not less. What a crazy system that is.
I will say a word or two on the proposed rebalancing of the relationship between legislature, Executive and the judiciary. Although as a retired judge I am of course jealous of the judiciary’s role and independence, I take a rather less jaundiced view of the Government’s proposals following the Faulks report than some of your Lordships who spoke earlier in this debate and last Thursday. It seems somewhat absurd to regard the setting up of that review and the response to it as a power grab and revenge for Miller 2. Surely everybody accepts, as I certainly do, the two specific legislative proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks: to reverse Cart—I am afraid I was one of the seven unanimously making that mistake, as shown by what has happened since—and to introduce suspended quashing orders, which are such a good idea because it is the inflexibility of judicial review that has proved a real problem over the years. The basic position has long been that if any impugned decision is found unlawful for whatever reason, then it is to be regarded as a nullity—nothing done under it has any effect. That has caused real problems.
I find nothing intrinsically objectionable in the sort of proposals that the Government are now contemplating in this consultation process, for things such as prospective-only overrulings, but that, alas, is for another day.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her eloquent maiden speech, and look forward to future debates with her. In winding up this wide-ranging and challenging debate, I will concentrate on the proposals on justice, with some points on home affairs, although I will not try to add to what my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lady Bonham-Carter and Lord Clement-Jones said on culture and digital media, and their great importance to our well-being and economy.
Summarising the philosophy of our response to the Government’s proposals, today’s speeches from these Benches have been marked by a commitment to security and safety through freedom, the rule of law and compassion. As a society, we are more secure and safer if we respond to crime with a strong emphasis on prevention, real support for victims and the reform and rehabilitation of offenders. We are better governed if the Government are accountable in the courts for unlawful action; we are protected from abuse of power by our right to protest—witness Myanmar, Hong Kong and many others.
This approach is at the heart of the widely applauded Domestic Abuse Act, and the draft victims Bill, ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, has the potential for a similar achievement. We have long campaigned for the victims’ code to be given the full force of law, and we are heartened by the commitment to address violence against women and girls.
However, we do not approach the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill with the same confidence. Hostile reaction to date has largely focused on the proposed restrictions of the right to protest. Even the language of the government briefing has sinister overtones:
“Balancing the rights of protesters with the rights of others to go about their business unhindered, by enabling the police to better manage highly disruptive protests.”
The danger is that passivity and compliance may be encouraged by a disciplinarian Government at the expense of legitimate, if noisy, protest against injustice or abuse of power. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, forcefully supported this position. At best, the Bill is an overreaction to occasional unacceptable behaviour by protestors, which is probably illegal at present anyway—a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
In the Bill, the Government’s consistent emphasis on the so-called tough crackdown, longer sentences and increased police powers never falters. But there is nothing in the Bill to improve our national performance in preventing crime or on reform, rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, except for a dubious commitment to a new form of secure schools, which is unsupported by solid evidence or the necessary resources. There is also nothing to address the de facto discrimination against black and ethnic minorities, particularly young men. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester made these points eloquently, and my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord Paddick, the noble Lords, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, all spoke of the inhumanity and overcrowding of our prisons and the disgraceful state they are in. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also spoke of the desecration of our probation services. A number of noble Lords mentioned the welcome commitment to a police covenant report on police welfare, including my noble friend Lady Harris, who spoke of police treatment centres.
We wanted a commitment from the Government for a strong and wide-ranging anti-fraud measure to attack online fraud and scamming, as recommended by the Government’s economic crime plan in 2019. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, concentrated on this point, and it was covered by my noble friend Lord McNally and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, the limited U-turn on this issue in the online safety Bill goes nowhere near tackling this scourge of contemporary life—an epidemic, as the noble Viscount called it.
Turning to the judicial review Bill, the Queen’s Speech promises to
“strengthen and renew democracy and the constitution”,
and promises legislation to
“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts.”
However, the Bill now proposed is limited to introducing suspended quashing orders and to ending Cart JRs in which the High Court reviews Upper Tribunal decisions. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that suspending quashing orders will sensibly allow time for government to correct irregularities before implementing decisions, rather than quashing them immediately. My original reaction to the proposal to reverse the Cart decision was sympathetic, but I now rather doubt that the Government’s evidence on this stands up, so I look forward to debating the issue further in due course.
However, our greater concern, persuasively expressed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Woolf, my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Beith and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is that the language of the Queen’s Speech heralds a far wider reform of judicial review. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and his distinguished panel carried out a thorough and principled review of administrative law and effectively found that, in general, our system does not need radical overhaul, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, confirmed today. An attack on JR would threaten the rule of law and would be an unacceptable political response to a mistaken criticism of alleged judicial overreach, largely fuelled by the Government’s reaction to the Miller decisions.
On the proposed sovereign borders Bill, making asylum claims inadmissible for illegal entrants sounds, at first blush, justifiable. It is not. This proposal ignores the fact that many who run untold risks, sustain all manner of hardship and finally manage to find their way here, albeit illegally, have had no possible means of securing the visas that they would have required to enter legally. Without a workable and humane proposal for safe and legal methods of entry, as called for by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, this proposal would erect a barred gate against many who deserve our compassion and our welcome. We have a long tradition of offering sanctuary to the persecuted and to refugees. We are not talking only of justifiably outlawing people-smugglers but of making the grant of asylum dependent on authorised legal entry. On this issue, I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, whose passion on it I share.
As we witness the horrifying rise in anti-Semitism here and abroad, we should remember that welcoming the oppressed demonstrates our civilisation and our compassion. By shutting our doors to the oppressed we side with their oppressors. I would add that, for all the elegance of his language and his clearly good intentions, we profoundly disagree with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, to immigration and changes in the ethnic make-up of our society, which we believe do not weaken this nation but enrich and enhance it, just as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, described.
The Government’s plans for reform of the Mental Health Act are welcome, particularly the proposals to reform the process of mental health detention, to deal more humanely with autistic people and to improve the management of offenders with mental disorders. This is all in line with concerns long expressed from all around this House.
Finally, I add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said last Wednesday on the subject of criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour by charlatan counsellors or so-called psychotherapists who peddle their services to take over the lives of troubled young people, implant false memories of abuse by parents and families during childhood and create a dependence on themselves, alienating these vulnerable young adults from their parents and families in a damaging cycle of coercive control over their lives. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, highlighted many years of parliamentary endeavour on this subject, thwarted not by principle but by the “wrong Bill” argument—an argument that we should abhor. We also want to see a professional register that would support genuine professionals and their status, and encourage potential clients to seek help only from properly registered professionals. This is, perhaps, a small issue, but it is one on which this House has a great contribution to make. The Government should be in no doubt that many, throughout the House, feel strongly on these issues. This will give rise to amendments to the proposed legislation, and will not go away.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, one that has included many speeches that are thoughtful, inquisitive and questioning of the Government. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her excellent maiden speech. She speaks with experience of the other place and of local government and I look forward to future debate with her. In a debate that addresses the safety and security of our nation and its citizens, I pay tribute to the police, the other emergency services and all those who keep us safe in their many jobs and roles in these vital areas of work.
In my contribution, I intend not only to look at home affairs matters but to refer to contributions that noble Lords have made on a number of other issues today. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, rightly drew attention to the lack of support for artists and musicians, and the failure to get them proper access to the European Union. That is damaging for our economy and for a sector that brings billions of pounds into the UK.
I agree with every word of the contributions by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury and Lady Bull, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall. We have wonderful arts and cultural offerings here in the UK. I am proud that, when I was a young councillor in 1986, my first vote on Southwark Council was to end the ridiculous dispute with Sam Wanamaker and get the Globe Theatre built. Anyone who knows the Bankside area knows that it has been transformed by the arrival of the Globe, with the plays of our greatest playwright being performed where he himself performed them in the 16th century.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, spoke about the number of young people who have learned to read music and to play a musical instrument and who have had their eyes opened to the wonderful world before them. I was not good enough to play professionally, but I learned to play an instrument and to read music, and that has given me a lifelong love of classical music. I walk past the Royal Festival Hall every night on my way home. As a kid from a council estate, not only have I attended concerts there but I have played there many times. That was thanks to a wonderful teacher at a school I went to, Franz Busuttil.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, when he draws attention to the plight of freelancers. This is a group of people who have not been looked after at all in the pandemic, and lots of them have now gone into other areas of work. We run the risk that they will never be able to return to their professions, in which case we, the country and our economy will lose. It really is not good. Noble Lords’ contributions about the insurance cover for live events are also something that the Government need to listen to.
I was interested to hear the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. He spoke about proposals for postal and proxy voting. I am afraid that I take the view of my noble friend Lord Blunkett on these matters. I would be a bit more convinced of the intention of the Government if I had heard what we are going to do about the 8 million people who are not on the register, but there has not been a word about them. I want to hear how the people in our country who do not have a vote are going to get one, so when that Bill comes here we are going to look carefully at that issue.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, carried over from the last Session, contains provisions that the Labour Party not only supports but has campaigned for. That includes the police covenant—but the covenant must mean a real step change in support and protection for police officers—and the increase in sentences for assaults on emergency workers. We support the measures in the Bill on causing death by dangerous driving and on the extension of protection for young people under the age of 18 against those who want to have sexual relations with them. We will want to explore how we can widen the scope to maximise the protections for young people. We welcome other elements, such as the recognition that the remand of children must be used as a last resort and the reform of the criminal records disclosure regime. However, there are elements of the Bill in respect of protest and the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities that we have considerable concerns about, and we will seek to examine them fully and possibly amend them when we debate them in the House.
On the counter-state threats Bill, we on these Benches want to see measures in place that give our law enforcement and scrutiny agencies the tools that they need to keep us safe. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, that we need laws that are balanced and fit for purpose in order to combat the threats that we face from hostile states. We have a serious problem here that needs to be tackled: dirty money flowing into London; property being bought from states, despots and other individuals so that they can hide their money, their ill-gotten gains, in a safe jurisdiction; attempts to undermine our democracy, which the Government have done very little about; and people poisoned and murdered on our streets. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russia exposed the weakness of the Government’s approach, illustrating how badly the Government have done in underestimating the threats posed and the response required.
My noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Mann raised the issue of football. We need to give fans much more influence and power regarding their local football clubs. Local clubs are the lifeblood of their communities—I have supported Millwall my whole life and the Millwall Community Trust is a fantastic organisation; Sean Daly’s team has done really good work there. Football club community trusts all over the country are key parts of their communities, and we need to support them in the work that they do.
The Government’s announcement of a strategy to combat violence against women and girls is welcome, but there is no timescale and many of the measures listed have already been brought into force so it would be good if the Minister could tell us more about what is proposed and give us some sense of the timescale that the Government are working to, because that is not very clear from the papers released so far. We on these Benches want to support the Government in tackling this huge problem in our society.
We support measures to give victims stronger rights, although I note that the Bill coming before us is a draft Bill. While it is good to carefully consider proposals, this is taking a very long time. I hope that in this Session we can make some real progress.
I have lost count of the number of immigration Bills we have had since I joined this House in 2010. Their frequency seems to be one in every Queen’s Speech. It is matched only by the frequency of planning Bills. What this tells me is that we have a Government who talk tough but who fail to deliver on the pledges they have made, and who preside over an incompetent and chaotic system, all of their own making. No one can suggest that the Windrush Compensation Scheme is going well. Look at the dangerous situation we have in the English Channel. Where is that comprehensive deal they keep talking about with France? What about the closure of the Dubs scheme, where only a few children have been beneficiaries? This is not the way to tackle these issues. I accept that they are challenging, but the solutions should be underpinned by agreement, firmness, fairness, competence and compassion, none of which is on display if we look at the proposals from the Government today.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made reference to the need to update the law to combat modern slavery. I agree with those calls for change.
I further add to the calls made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, who is not in his place, to do more for victims. That is exactly right. When that Bill comes forward again, I hope that the Government look at those calls. If we can only match what has been done in Scotland and in Northern Ireland on these matters, we will be doing a good job. The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who is also not in his place, made a great contribution to improving the laws there in Northern Ireland.
In terms of legacy issues, the Government must honour their commitments made to families and to victims. People need to learn the truth of what happened to their loved ones. The process must be rooted in the rule of law and based on support for victims and communities in Northern Ireland. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, will be able to set out what the proposals in the Queen’s Speech will deliver. We need some clarity there. The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, made reference to the Ballymurphy families, who fought for justice for five decades. His description—that they received the official government apology from the Prime Minister by email—is appalling, and contrasts poorly with the way David Cameron apologised to victims following the publication of the Bloody Sunday inquiry reports.
The online harms Bill is very welcome as far as it goes, but it has taken a long time to get this far. We are still talking about only a draft Bill, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede made reference to. I very much support the aims of the Government to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online, with no safe space for criminal conduct or activity, to protect children from abuse, to protect us all from scams, to protect us all from fake news, misinformation and disinformation, and to make platforms face up to their responsibilities. Every time action is called for, the missing piece is the platform—the host not doing enough to tackle the menace that is the awful, corrosive, illegal and criminal side of the internet.
As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, the decision of the Government to hold back on criminal sanctions for directors is most regrettable. The most direct way to get powerful executives to take some action is to place responsibility firmly in their laps.
Look at the damage that has been done to people’s health and safety by conspiracy theories—the absolute rubbish that has undermined the Covid vaccination programme around the world. The reality is that vaccination is the only way out of the pandemic, not just in the UK; we need the whole world vaccinated. That is the route of safety to get us all back to something that represents the normality that we were used to.
We need urgent progress in this Session; we need a bold vision for safety, security and the protection of our citizens, putting measures in place to give people the confidence to thrive. What we get from the Government falls far short of that; it is particularly frustrating and disappointing to see proposals that are welcome but where the pace of change and reform is so slow. The draft victims Bill and the draft online harms Bill are two examples of where the Government have dragged their feet on proposals which we all agree are urgent and necessary.
In conclusion, there are measures that we support but where we want the Government to go further, and there are others that we have grave concerns about. However, as we always do, on these Benches we will work constructively with the Government to improve the legislation that comes before us.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all, I think, 69 noble Lords who have taken part in this debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. It covers three ministries —Justice, Home Affairs and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—and naturally I shall not be able to cover every detail of every last question. However, I shall cover the majority of the themes debated.
I join noble Lords from across the House in commending my noble friend Lady Fullbrook on her maiden speech. The two of us go back a long way; we are that rare breed, still—former women who have been in charge of local government. Sorry, we are not former women—we are women. [Laughter.] We are still women, but we used to be in charge of local government. Sorry, it has been a long day.
Before I respond to some of the points raised, I emphasise that at the heart of this Government’s agenda is an unwavering commitment, including to delivering for the public, ensuring that we have a world-class justice system that works for everyone in society, enriches lives and keeps the country safe.
I turn first to the theme of the police, courts and victims. The noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby, Lord McCrea and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Chakrabarti, all talked about the PCSC Bill, its unintended consequences, police resourcing and protest. I say right at the outset that the right to peaceful protest is fundamental to us as a society and should never be in question. I assure noble Lords that the measures in the Bill will not suppress the right to peaceful protest but will enable the police better to manage highly disruptive protests—we all know examples of them—which infringe on the rights of others. These very disruptive tactics are a drain on public funds and require police officers from around the country to step away from their regular responsibilities to police a protest instead. The measures in the Bill have been endorsed by the independent policing inspectorate, which has said that they would
“improve police effectiveness without eroding the right to protest”.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, talked about stop and search, and I have heard concerns about disproportionality and the impact of stop and search on members of the black community. Our aim is for these orders to enable the police to take a more targeted approach, specifically in relation to known knife carriers. Data from 2018-19 indicates that young black people are 24 times more likely to be victims of homicide than young white people. It is vital therefore that we build an understanding of the impact and effectiveness of the new orders, so they will be piloted before being rolled out across England and Wales.
My noble friend Lady Verma talked about people convicted of serious weapons offences and how the police can monitor them. The measures in the Bill build on the Government’s record to date, including putting an extra 8,700 police officers on our streets and making £130 million available to tackle serious violent crime, including murder and knife crime. The new serious violence reduction orders will give the police powers to stop and search those convicted of offensive weapons offences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, talked about injured officers. Through the consultation, we have identified three focus areas in the police covenant: health and well-being—encompassing a wide range of issues including both physical and mental health—physical protection and support for families. We will establish a robust governance structure, made up of key policing representatives who will work with us to develop a well-defined programme of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, talked about offenders referred to the Parole Board under PSCE powers, who will have to prove that they did not commit an offence to a lower burden of proof and not through a court. There is a small number of prisoners convicted of non-terrorism offences who would present a threat if released. The power contained in the Bill addresses this gap in legislation. It will mean that the Secretary of State can prevent their automatic release and take available evidence to the Parole Board for them to assess the risk independently. Where this power is used, these offenders will be detained lawfully, pursuant to the authority of the original prison sentence imposed by the court.
My noble friends Lady Fullbrook and Lord Goschen talked about unauthorised encampments. Let me make it clear that enforcement will not be based on ethnicity. As my noble friend Lady Fullbrook fully outlined, the new offence and the amendments will apply to anyone residing in a vehicle without permission and causing harm within the conditions specified.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned a position of trust. This was of most concern during our review of the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, talked about the criminal justice recovery plan, including the courts backlog. This Government had begun to increase sitting days in the criminal courts to address rising demand. Covid prevented us making this change and brought its own challenges, particularly in facilitating jury trials. Having invested more than a quarter of a billion pounds on court recovery, we have expanded Crown Court capacity and opened 60 new Nightingale courtrooms. We are also determined to build confidence in the system, which is why we have increased funding for support services. We are also working with partners to reduce the time spent at each stage of the criminal justice process. An end-to-end review, exploring how the criminal justice system responds to rape is to be published shortly, along with an action plan to drive improvement for rape victims.
At this juncture, I thought I might respond to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on a VAWG timetable. We have a continuing commitment to tackling violence against women and girls and domestic abuse. We will publish new strategies this year to help drive a step change in the response to these crimes, building on the existing landmark legislation in this area—the Domestic Abuse Act and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester referred to the victims Bill and particularly the extent of female offender provision. We are making good progress in delivering the female offender strategy which includes piloting at least five residential women’s centres. We have invested £5.1 million in 30 different women’s community services across England and Wales, supporting service provision and the development of new women’s centres.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Beith, and my noble friend Lord Faulks talked about judicial review, the courts Bill and the different views on it. Our constitution is a noble thing which must be preserved. In our manifesto this Government committed to examining in depth how judicial review was working. Having done so, we believe there is a need to restore the right balance between our institutions of state—Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks QC, and the panel produced an excellent report and it is the Government’s opinion that the analysis in the report of trends in judicial review gives cause for concern. There are areas where there is a balance to be struck in terms of how judicial review operates. As the Lord Chancellor set out in the judicial review consultation document, the Government are committed to upholding the rule of law. This means the courts should and will be able to hold the Government to account in the manner set out by Parliament, and the proposals set out in the Government’s response to the review bear that out.
The noble Lords, Lord Ponsonsby and Lord Thomas of Gresford, questioned the use of ouster clauses. The Independent Review of Administrative Law panel concluded in its report that while Parliament should not exclude judicial review generally as that would be contrary to the rule of law, it could in particular circumstances oust or limit the jurisdiction of the courts if there was
“sufficient justification for doing so.”
As such, the Government felt it was appropriate to consider this point further in their consultation and to see whether it may be possible to add clarity to the circumstances in which ouster clauses may be upheld or how they may be interpreted. We will set out the contents of the Bill in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, suggested that the royal commission was going to be scrapped. Establishing the royal commission on criminal justice process remains a priority for the Government. An independent review provides a meaningful opportunity to explore some of the key challenges affecting the system and to consider how these can be addressed to ensure the effective delivery of justice for victims, witnesses, defendants and the general public. We are considering the precise scope, terms of reference, membership and timing, and we will of course update the House in due course.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about jurisdiction shopping for judicial review in Scotland. The Government are committed to respecting the devolved Administrations and we will work closely with the devolved Governments as our thinking develops.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about the provision of interpreters and asked to meet my noble friend Lord Wolfson, which he is very happy to do. Court interpreters should be appointed only from the national register. We are absolutely committed to continually improving performance and ensuring the highest standard of language services for those who need them. All interpreters provided to the courts are registered and regularly assessed by the quality assurance provider, the Language Shop, and will be removed from the register if they fail to reach the required standard.
On culture, media and charities, the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bull, my noble friends Lord Moynihan, Lady Stowell and Lord Vaizey of Didcot, the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Berkeley of Knighton, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about cuts to arts and higher education funding. We are not cutting overall arts funding by 50%, as some have suggested. The Government have asked the Office for Students to reform the strategic priorities grant for 2021-22, which will help to correct discrepancies that have seen, for example, media students funded at a higher rate than mathematics or history students. For providers losing funding due to this reallocation, the income lost would account for approximately 0.05% of their estimated total income, based on the latest data available.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, talked about touring performers. The UK’s creative industries are the finest in the world, and this Government are determined to support them. Touring is a vital part of musicians’ and performers’ careers, providing not only a vital income stream but enriching opportunities for cultural exchange across the world. Being outside the European Union does not change this, but it means practical changes on both sides of the channel, which will require understanding and adaptation. As the Prime Minister has said, we are working flat out with the industry, including through the DCMS-led working group, on plans to support the creative sectors to tour in Europe. The Government are committed to supporting our world-beating creative and cultural sectors through these changes.
My noble friend Lord Black talked about journalists’ reporting. Again, press freedom is an integral part of the UK’s democratic processes. However, the Act is in need of legislative reform, as identified by the Law Commission. The Government are committed to ensuring that the right balance is struck between protecting press freedoms, the ability of whistleblowers to hold organisations to account when there are allegations of serious wrongdoing and adopting measures that protect the UK’s most sensitive information.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about governance, in reference to the charities Bill. These reforms will enable charities to use their money and resources more effectively to promote their charitable causes. This is just one of many measures that have supported the charity and voluntary sector, including an unprecedented £750 million funding package specifically for the sector and access to cross-economy measures, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. These changes are not cutting regulation but refining and rebalancing it so that it works better. In developing these proposals, the Law Commission has ensured that important safeguards are retained to protect public trust and confidence.
On online safety, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the delay to the online harms Bill. I agree that it is taking a long time, but it is important that the Government get it right. We have taken a deliberately consultative approach with a wide range of groups, from children’s charities to the platforms themselves, to ensure that the legislation is as effective as it can be. We are working closely with Ofcom to ensure that the implementation period that will be necessary, following the passage of the legislation, is as short as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others talked about the freedom of speech element in the online harms Bill and determining what is harmful content. One of the overarching principles of our framework is to protect users’ rights to freedom of expression online. Both companies and Ofcom will have duties to protect free speech, for which they can be held to account. This Bill holds platforms to account for their significant influence over what content appears online. Platforms must consider and introduce safeguards for freedom of expression when setting out their safety policies.
The Bill will define three categories of harm to individuals: illegal content, content that is harmful to children and legal content that is harmful to adults. In secondary legislation, the Government will then set out priority harms on which companies must focus their efforts. These will be determined based on evidence of harm to individuals: Ofcom will advise government on which priority harms should be included in legislation, based on research and consultation with a broad range of stakeholders.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others talked about child pornography. The strongest protections in our online harms proposals are for children. All companies in scope of this regulation will need to seriously consider the risks that they may pose to children and take action. Pornography sites will be subject to the duty of care if they host user-generated content or facilitate user interaction.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and others talked about fraud. We are deeply concerned about the growth and scale of online fraud and the devastating societal, financial and psychological impact that it can have on so many people. We have engaged extensively with a broad range of stakeholders, including the financial industry, consumer groups, law enforcement and other public bodies. We have listened to their views very carefully and decided that online fraud should be included in the scope of the online safety Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath, Lord McNally and Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, asked about online gambling. The online harms regulatory framework will not seek to tackle gambling-related harm online. We have committed to a review of the Gambling Act to make sure that it is fit for the digital age and have received around 16,000 submissions to the call for evidence ahead of a planned White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about data governance. The UK now controls our own data protection laws and regulations in line with our interests after the end of the transition period. We will continue to operate a high-quality regime that promotes growth and innovation and underpins the trustworthy use of data.
The noble Lords, Lord Green of Deddington, Lord Paddick, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Dubs, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked about immigration. Through our New Plan for Immigration, we will reform the system so it is firm but fair. We want to welcome those who come to the UK through safe and legal routes, and to crack down on criminal gangs that facilitate dangerous and illegal journeys. An asylum system should not reward those who enter the UK illegally while other vulnerable people, including women and children, are pushed aside.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pressed me on where we are with the Dubs scheme. That scheme was defined and is now complete; it is not the only route, by a long shot, by which people can get safe passage to this country. We cannot help all the estimated 80 million people who are displaced worldwide, but global Britain will continue to show global leadership, welcoming those most in need. We will prioritise resettling refugees from areas of conflict and instability, rather than those who are already in safe European countries. We will maintain clear, well-defined routes for refugees in need of protection, ensuring that refugees have the freedom to succeed and the ability to integrate and contribute fully to society when they arrive in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about our international obligations and returns agreements. This legislation will be compliant with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1951 refugee convention. We will continue to pursue returns agreements and arrangements with our international partners as part of future migration partnerships. We expect our international partners to work with us on facilitating the return of their nationals to their own country where those nationals have no lawful right to remain in the UK. This is an established principle of any functioning migration relationship and it enables us to maintain public confidence in our immigration system. We are very proud of our record on providing refuge to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It has seen 29,000 family reunion visas issued in the last five years, with more than half of those issued to children.
I am aware that I am probably over time, but I assure noble Lords that I will be finished very shortly. I want to mention a final point supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, about countering hostile state activity. As they both said, it is vital that the security services and law enforcement agencies have the tools they need to disrupt state threats. It is something we have been looking at for some time, to ensure that we have the powers we need to tackle future threats and evolving tactics. A significant proportion of the Official Secrets Act dates back to the early 20th century, with roots in an 1889 Act. They are not suitable for the modern world, as the story of the squirrels in the tree that the noble Baroness told us demonstrated.
I will stop there because I am well over time. I absolutely support the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made on conversion therapy; and that my noble friend Lord Pickles made on voter fraud and identity at polling stations. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and my noble friend Lord Arran that assisted dying is one of those things on which there is a free vote in Parliament, and I am sure there will be another debate on it soon.
I apologise for going almost five minutes over time. I thank all noble Lords. There are issues that I have not responded to—such as the Northern Ireland issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned—and I will do so in writing.