House of Commons
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I would like to begin my remarks this afternoon by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. He was a member of the shadow Home Affairs team, and he sadly passed away the week before last. Jack was well loved by everyone and a hugely respected Member of this House. Along with all colleagues, I would like to pay my respects to him and send my condolences to Harriet and their family.
These crossings are unfair, unacceptable and lethally dangerous. They are totally unnecessary, as France and other EU member states are safe countries with long-established asylum systems.
Stephen Crabb
I thank the Home Secretary for that reply, and I associate myself wholeheartedly with her remarks about the late member for Birmingham, Erdington.
I know that the Home Secretary has been requesting the assistance of the Royal Navy to reduce the number of illegal channel crossings, and I look forward to seeing growing co-operation between her Department and the Ministry of Defence. Does she agree that it is surely right to deploy all the available resources and tools to shut down the routes used by the cruel people smugglers and to protect lives at sea?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend’s question is an important one because, as all hon. Members will be well aware, I asked for MOD naval assets and support back in 2020, because no Department can resolve the complex issue of channel crossings on its own. It is also right, having called for MOD involvement, that we now bring the whole machinery of government, the ultimate utility, together to ensure that we work collectively to protect our borders. My right hon. Friend is right about the wider issues on immigration, and that is why we have the new plan for immigration.
Andrew Selous
I fully echo the Home Secretary’s remarks about the late Member for Birmingham, Erdington. He was well liked and respected by many of us on this side of the House.
Does the Home Secretary recognise the anger felt about this issue, not least by the many people who fully respect this country’s proud tradition of asylum and the tremendous contribution made so many people who have come to this country legally?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why this Government are unapologetic for the fact that we now have the Nationality and Borders Bill and the new plan for immigration. We are operationalising these changes primarily because we need a system that is firm but also fair to those who need genuine help when fleeing persecution and claiming asylum. That is effectively what this Government are doing.
Philip Davies
If everyone is agreed that the channel crossings are so dangerous, we must clearly do whatever is necessary to stop them. Surely the quickest way to stop them is simply to turn the boats back and escort them back into French waters. I do not think it would take long for the word to get around that these crossings were futile. Has not the time come to do just that, on humanitarian grounds as well as to protect our borders from illegal immigration?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend will know that that is the policy of this Government. Border Force was commissioned to do this with the MOD, and through the hybrid ways of working that I have commissioned across Government, they will be doing exactly that. Routes have been tested and technology is being used, and the way in which boats can be pushed back has also been well tested, with the basis to do that. That is our policy.
Dr Wallis
My right hon. Friend is aware that the British people want to see decisive action being taken to reduce the number of small boat crossings in our channel. Does she therefore share my disappointment that the Opposition refused to support our measures to end vexatious and unmerited claims, and chose instead to side with those entering the UK illegally?
Priti Patel
We could rerun the debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill, which I would happily do. This Government are determined not just to reform what is a broken asylum system—we are lifting up every aspect of the dysfunctionality of the system—but to tackle the root causes of illegal migration. In March 2021 the new plan for immigration was published, and we had the Nationality and Borders Bill in this House last autumn. The Opposition seem to be on the wrong side of the argument. They do not really want to support an end to illegal migration or stop the people smugglers.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is there any truth in the reports that the Government want to have asylum seekers processed offshore in countries such as Gambia? Has any such country actually agreed to this? Does the Secretary of State accept that having people processed hundreds or thousands of miles away might meet the letter of our obligations to asylum seekers but certainly does not meet the spirit?
Priti Patel
I absolutely disagree with the right hon. Lady’s question. Had she read the new plan for immigration—the policy statement published for the benefit of all Members in March 2021—she would know that this Government are considering all options for outsourcing processing and for removing people with no legal basis to be in our country. I completely recognise that she disagrees with the policies of this Government—[Interruption.] It matters not which countries. We will continue to discuss this with a range of countries, because I, as Home Secretary, and this Government are determined to fix the decades-long problem of a very broken asylum system. Frankly, under successive Labour Governments there were mass failures to remove people with no legal basis to be in the country.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to our dear friend and colleague, Jack Dromey. We very much look forward to the tributes later this month. Especially today, at Home Office questions, we very much miss his kindness, his passion and his wit alongside us on the Front Bench.
We hear that responsibility for ending dangerous crossings of the channel is to be taken away from the Home Office and handed to the MOD, but we have been here before. In 2019 the Government brought in the Navy to patrol the channel, and those patrols ended after just six weeks, having cost £780,000 and without a single boat having been intercepted. Can the Home Secretary explain how today’s proposal will be any different from 2019 and prevent lives from being lost at sea?
Priti Patel
Of course I can. I restate what I have said in the House many times about the hybrid approach we need: no one Department can solve this issue in the channel on its own. Let us be crystal clear about this. I originally commissioned the military aid to the civil authorities request that went to the Ministry of Defence very early on, back in 2020. Of course my decision to bring in the MOD is vindication of our need to strengthen our defences in the channel.
This is about a number of things—[Interruption.] I can hear Opposition Members making noise about this issue. However, the reality is that we want to stop illegal crossings. People are dying in the channel and in the Mediterranean. All aspects of pushbacks and turn-backs—of the approach we take in the channel—are operational. This has been tested, there is a basis on which to do it, and individuals are trained. The MOD, maritime policing and Border Force originally came together, and they will continue to work together. This is, first, a global migration issue but, secondly, the British public will support the Government in doing everything possible to protect our borders. That is why a blended approach is absolutely vital.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I wholeheartedly endorse the Home Secretary’s comments about the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington.
The Home Secretary should have pointed out that, unlike the endless Downing Street parties, arriving in the UK to claim asylum is not unlawful, as the Court of Appeal reminded her just last month. It is only her atrocious anti-refugee Bill that will see Afghans, Syrians and Uyghurs arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for up to four years. Why does she see relentless flouting of lockdown rules as forgivable for the Prime Minister but seeking safety here from Assad, the Taliban or genocide as worth four years in prison?
Priti Patel
I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s contributions. As we saw on Report and Third Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill, the Scottish National party choose to deploy political gimmicks—I am being kind to the SNP—to frustrate the will of the public when it comes to reforming asylum and illegal migration. It is fair to say that the Conservative party in government, through the Nationality and Borders Bill and the new plan for immigration, will do everything possible to tackle the unscrupulous exploitation of people who cross illegally and will provide sanctuary to those who need our help and support—those fleeing persecution who need refuge. Frankly, when local authorities in Scotland are not even helping to accommodate these people, I take no lectures from the Scottish National party.
Stuart C. McDonald
That answer was about as convincing as the Prime Minister’s apology. The Home Secretary has quite a nerve to talk about political gimmicks, given that she is the first person to be sent out to the Dispatch Box to further Operation Red Meat; the proposals leaked out over the weekend have absolutely nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with saving the Prime Minister’s career and her political career. The Home Secretary sending in the Royal Navy against small boats full of refugees and asylum seekers is pathetic, inhumane and an abuse of the Royal Navy, and her grubby shopping around for places to offshore asylum seekers to is an outrageous and dangerous big white elephant. Instead of ripping up the refugee convention and locking up refugees, why does the Home Office not start working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and others to live up to our humanitarian obligations?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman needs to understand global migration challenges and the international exploitation of human lives and human beings that takes place, because clearly he has no recommendations or answers. His local authorities across Scotland refuse to house people who have come to our country. Frankly, I will take no lectures from him. He can carry on with his political gimmicks, but the Scottish National party’s lack of policy says a great deal.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
We are determined to increase the number of rape cases reaching court, which is why we are working closely with the Attorney General and the Deputy Prime Minister to implement the rape review action plan, published in June. Progress includes publishing the first scorecard on cases, in order to understand where the system is failing to deliver; piloting a new approach to investigations through Operation Soteria; and launching a victims’ Bill consultation.
Matt Western
Two fifths of police forces actually lack specialist rape units, despite clear evidence showing that they are important to achieving successful case outcomes. Warwickshire shut its RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—unit in 2014 and its domestic abuse unit last year, yet it has the worst conviction rate. Next week, I am going to hold a summit on violence against women and girls. I want to know from the Minister: why do the Government oppose Labour’s calls for RASSO units to be restored to all police forces? Can she explain whether there is any correlation between the conviction rates achieved, with Warwickshire’s being the worst in the country, and the loss of such units?
Rachel Maclean
It is obviously not the case that we are opposing measures to improve rape prosecutions. That is why we are funding five police forces to pilot this new approach to rape investigations, and we have committed to expand this through 14 police areas. Moreover, we are providing comprehensive funding to independent sexual and domestic abuse advisers to help bring these atrocious cases to court.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I spent Friday morning with a young 20-year-old rape victim who is now in her fifth year awaiting a trial. I then spent the afternoon with a young woman who has been groomed and sexually exploited for a decade. She told me that on occasion she has been forced to have sex with up to 50 men a day. The police cannot guarantee her safety, in her complex case of organised crime, so she has come forward and withdrawn numerous times. Both the accused rapist in the first case and the many, multiple gang members involved in the second are walking free, able to abuse, groom and rape as many women and children as they like.
These cases are not rare; they are not unusual. Operation Soteria has already made it very clear to Ministers that there is a real need for more specialism and priority within police forces, so the Minister saying that she is going to pilot it in 14 more areas and find out the exact same thing is not going to be enough. There is a need for specialism, and a need for it now, so why are the Government not backing Labour’s calls to ensure that every police force area has a RASSO unit? Will she answer that?
Rachel Maclean
All of us speak to and work with victims of horrendous crimes. Ministers are constantly engaged in that kind of work. That is why we are putting more funding into the police to enable them to tackle these hideous crimes. The hon. Lady has referred to a number of specific cases. She has not been clear which police areas or local authorities are involved, but we are very happy to work with her on these specific cases. To be clear, let me say that funding for these important specialisms has been increased, and we are increasing funding to the police to the tune of £15.9 billion.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The two points made by Labour Members were very powerful and have had a huge impact on the House, and I thank them for making them.
I simply rise to say that there also needs to be a very careful balance, because, from time to time, people are accused of rape when they are innocent. I do not want to see the pendulum swing from one extreme to another and injustice being done in another way.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. These and many other issues are captured in the rape review. Every Member of this House will be concerned about the level of rape prosecutions, which is why the Government are working across Departments to improve the system overall, and it is absolutely right that we do so.
Mr Speaker
I call Dame Diana Johnson—I welcome the right hon. Lady to her first Question Time as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister will know that, in 2015, in her report on rape investigations and prosecutions in London, Dame Elish Angiolini recommended that the specialist RASSO police officers should investigate rape cases. We heard much evidence to back that up in the inquiry that the Home Affairs Committee has just concluded. I have a question for the Safeguarding Minister, who appeared before the Committee in December. At the time she could not tell us how many police officers were RASSO trained, or, indeed, how many of the new recruits to the police had been RASSO trained. Is she able to do so today?
Rachel Maclean
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her election to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I look forward to responding to her in due course. She raises an important issue. It is important to say that specialist training is taking place through Operation Soteria and a number of other avenues. I am very happy come back to her or to write to her with those figures.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Our new plan for immigration will overhaul our asylum system and speed up the removal of failed asylum seekers. The Bill will introduce new measures to prevent repeated last-minute, meritless claims that are designed to frustrate proper removal. We are determined to return people who have no right to be here and arrive in the UK illegally.
Mr Robertson
I thank the Minister for his response. This country has a proud record of accepting refugees and treating asylum seekers fairly, and long may that continue. Does he agree that, in order to retain confidence in our system and to avoid it being a draw to people taking very dangerous and unnecessary journeys, asylum seekers must have their cases considered very quickly, and, if they have not established a right or a need to be here, they should be removed quickly?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue by saying that we must have a fair but firm system. Returns have undoubtedly been hard hit as a result of the pandemic, and we want to see a quick recovery from that. The issue of attrition is also important. We are addressing that through the Nationality and Borders Bill, and I appreciate his support for that. On returns agreements, we need, of course, to secure more. Those with India and Albania prove exactly what can be done.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Hundreds of people in my constituency of Enfield North are residents in this country on the European Community Association agreement visa, also known as the Ankara agreement, which allows them to set up businesses in this country. When they try to extend their stay in this country, the majority of them are not able to renew their visas. There have been hundreds of emails in relation to this from across the country. The delays in some cases are 14 months, and they mean that those people are unable to renew business leases and housing and residential contracts. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituents whose lives are at a standstill that these timings will be reduced and that they will receive a timely response to their applications?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that Ministers in the Home Office are always keen to try to assist in these matters wherever possible. If she could provide me with the specifics, I would be very happy to take those cases away and have a look at them.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the problems with genuine victims of human trafficking is that they are lumped together with asylum seekers? The quicker we can return bogus asylum seekers, the quicker we can get help to the genuine victims of human traffickers.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. It is fair to say that the Nationality and Borders Bill and the new plan for immigration focus very much on returning those who have no right to be here, while ensuring that those who require our protection and are genuinely in need of support do get that support as quickly as possible.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 will strengthen our protection of victims and ensure that perpetrators feel the full force of the law. Furthermore, we will be publishing the first ever domestic abuse strategy to transform the whole of society’s response to domestic abuse to prevent offending, support victims and pursue perpetrators as well as strengthening the whole system needed to deliver those goals.
Barbara Keeley
A recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people reviewed the shocking figures for femicide and violence against older women. Women aged over 60 are one in five of femicide victims, representing 75% of the 280,000 older people between 60 and 74 who are victims of domestic abuse. Further, the crime survey for England and Wales has only just started collecting data on people over 74, and that data is beset by problems of under-reporting. Does the Minister recognise the need for both more effective data collection and support services that are designed around and suitable for older domestic abuse victims?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue. She is right that more needs to be done. More is being done, and we will set out more ways that we will help older victims in our domestic abuse strategy, which we will publish shortly. It is vital that every victim of domestic abuse, no matter their age, can get the right help. That is why we have provided additional funding to support victims of rape and domestic abuse, and we are giving local authorities more money to enable them to play their part.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
We take our commitments to the victims of the Windrush scandal seriously, and our focus is on resolving claims as quickly as possible. To enable us to do that, we have recruited 40 new caseworkers, with 35 more in the pipeline for the coming months. We have also refreshed and streamlined internal processes to reduce processing times and improve user experience for those applying to the scheme.
Catherine West
A recent report criticised the Home Office, which was forced to apologise to charities and community groups that were meant to be supporting victims with their applications. The budget remains as full as ever and underspent. It took two years for one of my constituents to receive a reply, which is an absolute disgrace considering the age profile of Windrush victims. What will the Minister do to put that right? Will he outsource the process to a proper independent group that will get on with the job?
Kevin Foster
As we have said before, outsourcing would merely introduce further delays into the process when our focus should be on getting compensation out to the victims of the Windrush scandal. The hon. Member will be aware that the changes we made in December 2020 saw us pay considerably more compensation, offering an average of £3.1 million a month, with more than £38.7 million in compensation now offered. To be clear, there is no “budget” here; we will pay the compensation that is due to people, and there is no ceiling on what will be paid.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I remind the Home Secretary of the legal maxim, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” This Government promised to try to right some of the wrongs with the Windrush compensation scheme in a time-limited manner. In November, the Home Affairs Committee found that only 20% of claimants had applied, and that only 5% had received any compensation. Twenty-three people have died before receiving their compensation. Is it not high time that the responsibility to provide justice to the ageing Windrush generation was passed on to an independent body capable of delivering it?
Kevin Foster
Again, we would make the point that moving this operation out of the Home Office would merely further delay the provision of the compensation that we all want to see paid. As I have touched on, we are recruiting more caseworkers and speeding up the process. Given the age cohort we are talking about, we are aware that some people have sadly passed away. However, that is why we are more motivated to speed up the process and make a real difference. As I have said, we have more staff coming in, and we will streamline the process to make it not only quicker, but simpler for those claiming compensation to engage with the team.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
I speak regularly with the Equalities Office and campaigners on ways to tackle violence against women and girls. We believe that women should not have to change their behaviour to stay safe, which is why our strategy sets out preventive measures to tackle violence against women and girls focusing on changing misogynistic attitudes; however some people might choose to use one of the many apps, including the Path Community app, that are available to them.
Sarah Olney
Many women’s rights campaigners, including Reclaim These Streets, have called apps such as the Path Community app insulting to women and girls. They claim it does nothing to tackle men’s violence against women, so why are the Government continuing to push the app and present it as some kind of solution?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to put on the record that we are not specifically pushing—I think that was the word she used—or promoting or backing that one app. As I said in my answer, there are many apps, and many women use those apps of their own choice. Of course we welcome that choice for individuals; on the other hand, it is vital that the Government play our part in tackling violence against women and girls through the multiple other measures set out in the “Tackling violence against women and girls strategy”, which I invite her to read.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The Government are proposing a total police funding settlement approaching £17,000 million in 2022-23, an increase of up to £1,100 million compared with this year. Assuming full take-up of precept flexibility, overall police funding available to police and crime commissioners will increase by a whopping £796 million next year.
Peter Gibson
Although Darlington has received almost £1 million in safer streets funding, off-road biking continues to be an antisocial behaviour problem causing crime in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more can be done to tackle this?
Kit Malthouse
I am pleased to hear that that substantial award from the safer streets fund is making a difference in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and of course I would be more than happy to meet him to talk about how we can better fight crime in his patch.
Alun Cairns
Vale of Glamorgan, like many rural areas, experiences horrendous animal welfare incidents, from illegal dog breeding and hare coursing to fly-grazing and horse neglect. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chief Inspector Rees and her team of officers on how they have used the additional resources that have been made available to combat some of the worst crimes we could possibly imagine?
Kit Malthouse
I am more than happy to join my right hon. Friend in congratulating his local police force on their work in this area, and I am pleased to hear that his non-human constituents are as important to him as the human ones. He will be aware that some of these truly appalling crimes need to be addressed much more assertively, and I hope he has noticed that, in the Police, Crime, Courts and Sentencing Bill, we are tabling amendments specifically on hare coursing, which will help to fight that awful crime.
Andy Carter
Bearing in mind the security statement coming after this question session, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is working with both law enforcement and security services to understand what more can be done to increase capacity to counter hostile activity that has the potential to damage democracy but operates below the legal threshold?
Kit Malthouse
I know this is a matter of concern to the whole House, which I know is to be addressed by the Home Secretary shortly. As I hope my hon. Friend knows, police capacity—that relates specifically to the question—has been increased not just in territorial policing but in other arms of policing, recognising as we do that, while it is important to fight crime on the ground in all our constituencies, it is also important to fight it there as well.
Saqib Bhatti
I am pleased that the Government are well on their way to delivering on their pledge to deliver 20,000 police officers, 867 of whom are in the west midlands, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision by the Labour police and crime commissioner to close Solihull police station goes a long way to undermining safety and security for my constituents in the north and the south of my constituency?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend will know that there was a passionate Adjournment debate just the other night to discuss issues in west midlands policing. As I said during that debate, it is strange that at a time of unprecedented expansion in UK policing, the impression is being given, in his constituency and elsewhere, of a retreat. I was in the west midlands on Thursday and I know that the chief constable and others are working hard to get on top, but I would hope that in the light of the expansion of policing in my hon. Friend’s part of the world, their property strategy would be reviewed again.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Workers in local food shops in Cambridge have had a tough time in recent years, facing organised shoplifting and threats of violence. It took the intervention of E. J. Matthews, a notable PC, to help to sort that out, but they are now facing organised ramraids. What resources can be made available to Cambridgeshire police to tackle this awful crime?
Kit Malthouse
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, Cambridgeshire police has expanded quite significantly, in terms of pure police numbers, over the past couple of years, but I hope he will also have noticed the work that is being done by the national retail crime steering group, which I chair, to look specifically at crime in this area. Given what he has mentioned about ramraiding in his constituency, I will go away and look at whether a pattern is emerging across the east of England and hope that I can encourage the police to address it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Minister has just said that there is an unprecedented expansion, but back in the real world, antisocial behaviour increased by 7% last year: it is a growing problem across so many communities in my constituency and around the country. Although the new officers are beginning to come on-stream, does he even begin to understand the damage that the cuts not only to police numbers but to services such as youth services have done to communities like the ones I represent?
Kit Malthouse
Year on year, last year and the year before, we actually saw a fall in police-recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour, but we have seen fluctuations in that crime type over the past few months as the variations in covid lockdown regulations have changed. We are keeping a close eye on it. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in our “Beating crime plan”, published in July last year, we encouraged police and crime commissioners—I hope he will encourage his to do this as well—to form their own antisocial behaviour taskforces so that they can really pinpoint and address this most local of crime problems very effectively.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister will be aware that proper community policing is vital for preventing crime and saving lives, yet across London, since the Prime Minister was Mayor, we have seen community policing slashed, and in Richmond borough, in particular, we see our officers routinely extracted to other events. Yet in the same period knife crime has doubled. He will be aware that in September there was the fatal and brutal stabbing of an 18-year-old Afghan refugee and college student in Twickenham. So when will we see a boost to community policing in the Twickenham constituency and across Richmond borough, as this Government have promised us so many extra police officer numbers since 2019?
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is stretching it a bit to say that crime over the past three or four years was the fault of the previous Mayor, who has not been in office for some time; she may not have noticed. It is hard to notice who is in office in London at the moment. Nevertheless, I hope she will welcome the recent decision by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to reinstitute neighbourhood policing, and that she will see the extra numbers of police officers—many hundreds—that have now been recruited in London appearing in her constituency soon.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Current recruitment is welcome, of course, but will the Minister at least acknowledge and be honest with the House that there are 24,000 fewer police officers, police community support officers and staff in the police workforce since 2010 because of this Government’s cuts, and that has a real impact?
Kit Malthouse
I will certainly acknowledge that police numbers fell post the 2010 election, but only as long as the hon. Lady acknowledges that her party crashed the economy, causing us to make much-needed and very vital economies in our national spending. If we had not undertaken those economies, God knows what financial state we would have been in now, following what we have had to do during the pandemic.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The great town of Tunstall sadly missed out on its recent safer streets fund bid. Analysis from Staffordshire police and Stoke-on-Trent City Council shows that we suffer disproportionately from more burglary, aggressive begging and feral youths committing antisocial behaviour, so we want to see improved lighting, CCTV extended and gates for alleyways. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me so that he can hear about this bid and why the great town of Tunstall deserves this investment?
Kit Malthouse
I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend. We will see future rounds of the safer streets fund, and I hope his police and crime commissioner and his local authority will make a bid. I will be more than happy to meet him, not least because the commitment and conviction he shows should be at the forefront of their bid to convince us all to fund this.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
The decisions on how to use funding and resources are operational matters for chief constables, working with their democratically elected police and crime commissioners. They are best placed to make these decisions within their communities, based on their knowledge and experience, including decisions about the right balance of their workforce.
Mohammad Yasin
Our Conservative police and crime commissioner was elected on a platform to fix the unfair funding formula for Bedfordshire police, but his solution to raise much-needed funding to put more police on our streets is to raise local council tax. With two large towns and an international airport, Bedfordshire police should not be funded as a rural force. Will the Minister give our force the resources it needs before expecting my constituents to pay more?
Kit Malthouse
Obviously the Bedfordshire police and crime commissioner is doing a fantastic job. He won a resounding victory in the recent election, and I know he continues to enjoy significant support in that county. As I hope the hon. Gentleman has heard me say in the past, we are committed to coming up with a new funding formula for policing. The formula we use at the moment is a little bit elderly and creaky. He will be pleased to hear that I had a meeting just this morning with the chair of the new technical body that is putting that work together. We hope to be able to run the formula before the next election.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Minister has brushed off criticisms from the Labour Benches, but is he aware of the disquiet on his own Benches? Only last week, Conservative MPs lined up in Westminster Hall to describe a broken system that is
“stacked in favour of the perpetrators rather than the victims.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 258WH.]
One said:
“Across the UK there are people afraid to leave their homes after dark, scared to go to the shops…That cannot go on…The police quite simply do not have the powers or resources.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 257-8WH.]
We agree. That is why neighbourhood policing is at the heart of our new proposals. We will put a police hub in every new community, create neighbourhood prevention teams and fund a next generation of neighbourhood watch. I wonder whether the Minister has anything new to say to his own disaffected Back Benchers, or is crime simply not “red meat” enough for the “big dog”?
Kit Malthouse
Hilarious. I understand the hon. Lady is playing catch-up on policing, and she may have missed the 11,000 police officers we have recruited so far. She may have missed the significant falls in knife crime, acquisitive crime and all neighbourhood-type crimes, as we have seen recently. Policing and fighting crime are a challenge, as I know more than most. It is always two steps forward, one step back. It is right that hon. Members on all sides should be anxious and concerned about crime in their constituencies, but that is why we are recruiting 20,000 police officers, why the Prime Minister has made crime a priority and why he wants to roll up county lines and deal with youth violence. This is a fight that we can win, but over time. While we are having some success as it stands, there is always much more to do.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
My hon. Friend will know that all efforts are being made on reducing knife crime. As the Policing Minister has just said, the latest police-recorded crime figures have shown a fall in offences involving knife crime, but at the same time, a great deal of investment is taking place when it comes to violence reduction units, alongside the investments in the police force.
Huw Merriman
I welcome the work from the Home Secretary on reducing those numbers, but sadly last year saw the highest number of teenage murders in London since records began. Can I therefore commend the “No More Red” campaign set up by Arsenal football club, supported by Ian Wright and Idris Elba? As Ian Wright points out, and as I found out myself as a volunteer in a youth centre, they offer the chance to give people a better route in life, away from gangs and crime. Too many have closed in recent years. May I ask the Home Secretary what we can do to get charities to set more up?
Priti Patel
It is not every day I can come to the Dispatch Box to celebrate and praise the Gooners, but in this case I take great pride in joining my hon. Friend. The “No More Red” campaign, which I have been following, is fantastic. My hon. Friend’s point speaks to the power of charities alongside the Government’s work, because they are the ones at the grassroots that can reach out to young people in constituencies and engage them so they do not get into the cycle of a life of crime.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
We accept that the asylum system is broken, often taking too long to reach decisions. We are working to fix it via the Nationality and Borders Bill. Alongside that, we have plans to speed up the decision-making process and reduce unnecessary delays. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his opposition to the Bill and play his part in helping to fix our broken system.
Afzal Khan
The Conservatives say that the asylum system is broken, but having been in power for more than a decade, the truth is that they are the ones who broke it. Asylums seekers are some of the most vulnerable individuals. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit revealed the emotional and physical trauma they experience—the anxiety, insomnia, self-harm, depression, deterioration of relationships with friends and support staff and reduced engagement with vital services. How has the Home Office’s ability to make initial decisions been allowed to collapse so completely under this Government? What steps will the Minister take to intervene to ensure the situation is addressed with urgency?
Kevin Foster
I am sorry to hear that it sounds like the hon. Gentleman will not be reconsidering his opposition to our reform plans, most notably in the Nationality and Borders Bill, while his party offers no meaningful alternative. The Home Secretary, the whole team in Government and I will continue to focus on our work to reform and update the system, to ensure it offers resettlement based on need, not the ability to pay a people trafficker. That is what our focus will continue to be and we are working towards that.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Priti Patel
The Nationality and Borders Bill was overwhelmingly backed by elected MPs and is now being debated in the other place. Ahead of its Royal Assent, I am operationalising new changes on disrupting and deterring illegal migration, in line with the new plan for immigration which, as the House knows, was announced and published last week. We continue to work with our French counterparts. Law enforcement has achieved 67 small boats-related prosecutions since the start of 2020; we have dismantled 17 small boat organised criminal groups and secured more than 400 arrests.
I am reforming the entire asylum system to bring effective casework into decision making, speeding up processing and introducing fast-track appeals to remove those with no right to be in the UK. I have developed new operational solutions to deter illegal boat arrivals. That is a whole Government effort. As a result, I confirm that we have commissioned the MOD as a crucial operational partner, to protect our channel against illegal migration.
John Lamont
In the light of the news late last week about MP security, will the Home Secretary assure me that the Home Office is working with other Government Departments and devolved Administrations to protect our democracy from those who want to do it, and our country, harm?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to my statement shortly, when I will talk about that issue in much more detail. There are important issues about protecting our democracy from our adversaries, individuals and countries that want to do us harm. That is a whole of Government effort.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I join the tributes to Jack Dromey, who was in our team and should have been with us today. His kindness, principles and determination mean we badly miss him.
On 25 January 2021, the Home Secretary commented on a Met police video of officers breaking up an illegal party in London. She said,
“This illegal gathering was an insult to those hospitalised with COVID, our NHS staff and everyone staying at home to protect them…Police are enforcing the rules to save lives.”
Why has she now changed her mind?
Priti Patel
I welcome the right hon. Lady to her role; I did not get the chance to do that when we last met to debate the Nationality and Borders Bill. With regards to the coronavirus regulations, I stand by my comments, primarily because during the time of the virus and the pandemic, the entire country was doing incredible work to ensure that the virus was not being spread. My views have not changed on that; they are absolutely consistent. On policing throughout the pandemic, we asked the police to do extraordinary things. As she knows, however, the police are operationally independent of me. They were following the guidance issued by the Government at the time and did very good work to protect the public.
Yvette Cooper
I am glad that the Home Secretary stands by her words and her defence of the police, but how on earth can she then defend the Prime Minister, who has publicly admitted breaking the rules? She is not even waiting for the Sue Gray report. Beth Rigby asked her:
“Are you reserving judgment until the Sue Gray report comes out?”
And she said:
“No. On the contrary, I have publicly supported the Prime Minister”.
Tens of thousands of fines were given out in the months when Downing Street was holding parties. She told the police to enforce those rules but she is now defending someone who has admitted breaking them. The Home Secretary’s job is to uphold the rule of law. Does she realise how damaging it is to public trust and to trust in the police to undermine the rule of law now?
Priti Patel
Perhaps the right hon. Lady has forgotten that, in this country, the police and courts are independent of the Government, and I will always respect that principle. Rather than seeking to prejudge, pressure, smear or slander—as it is fair to say that she and perhaps the entire shadow Front Bench and her party clearly are—it is important to let everyone get on and do the required work. We should continue to support the police in the right way and let them do their job in an objective way. I find it pretty rich that she talks about upholding the rule of law on the day that in the other place her party is doing everything possible to undermine support for the police through its opposition to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Like my hon. Friend, I have seen a rise in that kind of offence in my constituency. As the crops are cut and those animals become more apparent, it obviously becomes more of a problem. As I said earlier, I hope that he will see that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which I hope the whole House will support, we are introducing a range of offences to deal with that crime which, for the first time, will attract a prison sentence of up to six months.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Priti Patel
If I may say so to the hon. Lady, I repeat the comments that I made earlier. I appreciate that she may be trying to demonstrate some humour, but the Prime Minister has apologised. At the same time, it is right that the police, who are operationally independent, get on and do their job in the right and proper way, as they have been doing.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
I am conscious of the statement to follow, but my hon. Friend is right that those are concerning matters. In truth, they are not restricted to a single British politician or a single party. The security briefings that he mentioned continue to play an important role.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
To be clear, the wider immigration system obviously operates separately from the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but we are carefully considering what the requirements are, and not least how we can ensure people can actually access the system to make applications because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, for obvious reasons we cannot run our usual application centre that we would have in Kabul given the Taliban’s control of the territory.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
Kit Malthouse
It must be hard for everybody to imagine what kind of twisted mind would think it was a good thing to do to break or steal a defibrillator, and I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to examine the problem in his constituency and, indeed, to see if it is a problem elsewhere.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady raises the very important and, frankly, quite pressing issue of spiking and its impact across the night-time economy and, much more widely, across society. We are looking in much of the work we are doing in policing at how we can review the matter and how we can actually give the support required.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Kevin Foster
I have to point out to my hon. Friend that extending visas beyond six months comes with issues such as payment of the immigration health surcharge and the requirement to issue a biometric residence permit, where appropriate. There are some quite considerable issues with the request, but I am always happy to talk to him about how we can support the businesses in his constituency, and I would point out that visas are already not restricted to working at one farm.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The reality is that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme has been woefully inadequate. In the last few years, we have seen fruit and veg being left to rot in the fields. Why then do this Government think it is clever to introduce a further taper, making it worse, and does the Minister understand the damage he is doing to agriculture?
Kevin Foster
It is safe to say that we have not seen the maximum number of visas taken up. The hon. Member may want to have a think about some of the issues that might have affected international travel for seasonal work over the past two years—particularly relating to a global pandemic. Ultimately, our goal is the right goal, and I think it is fair. I think what the vast majority of people across the UK believe is that in the first instance we should actually focus on making sure that job offers go to our domestic workforce and that key workers are appropriately rewarded.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; this is a very important matter. Just prior to questions this afternoon, I had a bilateral call with my homeland security counterpart in the US. Let me say a few things. First, we are working with the FBI—in fact, we have been since the incident took place—and there is a great deal of intelligence sharing and work taking place. Of course, when it comes to our domestic homeland, a range of measures are being undertaken right now, including protective security for the Jewish community. The investigation is obviously live, so I am unable to talk about the specifics.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Child sexual, criminal and online exploitation are all increasing in this country; they can all be addressed by joined-up working by Government Departments, robust data collection on perpetrators and a police IT system that is fit for the 21st century. That all takes money, vision and leadership. Can the Home Secretary provide that?
Priti Patel
Let me start by thanking the hon. Lady for her question and for her work in this area. In particular, she has worked a lot with me and my Department on the issue of grooming gangs and child sexual exploitation. A wide range of work across the whole of Government is taking place on this, including local authorities, social services and public health. That work is crucial, as is—I know she knows this and has seen it—the incredible investigatory capability of our National Crime Agency, as well as policing, to go after the perpetrators. That work is getting stronger and stronger.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), a month ago, Feras Al Jayoosi was convicted on four counts under the Terrorism Act 2000, including twice walking around Golders Green with a large rucksack on his back and a Palestinian Islamic Jihad t-shirt on. Three days ago, Tahra Ahmed was convicted of two charges of stirring up racial hatred, after a complaint about a Facebook post that claimed the Grenfell Tower fire was a “Jewish sacrifice”. My constituents face this daily, often by people from outside the area who are coming in to incite violence and outrage against them. Can the Home Secretary please advise, in addition to the measures she has mentioned about the disgraceful behaviour in Dallas, what my constituents can expect to receive from the police and security services?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right to raise this. Let me be very clear: in no way and under no circumstances are any of the acts that he has spoken about acceptable. They are thoroughly unacceptable and that is why the police in particular are doing everything possible to go after the individuals. As he will know, certain individuals have been on various watchlists, radars and so on, where we come together to ensure that the Jewish community, and his constituents in particular, are fully supported and fully protected.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The community in Keyham has serious concerns about the amount of pump action weapons being held in residential areas. Will the Home Secretary agree to meet a delegation from Keyham to discuss the concerns about how rules on holding pump action weapons in residential areas can be tightened?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman has raised a vital issue and I thank him for his work locally, and the work of his local authority and policing. I know he has been in contact with the Policing Minister on this issue. We will happily meet him and others from his community. I know this is a particular issue and it is something that we need absolutely to come together on and to work together to resolve.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that, last year, the British public had £78 million stolen from them by clone scammers and people posing as legitimate companies online? Will she work with colleagues from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to set out in law robust identity checks that all online platforms should have to make, before letting people take out advertising on their site?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right about the scourge of fraud and its prevalence online. We brought fraud into scope for the draft Online Safety Bill. I am conscious of the issues that she mentions about advertising and we continue to work with colleagues from DCMS on that.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
In our communities, we have asylum seekers who are ready and willing to work in sectors that are experiencing acute shortages, such as fruit and veg picking and HGV driving, but those occupations still do not appear on the shortage occupation list. When will the Government widen that list, or will they simply sacrifice the economy for their hostile immigration environment?
Kevin Foster
It is worth noting that those whose applications have been outstanding for over a year through no fault of their own can access jobs on the shortage occupation list, and we are expanding that to include care workers next month. This highlights an opportunity for 31 out of 32 local authority areas in Scotland to become part of the dispersal accommodation scheme, so that some of these people will be living in their communities.
Foreign Interference: Intelligence and Security
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on foreign interference in UK politics.
I, like all Members across this House, am utterly appalled that an individual who has knowingly engaged in political interference activities on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party for a number of years targeted Members of Parliament. It is a fact that this kind of activity has recently become more common, with states that have malign intentions operating covertly and below current criminal thresholds in an attempt to interfere with our democracy. Members of both Houses of Parliament should ensure that they are aware of the threat of foreign interference.
State threats to and malign influence on the UK are growing and diversifying as systematic competition intensifies. State threats are persistent and take many, many forms. In fact, we have discussed that many times in this House, given some of the terrible incidents that have taken place, including espionage, interference—that means political interference as well—sabotage and physical threats to individuals.
The Home Office has been working closely with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service for some time on potential measures to help to secure successful prosecutions for this kind of activity. I am unequivocal in the tasking that takes place with our security partners to protect our citizens and institutions from hostile state activity and foreign influence.
In relation to the MI5 security alert issued last Thursday, the parliamentary authorities, following careful and detailed discussion with MI5, issued an alert to Members of Parliament—MPs and peers—alerting them about specific individuals involved in direct political interference. In this case, the individual has well-established links to parliamentarians and facilitated political donations to serving and aspiring politicians, with funding coming from foreign nationals in China and Hong Kong. That was done covertly to mask the origins of the payments.
The individual has links to the United Front Work Department, which is the Chinese Communist Party. They have not been open about the nature of these links. MI5 concluded that this person acted covertly in co-ordination with the United Front Work Department, and is involved in political interference activities in the UK. As anyone would expect, those investigations are ongoing.
In this case, the aim was to make the UK political landscape favourable to the Chinese authorities’ agenda and, in particular—I would not question this as there is no doubt—to challenge those who raise concerns about the Chinese authorities’ activities on very pressing and pertinent issues such as human rights. Of course, this activity is not new, which is why our agencies are so diligent in the work that they undertake.
We can expect to see these kinds of alerts become more commonplace as a result of the work of our world-class intelligence agencies, which have adapted to counter these new and emerging threats. Security service interference alerts are just one of several tools MI5 can use to highlight—and thus robustly mitigate—state threats such as malign political interference activity.
Decisions to prosecute individuals are made by the Crown Prosecution Service independently of politicians, so I cannot comment in detail about the work that is under way, but all Members should know that we already have strong security structures in place in the UK to identify foreign interference and any potential threats to our democracy. This case in particular demonstrates such robust action. Those structures enabled our world-leading intelligence and security agencies to issue this particular warning.
Protecting the UK from foreign interference is absolutely crucial. Our most recent integrated review highlighted the importance of strengthening our defence when it comes to state threats, and we are at the forefront of that activity. To build on the strong safeguards that are already in place, we are developing new national security legislation to make it even harder for states to conduct malign activity. We are also taking further steps to protect the integrity of our democracy by tackling electoral fraud and preventing foreign interference in elections through the Elections Bill. We will introduce new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools that they need to disrupt the full range of state threats.
As I mentioned at departmental questions, we are working with our allies to take steps to safeguard our open, democratic societies and to promote an international rules-based system that underpins our stability, security and prosperity. We will always take proportionate and necessary action in response to foreign interference in our political system when it comes to state threats, and we will always act in the interests of our country. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement on such an important national security issue and for advance sight of it. As she will know, the Labour party always stands ready to work with the Government on national security and protecting our country from foreign interference.
May I take a moment to think of those in the Congregation Beth Israel synagogue community in Texas who will still be reeling from their terrible ordeal? People must be free to worship at synagogues and other religious sites, free from fear of violence, across the world. It reminds us that we must be unrelenting in our fight against antisemitism and against extremism. It is, of course, of deep concern that the hostage taker was a British citizen. I want to give thanks to our intelligence agencies and police forces, who are working in co-operation with their US counterparts and other international partners to investigate the issue further.
To turn to the Home Secretary’s statement, the information that you, Mr Speaker, received from the Security Service last week was obviously extremely serious. We condemn in the strongest terms the attempts by China to interfere in Britain’s democratic process. I support the Home Secretary’s words on this important issue and, again, I thank the security and intelligence services for their work on this.
Obviously, there are further important questions about the extent of the deception and interference that took place in this case and the ongoing risks of malign activity from foreign states in our Parliament and across our democracy. I appreciate that the Home Secretary will be limited in what she can say in the Chamber; I am grateful to her and to the Security Service for the further briefing that has been arranged.
May I raise a concern about one point in the Home Secretary’s statement? She says that this alert shows that our system is working. The work that has been done is clearly important, but I would be very concerned if that meant that the Home Secretary and the Home Office were complacent in this area, because we have seen a series of important warnings about attempts by both Russia and China to interfere in the Russian report and in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, particularly with respect to the risks from foreign money. Lord Jonathan Evans has said:
“I don’t think we should assume”
that this
“would be the only case. I would be astonished if there weren’t similar cases, for instance from Russia.”
He has raised concerns that loopholes for foreign money have not been closed, and has described that as
“a live and present threat”
to our democracy.
The Russia report was published in July 2020, and we are still waiting for the full implementation. Nor have we yet had a proper response to the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is chaired by the former MI5 head. Can the Home Secretary assure us that she is not complacent about threats to our national security and to our democracy? Can she tell me when the Russia report’s recommendations will be implemented in full and when the results of the consultation on foreign state interference, which closed last summer, will be published?
When will there be a response to the Committee’s crucial recommendation on the funding of digital campaigns and to its important recommendation that more needs to be done on identifying the source of donations and the role of shell companies? Labour has tabled a common-sense amendment to the Elections Bill this very afternoon: new clause 9, which would close the loophole allowing foreign donors to hide behind shell companies. Will the Home Secretary now support that important amendment to ensure that donors to UK political parties have a connection to the UK?
Priti Patel
First of all, I take issue with the right hon. Lady’s overall comment: there is no complacency. There is never any complacency at all. On issues of national security, it is absolutely vital and important that all parties, irrespective of their previous opposition to aspects of protecting our country from some of our adversaries, come together.
The right hon. Lady has asked a series of important questions not just about protecting us from our adversaries and malign threats, including state threats, but in relation to the Russia report. She will be aware that the Government gave a full response to the Intelligence and Security Committee Russia report in July 2020. Many of the recommendations were already in train, co-ordinating Her Majesty’s Government, the work across the Treasury, and all aspects of Government work, led by the Cabinet Office.
That comes together in relation to much of the work around protecting democracy, which, as the right hon. Lady will be well aware, sits with the Cabinet Office and is co-ordinated through our agencies in terms of understanding where the threats are, calling out malicious cyber-activity, sanctioning individuals, working further on global anti-corruption sanctions regimes and cracking down on illicit finance. That work is clearly co-ordinated at that particular level.
The right hon. Lady also makes reference to aspects of new legislation, and I touched on that issue myself during my opening remarks. She is right to say that the consultation took place last year. Work is under way, and there will be announcements in due course about the approach that the Government are taking to new legislation on state threats.
My final comment is that when it comes to state interference it is absolutely vital that not just all Members of this House, but members of the public—we have had many debates about this during previous elections—officials across Government and local authorities are highly attuned to the implications of state threat interference in democracy and when it comes to cyber. That is why across the whole of Government there is such extensive work on systematic integration and co-operation to ensure that institutions of the state are protected from hostile state interference.
Mr Speaker
We now come to Dr Julian Lewis, Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will undoubtedly be aware of the important distinction between agents of influence or covert propagandists, and espionage agents or spies. In her statement she referred to new national security legislation. In precisely what areas does she anticipate that new legislation interfering in the activities of agents of influence and of espionage agents?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend has made an important point. In my statement I also alluded to the fact that, when it comes to interference and influence, there are so many facets, including in commercial and economic life. Those are the strands that we are pulling together—in fact the Security Minister, other colleagues across Government and I are developing that legislation so that we can close down that permissive environment and space where, frankly, there has been too much exploitation in the past.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank you for your letter, Mr Speaker, and the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I join her in paying tribute to the work of our security and intelligence agencies and I agree with her that it is appalling that such activities have been ongoing for a number of years. Will she say a little about why the alert is happening now if the activity has been going on for a number of years? Will she address any concerns that the alert came later than it had to come?
I also welcome the prospect of a refresh of some of our national security legislation. We will work constructively on that, but will the Home Secretary confirm when we will see that legislation? Will the remaining recommendations from the Intelligence and Security Committee report be fully implemented?
In her statement, the Home Secretary said that malign actors are operating covertly and below current criminal thresholds. Is it her view that those thresholds have to change?
Finally, the Home Secretary talked about making the rules around foreign money tougher. What about the millions of pounds of donations received by political parties, particularly the Conservative party, from unincorporated associations—a type of body that the Committee on Standards in Public Life warned was
“a route for foreign money to influence UK elections”?
Will that be stopped?
Priti Patel
There were a number of points there, but first I will address the hon. Gentleman’s question about legislation. That will come when parliamentary time allows. Specific work is taking place on the development of that legislation in the way I have spoken about; there are many aspects to cover.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on the Russia report, where I refer him to comments I made earlier. He also touched on some of the economic elements of malign activity and influence, in particular. It is fair to say that the security alert issued on Thursday last week pointed quite specifically to the type of activity taking place in relation to lower criminal thresholds. We are going to change the laws to ensure that we can look at those thresholds—that is important work that takes place. However, there is no doubt that foreign influence manifests itself in many, many ways: economic; through our institutions—not just Parliament, and some of these institutions’ involvement are well documented; and dirty money. That has been a long-running issue and it absolutely needs to be addressed.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It would seem that for some of us the old adage, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” does not seem to be well understood. The sad truth is that from time to time this activity has happened in our House. Looking to the future, and in welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, may I ask whether she agrees that not only is it incumbent on the Government, through their new legislation, to deal with the criminal threshold issue that she mentions, but that we must work, with the House authorities, on the granting of passes and the funding of all-party groups, to ensure that all these subtle but insidious and increasingly brazen attempts to influence Members are stamped out, and stamped out for good?
Priti Patel
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his support, not just now, but when he was in government, on these issues and on thresholds in particular. Of course, Mr Speaker, the alert last Thursday was issued in conjunction with the parliamentary security directorate, and there is work that we will provide support on in terms of vetting and security. It is right that we all come together, not just across law enforcement, but with the intelligence services, to ensure that we close down any gaps that have been exploited by those who want to do us harm.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been very robust in defending the Government’s response to the ISC’s report on Russia. In the light of recent events, has she had an opportunity to review the clear recommendations in that report, particularly those pertaining to the Palace of Westminster and what we need to do?
Priti Patel
First, let me welcome the new Chair of the Select Committee and congratulate her on her election. There is no question—I should be very clear about this—but that we learn all the time about gaps and about not just new threats, but the type of tactics and techniques used by those who want to do us harm. It is right that we review absolutely every facet of security here. I come back to my earlier point about protecting democracy from malign interests. Working with the Cabinet Office in particular, which oversees this, that is effectively what we are doing.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Of course it is shocking that any Member of this House should allow themselves to be used by a foreign power, but one problem we have is that this issue is not suddenly emerging. We have now a real problem with China. There are more than 13 organisations hell-bent on such purposes, hiding in public view, working with the United Front and other organisations to report back to China. We know that there are four people we have failed to sanction that the Americans have sanctioned for complicity in the Uyghur genocide that is going on. The Government have got to get tougher even still. The problem is that in the integrated review, which she rightly referred to, we referred to Russia as a threat but to China as a “systemic challenge”. Given that the head of MI6 said that the “single biggest priority” for MI6 was
“adapting to a world affected by…China”
does she not think, as I do, that it is time to change our position and call China the threat that it really is to us?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend speaks a great deal of sense on this issue. He has highlighted and spoken clearly about the direct threat, which we have seen, in this House alone, when it comes to undermining our democracy. I am very conscious that a number of our parliamentarians have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government for rightly speaking out—we live in a free country and an open democracy, and we are privileged to do so—against abusive actions of the particular Government at hand. It is right that we constantly review all our threats from adversaries, which manifest themselves in different ways. I can give him my complete assurance that I will be working with my colleagues across Government to make sure that that absolutely happens.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Through you, Mr Speaker, may I please thank Members from all across the House for the kind messages that I have received over the past few days? I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the work of the security services in protecting Parliament. Will the measures she has announced help MPs to get extra support when making the required checks about the true source of any donations? She will know that the security services told me that their alert was based on specific intelligence of illegal funding, which did not relate to the donations that paid for my office staff. Those ceased in 2020. Is she able to tell the House what steps she is taking to ascertain where the tainted money ended up?
Priti Patel
First, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue to work with the intelligence and security services and co-operate with them at the highest level with regards to the alert that has been published and also to the areas that he has referred to. It is a fact that, across this House, we will come together to do everything possible to protect the integrity of our democracy and all hon. Members from such malign interference and threats. I also look forward to working with you, Mr Speaker, to close down some of the permissive loopholes that have been so publicly exposed in the last few days.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend’s statement today. The work she has done on defending this country from foreign interference, and on protecting British nationals under threat of Chinese state propaganda and influence, has been impressive, from her work on the Foreign Affairs Committee to her work in the Department on protecting British nationals overseas. May I ask, building on the questions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly asked, what more we are going to do to ensure that this dirty money does not come into our community? She will remember that the work she did on the Committee in 2019 raised the idea of a foreign agents registration Act, which would have exposed to criminal prosecution those who put money into our system to undermine our democracy.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend knows my views on the whole area of foreign agent registration. This is not shining a spotlight any more; this is putting the full beam of transparency on to the dirty money that comes into our country. If I may have your indulgence for a second, Mr Speaker, let me say that for those of us who have spent time reading banking reports and financial reports, following the money that has had the most corrosive influence in some of our institutions has been self-evident. I have already referenced the new legislation that will come forward. This is an area that we are keen to pursue, working with our colleagues across Government, and that is something that my Department will lead on.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We have to have our eyes wide open about the possible infiltration of British politics by Iranians, Russians and from China. The Government should indeed be sanctioning Chen Quanguo, Zhu Hailun, Zhu Changjie, Huo Liujun and, for that matter, Carrie Lam. They have been undermining human rights both in Hong Kong and in China. However, my biggest anxiety is that we have been saying for a long time—ever since the Home Secretary was on the Foreign Affairs Committee with us and we produced the “Moscow’s Gold” report—that we need to ensure that it is illegal to act as a foreign agent in this country. The Intelligence and Security Committee report says quite clearly in paragraph 1.11 that this still is not the case. I know that she has been consulting on it, but can I just tell her to get a blasted move on?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman makes his point very powerfully; no question about that. He knows the work that I am trying to push forward, and the need to bring forward the legislation. We have had the consultation—we have to consult, clearly—and as I have said already, we are going to be bringing forward the legislation. We need the parliamentary time to do this, but we have a busy timetable—[Interruption.] No, we are absolutely working to do that.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare an interest as someone who has been banned, not bunged, by the Chinese Government. Mr Speaker, you boldly and rightly banned the Chinese ambassador from coming to the Palace of Westminster when seven parliamentarians and our families were sanctioned by China. Does the Home Secretary agree it will be right that anybody determined to be an agent of influence, or people close to them, have no place coming to this place or any Government Department, sharing our resources and having access to Ministers, parliamentarians and intelligence? Will she also ensure that there is a proper audit of the activities of the United Front Work Department and the harassment and intimidation it brings to members of the Chinese diaspora across the country?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend articulates very clearly the extent to which, across the board both here and in the diaspora, we have been experiencing intimidation and harassment. Having brought forward the scheme to secure British nationals overseas, I heard the most harrowing tales of the most appalling abuse of people from the BNO community who were subjected to all sorts of dreadful things. My hon. Friend is right, and I want to give assurance on a number of fronts. First, not just in relation to Parliament and this House but across Government, I make it clear that we are auditing individuals who could or may have had access to Government and Government Departments over a period of time, as well as auditing meetings that may have taken place not just with Ministers but with officials. These alerts will be shared with officials not just in Whitehall but across the country, including in local government, because we know that the footprint is much wider than just the heart of Government.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. It is truly sickening that anyone would attempt to infiltrate our Parliament, circumventing the security of this place and even of Prime Ministers. I am also deeply concerned that, following a massive spike in racist attacks levelled at east and south-east Asians during the pandemic over the last two years, this serious incident may cause an entire community and ethnicity to become targets for abuse yet again. What will her Department do to ensure that does not happen?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Lady for making that important and powerful point. Of course racism and racist abuse against any community is abhorrent, and we have to work to stamp it out. She is right to highlight the fact that, throughout the coronavirus pandemic—this is a tragedy and awful to know—the south-east Asian community have been particularly vilified and subjected to racist abuse.
It is right that not just the Government but the Home Office, working with our community partners and the police, do everything possible to ensure that any racist incidents are dealt with in the right and proper way and that we give the right protective measures, awareness and support to members of that community.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The granting of a parliamentary pass is a real privilege, and I think that all of us should take responsibility by helping the House authorities and the Security Service when we are looking at people for our own offices, because we have the right to nominate people. We bear responsibility for checking out these individuals. May I suggest, from my previous experience in the military, that one way of doing that is to make each and every one of us sit down with anyone who wants a pass or who comes into our office and jointly go through a detailed form, with very detailed questions, and jointly sign it?
Priti Patel
I return to my earlier comments about vetting and the support that is currently in place. We can work together to close down any issues of concern. For the assurance of not just all right hon. and hon. Members but the British public, who will no doubt be watching this debate and wondering how on earth any malign influence could enter the heart of our democracy, we will continue to work collectively to make sure we put all the protective measures in place.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In her statement, the Home Secretary said it was a fact that this kind of activity has become more apparent, but the United Front Work Department has been in existence since 1949, it has a budget of £3 billion a year, and for many years it has used useful fools to propagandise its arguments. May I ask the Home Secretary about universities in particular? There is evidence, certainly from Australia and other countries where tough action has been taken, that the Confucius Institutes are backed by money from the United Front Work Department. Is it not about time we closed them down, and is she content that the Department for Education is responsible for monitoring this?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Gentleman referred first to the prevalence of the activity that we are seeing. Yes, there is more activity, for a number of reasons. Technology changes, these threats evolve and develop with time, and tradecraft adapts and evolves as well. That brings me to his second point, which was about our academic institutions. This is the subject of an ongoing discussion. I have been in many committees where it has been raised, including the ISC, and it is being discussed across Government. He asks whether the Department for Education is doing enough. We have spent a great deal of time working with the Department.
Let me say something about the legislation that we want to introduce. We are learning from other countries, such as Australia—indeed, I had a bilateral meeting just last week. This is also part of the work of Five Eyes. A lot of work is being done to look at the institutional impacts of hostile state activity, alongside issues such as foreign agent registration. We want to get this right through future legislation, and that is what we are working on.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This is a really important issue, and one that has lessons for all parliamentarians and all political parties. It seems to me that the crucial issue, as the Home Secretary has highlighted, is the whole business of foreign donations and cash being used for inducements. That is the main reason why, during the 10 years in which I have chaired the all-party parliamentary China group, all our sponsors have been British organisations. Does she agree, first, that we need to get a grip of the whole issue of foreign donations, wherever they come from, because third-party countries can be used as well? Secondly, does she agree that the Committee on Standards needs to look more closely at whether any individual parliamentarian needs to be investigated? Thirdly, does she agree that while of course we must rise to the systematic challenge of China that was raised in the integrated review, we do not wish to avoid any engagement with a nation that is a fellow permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and with which we have much important business to do?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes a number of points. In relation to the House, standards and transparency, there are already measures in place, as we know, and greater work will take place, as I have said. Obviously we will support all aspects of Parliament to ensure that when more work can be undertaken on transparency, it will indeed be undertaken. When it comes to China’s role in the world, in multilateral institutions and organisations, and our own values versus the type of values that the Chinese Government are proposing around the world, I think it is fair to say that there are many difficult issues. The House recognises that, as do I as Home Secretary and the entire Government. I have already alluded to issues such as human rights abuses, whether they involve the Uyghurs or even BNOs, whom I have helped assiduously. I have set up a bespoke scheme to ensure that they are safe, despite the measures that the Chinese Government are putting in place. We as a Government will always stand up for what is right in the world. That means international law and the rules-based system, and it means calling out those who have behaved in an appalling and inappropriate way in respect of some of the issues that I have touched on.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House that I serve as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Uyghurs and on Hong Kong, and that I am a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I heard what the Home Secretary said about the implementation of the ICS’s Russia report. I hope that there will now be a bit more urgency in the implementation of its recommendations, not least because we expect the publication of the Committee’s China report before too long. May I also say to the Home Secretary that if this is to be done effectively and the House and indeed this Parliament can then present a united front to the outside world, she should now be working with all parties across the House to build the consensus necessary to implement those recommendations?
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. On issues such as national security and intelligence co-operation, he is privy to much of our work and will understand the approach that we take. When it comes to legislation that is under development, we know that there are just so many aspects on which we need to legislate. I have already touched on criminal thresholds and the changing nature of the threats. We are also looking at schemes that are already running in other countries—jurisdictions overseas—to see how we can apply them to our own jurisdiction. It takes time to work through them, but I give the House every assurance that we will work in a collaborative way on these measures.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Two years ago, I wrote a paper on how to bring in a foreign lobbying law into the UK—the Security Minister has a copy of that. With great respect to the Home Secretary, I think that these scandals will just carry on, as they have been doing ever since I came to this place, until we update our espionage laws, until we update our domestic lobbying laws, and until we bring in a foreign lobbying law. The Australians and the Americans—examples I looked at in the paper—have robust laws that cover banking, finance, law, politics and information. We need such laws, because otherwise these scandals will just keep on coming, as sure as eggs is eggs.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has also just touched on the wide-ranging nature of threats. That covers, as I have said, institutions, finance and all aspects of direct harm to individuals. As he will know, there is a great deal of work taking place on the economic and financial front. I know that he and the Security Minister discussed much of that as well. Let me assure him that, through the work that we are undertaking—he is welcome to have further meetings with us on this—he will see the way in which we are pulling these strands together and, importantly, learning from some of the other countries to which he has referred, including in his own report. We are looking to create similar schemes, but obviously within our legal framework and within the lawful way in which we can implement them.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Chinese state holds a 33% stake in Hinkley Point, a 10% stake in Heathrow airport, and a 9% stake in Thames Water. Moreover, a number of the UK’s top universities have ties with Chinese military-linked research centres. For more than 18 months now, Labour Front Benchers have been calling on the Government to undertake a comprehensive audit of every aspect of the UK-China relationship, so that our businesses, universities and public figures are aware of the risks and the threats to our national security. Will the Home Secretary now agree to get this audit underway as a matter of the utmost urgency?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and indeed for setting out the context of the question. He highlights the extent to which China has been investing in the United Kingdom across our utilities, various aspects of business, our institutions and academia, as we touched on earlier. The National Security and Investment Act 2021 is a response to many of the things that have taken place, predating many of us in office and some aspects of this Government as well. We must not only constantly keep a watching eye, but review and look at the investments that are coming into the United Kingdom. That work is taking place across the whole of Government.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. The word “covert” has been used quite a bit, but the Chinese Communist party is acting in plain sight. It is threatening the House and it is threatening MPs, and then it sanctions MPs who expose what it is up to. My question to my right hon. Friend is this: where is the organising force of this Government? I respectfully say the same to the Speaker: where is the organising force for this House in defending our democracy and also ensuring that we are not complicit in genocide? What support is being provided to parliamentarians who have been sanctioned, and to those individuals who gave evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Committee, especially the World Uyghur Congress, which feels threatened in this country? Why are we not blacklisting firms that are selling our data to the Chinese Communist party and selling us products made by Uyghur slave labour? Finally, will she do everything she can to get the individuals who run those prison camps in Xinjiang sanctioned—in particular, Chen Quanguo?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend not just for her question but for her commitment and the work that she has been leading on. I thank all parliamentarians who have been so vocal on many of the abuses that have been well rehearsed and debated in this House.
On the support for parliamentarians who have been sanctioned, which is a really important point, that is where the House needs to be strong, and we are coming together with the parliamentary authorities to ensure that measures are put in place. She asked where is the might in Government. When it comes to defending democracy—as she will know, because she will have had discussions with my colleagues at the Cabinet Office as well—we lead on this, and, with other Departments, absolutely work in an aligned way on the specific details. A great deal is taking place that covers all aspects of threats. I touched on institutions, education and business, and the National Security and Investment Act, but there are also spaces such as cyber, and direct threats to individuals too.
My hon. Friend asked about sanctions on key individuals, and she is not the only Member to touch on this. I have heard the calls from all Members who have spoken on this issue and I will be raising it with my counterparts in the Foreign Office.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Our relationship with China has rightly evolved from the “golden decade” heralded by former Conservative Chancellor George Osborne. Today Members across the House have raised issues of political interference, university research technology transfer, the diaspora presence here, human rights, and investment in this country. The Secretary of State seems to imply that the work on the National Security and Investment Act will address all these issues, but it will not. Will she commit to the audit of UK-China relations that Labour has been calling for?
Priti Patel
A whole raft of work is taking place, not just on China but in relation to the integrated review, and I am sure the hon. Lady has seen that. There will be new legislation coming forward. A great deal of work, much of it unspoken, takes place with our security and intelligence agencies that influences the work on China of Government, Government Departments, and the agencies within Government. It is right that we do absolutely everything we can. New threats evolve, technology advances and tradecraft advances as well. That is why we put very significant investment and resource into not just law enforcement but our intelligence agencies, who inform Government Departments and Ministers in terms of the approaches that we should be using.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The actions of the Chinese Government towards Members of this House, and apparently now within this House, are unforgivable. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss how, within the counter-hostile state Bill, we could put in place protection not only for Members of Parliament but for all British nationals when hostile Interpol red notices are placed on them? Does she agree that every Member of this House should be taking it upon themselves to make sure that we do not act as helpful idiots for our enemies?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend has summed it up quite well. Of course I will be happy to meet her in relation to the legislation that is under development. There is a very poignant note here. We have touched on defending democracy and exposure to Parliament by those that seek to do us harm, but it goes much wider than that, as I have already mentioned: to different institutions, to officials, to civil servants, and across the board. Everyone should be very, very well attuned to the types of engagements that they are having from individuals and what their motivations are.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It goes without saying that we all have to do everything we can to prevent foreign influences from buying their way into our democracy, but there is an opportunity to deal with an aspect of that today—the shell companies that can be used to hide resources of money that is being used for that purpose. Why are the Government not supporting that move today?
Priti Patel
Work is under way in looking at that whole area. In fact, the Security Minister is also working with his Treasury colleagues and counterparts. A lot of work has taken place on it, and we are happy to write to the hon. Gentleman directly to give him an update.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Government outline the action that they are going to take to work with UK businesses and universities to ensure that they are more resilient and effective at protecting their data, research and intellectual property from theft and interference by foreign Governments?
Priti Patel
I reassure my right hon. Friend that much of that work is under way through the National Cyber Security Centre, which not only constantly puts out alerts across the board but has direct engagement with those institutions. That work, of course, will continue.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Further to the Home Secretary’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), tonight this House will debate the Elections Bill. Although it is important to ensure that we can close loopholes that allow foreign money to flood into our British democracy, it is also important to ensure that we do not create new loopholes. I draw her attention to the changes that will allow millions more citizens who are overseas to donate to British politics. In the light of what she knows from the Russia report, which the Minister responsible for the Elections Bill has not read, as she told us in Committee, can she say whether the Bill makes us more or less safe from foreign interference in British politics?
Priti Patel
It is important to say that the Elections Bill covers a whole range of aspects, such as protecting democracy and electoral reform. It is important to recognise the work that is taking place across the board with the Cabinet Office. I know that Cabinet Office Ministers will speak much more about that later.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to our outstanding security services, which keep us safe day in, day out. I have been astounded by the eye-watering sums that some individual parliamentarians received from Christine Lee and organisations connected to her. Does my right hon. Friend think that those individuals should pay back those sums, if not to the people who donated them, perhaps to a charity connected to human rights in China?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend raises some tantalising recommendations, it is fair to say, for consideration. It is important that anyone who has been in contact with the individual or who has received anything from the individual continues to co-operate with our intelligence and security services.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Friday’s announcement came as a surprise to many people, but not to many in Hendon, because it was in fact my predecessor, Andrew Dismore, who established the British Chinese Project in Parliament. He subsequently went on many trips to China and the Hendon Labour party received more than £6,500 in donations. When I was first elected, representatives who I can only presume were connected to this individual came to me and I rejected their overtures. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) that we need an audit of what has gone on in our political system and in our civic society.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. I would like to speak to him about some of the points that he makes.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Half a million quid is a lot of money. If I had had that, I would probably have had a deeper scratch and sniff at it. However, by accident or whatever, people are seeking to undermine our democracy. Can my right hon. Friend tell me: are we are going to nick ‘em, are we going to lock ‘em up, and are they going to face criminal charges?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend robustly makes her point. She will have heard in my statement about the issue with the CPS, the approaches that it takes and the criminal threshold. There are ongoing investigations that I cannot comment on, but a review of criminal thresholds will take place, because we need to see action taken against individuals who undermine our democracy.
Mr Speaker
I would like to add that, quite rightly, we will work closely, between the Home Secretary, the services and this House, to ensure that Members are kept safe and that we put the right protection in place. I also stress from this Chair that I think the sanctions against Members of this House and of the other House are wrong, and the time has come for China to lift them. The sooner it does that, the sooner trust can be rebuilt. While they exist, however, trust will always begin to fail.
BBC Funding
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture Media and Sport, I want to point out that there were extensive stories in the media over the weekend about the future of the licence fee and the BBC’s funding arrangements. I also understand that the Secretary of State tweeted about the subject—either that or she lost her phone—stating:
“This licence fee announcement will be the last.”
These are very important matters that affect all our constituents, and this House quite rightly has a keen interest in them. Any statement on a substantial policy development should have been made to this House before being made to the media.
I am glad that we have a statement today, but it is not good enough for this House to come second to the media, especially on subjects such as this that are of interest to us all. When the House is sitting, important policy statements must be made here before being made to the media, as required by the Government’s ministerial code. In any event, I will always ensure that the House has the opportunity to scrutinise important policy announcements, and the Government may well find that such opportunities are more frequent and more extensive if announcements are made to the media first.
I have the greatest respect for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and for the Secretary of State, but can we please ensure that such announcements are made here? If it was leaked and the Secretary of State felt that she had to respond, let us have a leak inquiry, because we have a major colander right across Government, and I do not want to see this happen again.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I offer you my personal apology. I actually refused every media invitation both yesterday and today.
Under article 43 of the BBC’s royal charter, I am required to determine a funding settlement for the level of the licence fee for a period of at least five years from 1 April 2022. I am legally required to make my determination as far in advance as possible.
I also highlight that, this year, the licence fee settlement has featured S4C prominently for the first time. In line with the recommendation from the independent review of S4C completed in 2018, the licence fee will be the sole source of public funding for S4C.
Negotiations began back in November 2020, and both I and my predecessor met the BBC on several occasions during this period to discuss this settlement. As part of those negotiations, the charter requires that I assess both the BBC’s commercial income and activities and the level of funding required so that the BBC can effectively fulfil its mission and public purposes. In addition, this Government set out our own relevant factors to consider during the charter review in 2015-16: evasion, commercial income, household growth and industry costs.
As the Prime Minister has said, the BBC is a great institution. It has a unique place in our cultural heritage. Beyond our shores, the BBC broadcasts our values and identities all over the world, reaching hundreds of millions every day. Likewise, the Welsh broadcaster S4C plays a unique and critical role in promoting the Welsh language, and in supporting our wider public service broadcasting landscape.
However, in reaching this settlement, I had to be realistic about the economic situation facing households up and down the country. The global cost of living is rising, and this Government are committed to supporting families as much as possible during these difficult times. Given that climate, we had to think very carefully about imposing any potential increase in the TV licence fee, particularly when any increase would expose families to the threat of bailiffs knocking on their door or criminal prosecution. When it comes to monthly bills, this is one of the few direct levers we have in our control as a Government. In the end, we simply could not justify putting extra pressure on the wallets of hard-working households.
Every organisation around the world is facing the challenge of inflation. I simply do not believe that those responsible for setting household bills should instinctively reach into the pockets of families across the country for just a little more every year to cover those costs. Today, I am announcing that the licence fee will be frozen for the next two years, and will rise in line with inflation for the following four years.
The BBC wanted the fee to rise to over £180 by the end of the settlement. Instead, it will remain fixed at £159 until April 2024. That is more money in the pockets of pensioners and of families who are struggling to make ends meet. We are supporting households when they need that support the most. This settlement sends an important message about keeping costs down while also giving the BBC what it needs to deliver on its remit. The approach to funding will be the same for the BBC and for S4C. However, I can announce that S4C will receive an additional £7.5 million funding per annum from 2022, to support the development of its digital offering. That is a 9% increase, following five years of frozen funding.
We believe this is a fair settlement for the BBC; it is a fair settlement for S4C and, most importantly, it is a fair settlement for licence fee payers all across the United Kingdom. Let us not forget that the BBC will continue to receive billions in annual public funding, allowing it to deliver its mission and public purposes and to continue doing what it does best.
To support the BBC even further in what is a fast-changing broadcasting landscape, the Government will more than double the borrowing limit of the BBC’s commercial arm to £750 million. That will enable the BBC to access private finance as it pursues an ambitious commercial growth strategy, boosting investment in the creative economy across the UK. But as Tim Davie said in his first speech as director-general of the corporation, the BBC must be a “simpler, leaner organisation” that offers “better value” to licence fee payers. We agree with that. Ultimately, this settlement strikes the right balance between protecting households and allowing broadcasters to deliver their vital public responsibilities, while encouraging them to make further savings and efficiencies.
The licence fee settlement is only one step in our road map for reform of the BBC. In the last few months, I have made it clear that the BBC needs to address issues around impartiality and groupthink. Those problems were highlighted definitively by the recent Serota review. The BBC’s own leadership rightly recognised those findings in full and committed to deliver all the review’s recommendations in its 10 point action plan on impartiality and editorial standards. I have had constructive discussions with the BBC about those issues in recent months. The BBC now needs to put those words into action. It needs to convince the British public that those changes are being made, and to provide regular and transparent accounts of its progress.
We will shortly begin the mid-term review of the BBC’s charter, which will consider the overall governance and regulation of the BBC. A key part of that review will look at whether the BBC’s action plan on impartiality has, in fact, materially contributed to improving the organisation’s internal governance.
It is also time to look further into the future. As any serious commentator will tell you, Mr Speaker, the broadcasting landscape has changed beyond all recognition over the past decade. We are living in a world of streaming giants, on demand, pay per view and smart TVs. Technology is changing everything. Some 97% of homes already have superfast broadband. A family in Cumbria can stream five different movies in five different rooms in their house at any one time, and our gigabit roll-out is transforming those networks even further. More than 65% of UK households now have access to the fastest connection on the planet.
As the tech has changed, so have audience habits, particularly among younger viewers, so it is time to begin asking those really serious questions about the long-term funding model of the BBC and whether a mandatory licence fee with criminal penalties for individual households is still appropriate. As we have said before, we will therefore undertake a review of the overall licence fee model. Those discussions will begin shortly.
The BBC has been entertaining and informing us for 100 years. I want it to continue to thrive and be a global beacon in the UK and in the decades to come, but this is 2022, not 1922. We need a BBC that is forward-looking and ready to meet the challenges of modern broadcasting; a BBC that can continue to engage the British public and that commands support from across the breadth of the UK, not just the London bubble; a BBC that can thrive alongside Netflix, Amazon Prime and all its other challengers that attract younger viewers. The licence fee settlement represents a significant step in that journey and in our wider reform of the BBC.
I look forward to continuing to work with the BBC and others across the industry over the coming years to secure the future of these vital British services. I commend this statement to the House.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I completely agree with you, Mr Speaker, that it is a disgrace that an announcement of this importance was not made to Parliament first. I also look forward to the leak inquiry that you mentioned.
May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on coming top of the teacher’s pet list? She was the first Cabinet Minister to tweet support for the Prime Minister; she was the first to volunteer to do a broadcast round; and now she has been the first to throw up a distraction and find someone else to blame for the Prime Minister’s disintegrating leadership: the BBC’s reporting, of course.
The licence fee deal must be fair to fee payers while ensuring that the BBC can do what it does best. There should be no blank cheques. However, the Government claim that this is all about the cost-of-living crisis. I mean, pull the other one! What is it about the £13.57 a month that marks it out for such immediate and special attention to address the cost of living, over the £1,200-a-year increase in energy and household bills or the £3,000-a-year tax increases that the Culture Secretary’s Government have imposed?
Is the licence fee really at the heart of the cost-of-living crisis, or is this really about the Government’s long-standing vendetta against the BBC? Now it is part of Operation Red Meat to save the Prime Minister from becoming dead meat. Apparently, negotiations with the BBC had not even been finalised when the Culture Secretary gave the details to a Sunday newspaper on the very weekend when the Prime Minister’s position was most in peril? I leave it to you, Mr Speaker, and others to judge the timing of that.
The Culture Secretary has proven today that Conservatives may know the price of the licence fee, but not its value. The last time they targeted it, the over-75s paid the price. What assessment has she made of the impact of the two-year freeze on BBC output and commissioning and on the wider creative industries more broadly? Is she happy to become the Secretary of State for repeats? [Interruption.] Oh, there’s more coming—there is lots of fun to be had with this, don’t worry.
This is not enough red meat for the Culture Secretary. She will not stop until her cultural vandalism has destroyed everything that is great about Britain. Vandalism is exactly what it is to tweet on a Sunday—with no notice, discussion or thought—the end to the BBC’s unique funding, without any clue about what will replace it.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain how the BBC will continue valued services that just would not be commercially viable. First, how can it continue to support local journalism where so many have recently failed? In many areas, the BBC is the last local news desk standing.
Secondly, how would a commercial-only BBC be able to play such a crucial role, as the BBC has, in levelling up and growing the creative industries across our regions and nations, from Cardiff to Salford and elsewhere? The Government are silent on that one. I support the increased funding for S4C, but the Government claim to support the Union, so what assurance can the Secretary of State provide for the continuation of distinct broadcasting in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland when there is no licence fee?
Thirdly, would the Secretary of State’s cut-back BBC be able to continue with the world service and its global soft power, which her Government’s review described only last year as
“the most trusted broadcaster worldwide”?
Finally, what would happen to BBC Learning, BBC Bitesize, and children’s educational programming, which, frankly, did a much better job than the Government, who could not even provide iPads, in getting high-quality education into children’s homes during lockdown?
The impartiality of the BBC is crucial to trust in it. By explicitly linking charter renewal to the BBC’s editorial—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Quite rightly, I wanted silence for the Secretary of State. I expect the same respect to be given to the shadow Secretary of State. To those voices that I keep hearing, I know who is behind the mask. If you want to go out early, do not make me help you on your way.
Lucy Powell
I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is actually a big fan of mine but he is just trying to hide it behind his mask.
The impartiality of the BBC is crucial to trust in it. By explicitly linking charter renewal to the BBC’s editorial decisions, the Government sound more like a tinpot dictatorship that a healthy democracy. The BBC creates great quality, British-produced programming, from royal weddings to “Strictly Come Dancing” and great British drama, as well as championing new music. It is at the cutting edge of harnessing the digital age. Of course it needs to change with the times and review its output and reach, but it is a well-loved and trusted British treasure, and it is the envy of the world.
The Government are in trouble, however. The Prime Minister is casting around for people to blame, and the Culture Secretary has stepped up to provide some red meat. Well, it will not work. This is not how the future of our jewel in the crown and the cornerstone of our world-leading creative industries should be determined. She will have a fight on her hands if she wants to destroy it.
Ms Dorries
I think there were about 30 questions in that statement so I will address the top points. First, it is nobody’s intention to destroy the BBC. In fact, I completely agree with the hon. Lady that it is a beacon, but the BBC licence fee is not a small amount of money for families across the UK who are working hard but struggling to pay that bill, and who face bailiffs at their door or a magistrates court appearance. Who are we to say that it is a small amount of money? That is a disgrace. It is a significant sum, and it is also regressive. Whether getting by on minimum wage or on a multimillion-pound presenter’s salary, we fork out the same amount of money. That is not right. Only those who have not faced hard choices weekly on what they can and cannot afford for their families would claim that that was a small amount of money. As a point of principle, we cannot add to that bill at a time when every family faces pressure on their wallets.
Would the hon. Lady like to indicate from a sedentary position whether she supports freezing the licence fee for two years and helping those hard-pressed families? [Interruption.] Is that a no? The hon. Lady is shaking her head. She does not support freezing the licence fee to support those hard-pressed families who need every bit of help in the face of rising global energy costs and rising pressures from inflation. The hon. Lady has declined to help those hard-working families. What we are saying is that moving forward, we need to decide, discuss and debate. Bring it on—everybody in the House, let’s discuss what a BBC in 2027 will look like. It is not a policy; we are announcing a debate and a discussion. Let’s all get involved positively.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that I am not impressed by the process or the proposal, and I do not think it necessarily leads to progress, either? I would be grateful to know whether there was an assessment of alternatives, when they were put to Cabinet Sub-Committees, when the Cabinet considered the proposal and why it is that this is the one thing on which a Government Minister will claim that we cannot have any kind of increase because people are short of money.
Other things that the Government run are linked to the retail price index or the consumer prices index, and it seems to me that it would be better to have a discussion in the House on whether we should have a moderated increase during the remaining years of the charter. If she did not say that this is the last time that there will be a charter with a subscription, will she please put the options in front of the House for people like me who say that if the choice is between the United States or the state, public broadcasting on the BBC and Channel 4 is better than having everything go to some of the big media people around the world who would not maintain the kind of BBC that we have had for the past 100 years?
Ms Dorries
The decision on what the future funding model looks like is for discussion. Some of us may not even be here by the time 2028 arrives, but it is up for discussion, and that is what we need to decide. I have the greatest respect for the Father of the House—he knows that; I have known him for 20 years—but I honestly cannot agree that the BBC can just continue to ask for more money from the British public year after year. I do not agree with that premise. Do not be under any illusions: the BBC will continue to receive billions of pounds, even under this settlement. It will get £23 billion of public money over the course of the charter to 2027. We cannot justify, in the face of rising inflationary pressures and increasing global energy prices, going to the British public and say, “Pay more. If you don’t, a bailiff will be at your door.”
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of the statement, not that we needed it; she shared her thoughts with Twitter. Plus ça change. We all know that the timing is to distract from the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State claims that the move will protect pensioners from court cases, but that argument is disingenuous nonsense. It was this Conservative Government who abolished automatic free television licences for the over-75s. If pensioners are struggling with the BBC fee rate of 43p a day, imagine how they will cope with the cost of a Netflix or Sky subscription model. Everyone knows it means less programming at a greater cost.
The Secretary of State has spoken about exploring the options for the BBC, but in reality I suspect her mind is well made up. She let that slip in the Select Committee when she said to me:
“How do I even know if the BBC is going to be going in 10 years?”
Some custodian of public service broadcasting. The hostility towards the BBC and its future does not stem from a desire to protect pensioners, but rather from a visceral loathing of the Prime Minister’s critics. The Tory right hates the BBC almost as much as it hates Channel 4. That is why the Culture Secretary, a doting prime ministerial loyalist, is so determined to destroy both. She does not want to see Krishnan Guru-Murthy lead presenter of Channel 4 News, or Nick Robinson—a former chair of the Young Conservatives no less, and now lead presenter on the “Today” programme—pin down the Prime Minister or his slippery apologists. She knows, does she not, that the Tory right wants the broadcast media to be as sycophantic as most of the print press, offering fawning adulation to their leader. If the BBC is felled, and Channel 4 privatised, free speech will be the victim, and we know—do we not, Mr Speaker?—that the result will be yet more obsequious, unquestioning news.
Ms Dorries
I have no idea how anyone could make the leap from “let’s have a debate and a discussion in the House about how the future funding looks” to “privatisation”. It’s just—I have no further comment.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Speaking strictly personally, I welcome the freeze, and the overt commitment to wean the BBC off the licence fee. As Lord Grade said on the “Today” programme this morning, nearly £160 is nothing to Gary Lineker, but it is a lot to our constituents. I and the House would like more details please about whether the licence fee will stop in 2028, or be phased out. The latter, in my view, gives the best chance of preserving the BBC’s status in our national culture. How will moving to alternative funding models work given, first of all, the paucity of broadband coverage, with old technology such as Freeview being embedded in the system? Will the central Government funding that has been mooted stand up legally, and also measure the key issue of impartiality?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and support on the freeze, but I take issue with the point about paucity of broadband. Some 97% of homes in the UK have superfast broadband—[Interruption.] As I said, 97% of homes have superfast broadband, and we are rolling out gigabit. As I said in my statement, someone in a house in Cumbria can download five videos—five movies—in five different rooms in the house. We do not have a paucity. On whether the licence fee will be phased out and what a future funding model will look like, those discussions and analyses have not even begun, but all Members of the House should, and will, be part of those discussions. I imagine that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be doing very important work on the issue moving forward, in terms of establishing a future funding model, and that work will continue in the future.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State say what impact assessment she has done of the impact that the change will have on households if fees were increased? What will be the impact on services provided by the BBC as a consequence of these freezes to its income, on top of the 31% that it has had cut from its income over the past 10 years? How will that affect the services provided by the BBC, and how will they survive her plans for the BBC?
Ms Dorries
Both I and my predecessor have been negotiating with the BBC for a considerable period, and the BBC will be meeting its mission and core purpose. The most important impact assessment is that fewer families will end up in a magistrates court.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
Like many of the best things in this country, the BBC licence fee may not work in theory but works really well in practice, as shown by very low levels of evasion. There are, of course, many alternative ways of funding it, but as the DCMS Committee, which my right hon. Friend referred to, concluded last year, the Government either need to
“come out with a strong alternative to the BBC licence fee that it can put to Parliament, or strongly support the current model for at least the next Charter period (2028-2038).”
Does the Secretary of State have that alternative on offer?
Ms Dorries
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. I am afraid that we differ in our opinions. We have five or six years—there is plenty of time to decide what a future funding model would look like.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
We abolished the radio licence fee in 1979 and moved to a TV licence fee, so I am not against moving towards an internet licence fee or something like it. But we need to know the details, the thresholds and the amount of money that would be raised. Does the Secretary of State accept that her announcement that this would be the last licence fee, without going through the consultation first, was reckless?
Ms Dorries
As I said, when the new model starts in 2027-28, many of us may not even be here—we are talking six years away. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and look forward to his being part of the discussion and debate about what we do in the future.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
As the Secretary of State will know, the Select Committee report that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) just referred to acknowledges in its very first recommendation that
“the Government will need to act…to ensure that the public service broadcasting system remains sustainable in…today’s…global media market.”
In that sense, I am glad that we are having the debate, even if I am a little unclear about where it came from this weekend.
Given that the Select Committee report is also clear that the Government need a credible view on what any alternative to the licence fee might be and on what their vision is for the future of public service broadcasting, what are my right hon. Friend’s instincts as she kicks off this welcome national debate?
Ms Dorries
My instincts are let’s start the discussion. Let’s have a look at the—[Interruption.] That is what I am starting, Mr Speaker—unless, of course, Members of the House would just like us to decide and not have the debates and not have the discussion. That is where we are going: we are going to start that discussion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) is speaking from a sedentary position; perhaps she would like to confirm whether she supports the freeze to the licence fee? A yes or a no—a nod or a shake—would be great. No? There we go.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Despite the fact that the removal of the free licence for the over-75s was a result of her own party’s actions, the Secretary of State’s tweet yesterday indicated that her attack on the BBC was due to the over-75s being threatened with prison sentences and bailiffs knocking on their doors. Yet less than two weeks ago, she told this House that
“no enforcement action has been taken against anyone over 75 years of age”.—[Official Report, 6 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 131.]
I know that the Secretary of State would not make such claims without evidence. Will she please now share with the House what data she found to support yesterday’s comments?
Ms Dorries
The hon. Lady has drawn a direct link between two different parts of my tweet when there is no direct link; it is just one of many reasons why I want to look at how we fund a great British institution in the future.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I accept the need to freeze the licence fee. However, the conversation over the future of the licence fee is far from over. What steps will the Secretary of State take to protect the BBC’s local services, which those who pay for it watch and enjoy, before the knives are sharpened within the BBC?
Ms Dorries
The conversation has not actually started. Local radio is an important point. Someone made the point about local BBC news coverage. Many of us used to have lots of independent news coverage in our constituencies that is no longer there. Some might say that the dominance of the BBC locally helped to contribute to that. My hon. Friend has some very important points to make and experience on local radio. I urge him to be part of the discussion and help us frame what things will look like moving forward.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Growing up, my cousins overseas always told me that they listened to the BBC when they wanted to know the truth. I now represent somewhere known as “BBC borough”, as there are that many ex-employees, including myself, around. Will she tell all of us where exactly the change was in the Conservative manifesto? Already, people are seeing it as just a distraction for party gain. I also have fond memories of watching, in my constituency, the Secretary of State on Channel 4 reality TV. Does her trashing public service broadcasting apply to that channel, too? It is a great Thatcherite innovation.
Ms Dorries
Excellent question. I am not going to conflate Channel 4 with the BBC; I am here to talk about the settlement of the licence fee. The second part of question means that I cannot remember the first part, but the hon. Member made a really important point about the BBC World Service. The BBC, with the billions of pounds of funding—£23 billion—it is receiving, will still be able to meet its core mission and purposes.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
My right hon. Friend must be right that the BBC cannot stand still while the rest of the world moves along, but does she accept that, when we think about the future funding of the BBC, we have to consider both the content that is marketable and is going to be commercially successful, and the content that is not, but will act as the beacon she describes—not just to this country, but to the rest of the world—in quality broadcasting and news and current affairs content in particular? Is not that kind of content likely to continue to need subsidy in any future funding model we design?
Ms Dorries
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that contribution and he is absolutely right. One of the things we do not want is for all the TV that is streamed in the UK to come from overseas. The discussion and the debates that we have about the future funding formula are going to have to include how we protect, preserve and create great British content. That has to be part of the debate moving forward. Can I tell him about elements? No, I cannot because we have not even begun the discussions yet. What modelling is there? I have been told already there are a number of ways in which we could look at funding the BBC moving forward.
Ms Dorries
Well, it is not for me to decide, so we have to—[Interruption.] It is not for me to decide until I have all the information and all the evidence.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Could I just say to the Secretary of State that I wish I had the level of broadband coverage that she talks about in my constituency?
When I was a councillor—a member of the Highland Council—I had to be very careful of the BBC, because its reporting of all I said and did was very thorough indeed, and that was good for local democracy. Can I also say to Conservative Members that the coverage of the Scottish Government has been very thorough? At the time of the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, it was so thorough that it reduced the then First Minister to near apoplexy, as Members will recall. A slimmed-down BBC may not be able to deliver the sort of service that is good for local democracy and for Scottish democracy. Could I ask the Secretary of State how she intends to make sure that we do not lose out on that front?
Ms Dorries
Democracy, particularly local democracy, is at the heart of a lot of what the BBC does, and that is why it will be an important element of conversations that we have moving forward—an important contribution. As I have said a number of times, the discussions, the debates that we will have in this place and the evidence that we will take moving forward have not begun. We are seven years—six or seven years—away, and that is the consultation that we will have here, the evidence that we will gather here, and the debates and discussions that we will have. Those discussions will start shortly. We are talking about a new funding model that will start in 2028.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that, last year, the number of TV licences purchased fell by 700,000, and that more and more young people are now saying that they do not need to watch the BBC because of the enormous amount of choice through the streaming services. Does she agree that, even despite that increase in content, we will still need public service broadcasting and the BBC, and therefore it is right to have a debate about the future funding model not to undermine the BBC, but to ensure that it can survive going forward?
Ms Dorries
I thank my right hon. Friend, and that was my response to my early question: how do we keep good content—great British content—made in the UK? The BBC is a national institution—how do we maintain the BBC? The question is not: do we or do we not have a BBC? The question is: how do we fund the BBC moving forward? I know my right hon. Friend has made some interventions of his own and has ideas of his own, and I look forward to his furthering those.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Many of us find it nauseating that the Secretary of State has come here to talk about hard-pressed families when she supported the £20 cut to universal credit. I am sure she wants to be objective and have the fullest information. So could we test how much she considered some of these factors, perhaps in the style of the broadcast media? How much more money is generated by the investment in the BBC? Is it £1, £2 or £3? She talks about the north. How much of the BBC’s economic impact is beyond London? Is it 10%, 20% or 50%? Perhaps she could demonstrate her knowledge at least of the BBC’s impact.
Ms Dorries
I will write to the right hon. Gentleman with those specific figures.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Eleven years ago, the then director-general of the BBC said the corporation would have to do “fewer things better.” The current director-general has challenged the organisation to prioritise how it spends its money and maximises its commercial revenues. Does the Secretary of State agree that reform is necessary for the BBC to thrive in the digital age in both how it works and how it is funded?
Ms Dorries
We cannot ignore the fact that our digital landscape is transforming and advancing at a rapid pace, which has resulted in people, and especially the younger generation, changing their viewing habits. I would be accused of being a dinosaur if I stood here and said we should just let the BBC carry on as it is with this licence fee model. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) highlighted, 700,000 fewer people are paying the licence fee. We have to do something now to sustain the BBC and maintain this British beacon. We have to act now to ensure the BBC remains the BBC and is here for the future.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome that, at long last, we have a Secretary of State who is prepared to grasp this nettle, to tackle the BBC poll tax, to stop enforcing payments against people who are angered by the BBC’s bias, to force this organisation to consider its bloated expenditure and, especially as broadcasting is now changing, to allow people greater choice. I hope that, despite the cries of outrage from the BBC’s buddies in this House, she will not back down on these issues.
Ms Dorries
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. It is worth making the point that the BBC will continue to receive billions of pounds of public support and funding between now and 2027.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee to take the pressure off magistrates courts? Should this not be a household bill like any other?
Ms Dorries
That is something we are keeping under review. In today’s age, should we really continue with a licence fee paid by individuals with the potential threat of bailiffs or criminal prosecution? That is an important question and it will be part of the discussion.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The establishment of the BBC in Salford, neighbouring my constituency, has created many excellent jobs for my constituents and has been an important economic and cultural driver of success in the north-west, but that is not what I want to ask the Secretary of State about. What guarantees can she give to the BBC’s world-class salaried orchestras? I have had the great privilege of attending the BBC Philharmonic’s concerts as its guest.
Ms Dorries
The BBC, as I have said, will continue to receive billions of pounds-worth of funding, and it will continue to meet its mission and core purpose, but I cannot dictate how it spends its money and I do not have editorial control. It is up to the BBC to decide how it spends its licence fee settlement.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and recognise the priority she has given to Welsh language broadcasting and its importance to the Welsh-speaking community in Wales. In supporting her statement and helping the BBC to achieve its objectives under the new settlement, will she call on the BBC to follow other public sector organisations in improving its transparency and to publish every invoice in excess of £500, just like every other organisation does?
Ms Dorries
S4C plays a vital role supporting the Welsh economy, culture and society. The funding will support S4C in reaching more Welsh language speakers, including younger audiences. I am sure S4C heard what my right hon. Friend just said, and I shall certainly take his points back.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Let us talk about value for money. Does the Secretary of State agree that 43p a day is value for money for BBC iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the BBC World Service?
Ms Dorries
It is billions of pounds, and I do not believe that any family receiving repeated letters, or a bailiff knocking on their door, or a request to appear at a magistrates court would think it is value for money, because it is money they cannot afford. The issue is that working families and people who are hard pressed in the current situation of rising inflationary pressures think it is difficult to pay £159 a year out of their income, which is why we are freezing the licence fee for the next two years and not allowing it to rise.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, because household bills are under pressure and it is reasonable to freeze the fee for two years. In the whole discussion outside and inside this place so far, we talk about television and streaming services, but does she agree that, when the conversation takes place, we will have to make sure that the BBC’s important radio programmes across the board are protected and still funded? We cannot compare it to a Netflix or Apple model, because radio is such a key part of the BBC’s output.
Ms Dorries
It absolutely is, and I think it will be a key part of the discussion. My right hon. Friend mentions Apple and Netflix, but it is not the BBC’s role to be competitive with other providers. Radio will certainly continue to be a huge part of the BBC and will be the subject of a huge part of the discussion.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Over the generations, people all over the world—some in fear of their lives—have huddled around their radio, straining to hear the words, “This is London,” because they trust the BBC World Service news. Given that a subscription service will never work for airwave radio, what assurance can the Secretary of State give those listeners and the House that the BBC’s service to the world that is the BBC World Service will be able to continue to do its job?
Ms Dorries
The right hon. Gentleman jumps the gun when he talks about a subscription service. I have not mentioned that. I have said that we need to have a debate about how the BBC is funded in the future. I completely understand his point, but how the BBC spends the money it receives via the charter is for the BBC to decide. We do not have any influence over that.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to say we should be discussing the future of the BBC. In her statement, she mentioned two important elements of the charter—to entertain and to inform—but there is a third: to educate. That is the element of public service media that is the most difficult to commercialise. Will she ensure that that element of the BBC is protected in the future?
Ms Dorries
I hear my hon. Friend’s point, and I think a lot of people agree with him. People have talked about the contribution made by BBC Bitesize during the pandemic, which was vital to families home schooling their children. I will bear his comments in mind and take them back.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that, having shown contempt for the British people in the past week, today’s announcement on the BBC shows the Government treat British institutions with contempt as well?
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Last Friday, my private Member’s Bill to abolish the BBC was to be read a Second time, but, unfortunately, there was not enough parliamentary time to proceed. I promote quite a lot of private Members’ Bills, and sometimes I get some support and sometimes I get some opposition. Tens of thousands of people supported getting rid of the BBC licence fee and very few were against it, so may I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today and making a statement? If my Bill is of any use to her, I would be very happy to change in Committee any of the stuff I have there at the moment.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has come to the House today to say that the freeze in the licence fee is to help hard-working, struggling families. May I ask her to answer the question put to her by the Father of the House: when was this decided? Did it go through a Cabinet Sub-Committee? Did Cabinet sign this off, or is it that just over the last weekend the Government thought they would come up with something that would take the attention away from the Prime Minister?
Ms Dorries
Cabinet has signed it off. These negotiations have been going on; they did with my predecessor as well as with me. Legally, I had to make my statement in as much time as possible before April, which is why I am making it today.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I often find that those best placed to give their view on whether we need the BBC or not are those who have lived, worked and travelled abroad and have not had access to the BBC. Therefore, I applaud the constituent who has written to me, having done just that, to say that the BBC needs to be celebrated and maintained, because he sees what a future looks like in this country without the BBC. Given that inflation is expected to rise to 6% in the early parts of this year, what conversations has the Secretary of State had about which content will be reduced as a result of the decision she is making today?
Ms Dorries
I ran a school in Africa for a year and I understand the value of the BBC World Service, because I was a listener for a whole 12 months. Having lived in Africa and run a school there for a year, I also know the importance of the BBC. That is why I have said all along that this discussion is not about, “Do we have a BBC or don’t we?” It is about, “How do we maintain the BBC moving forward, in a rapidly changing, modernising landscape? How do we fund the BBC in that event?” That is what the discussion is about, moving forward; it is not about whether or not there is a BBC.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am no fan of the regressive licence fee, but the Secretary of State saying on Twitter that this will be “the last” licence fee announcement is discourteous to this House, to all the many people who watch and listen to the BBC, and to all of those who are employed by the BBC. How does she believe that the 50 BBC employees based in my constituency are currently feeling because of the announcement she made on Twitter over the weekend?
Ms Dorries
I think that on Instagram I added that it is likely to be the last, because I cannot see a world—and I do not think many people can—in 2028 where individual households are paying an outdated fee which was established in 1922 to fund such an organisation; I do not think anyone could ever have seen what a digital landscape would be like today, what the viewing habits of young people would be like today or what the opportunities will be in 2028.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
In some ways, the BBC is the best of global Britain, but in a globalised media landscape we know that there are people prepared to pay for Netflix, for all those subscription services, and for web services and for all the multitude of things that the BBC offers. Is it not daft that someone would suggest that the Secretary of State should stand up today and say that even from 2028 to 2038 people will have to pay for the whole lot, whatever they want?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and for his contribution to the Department when he was there. He is absolutely right: it is not about whether we have our great British institution of the BBC, which is globally recognised—that is not the question. The question is that we live in a different world, people have different and changing viewing habits, and by the time we reach 2027—[Interruption.] When I started some of the negotiations—when my predecessor started some of the negotiations—TikTok did not even exist. We are moving rapidly to a different place, which is why we have to have the debate.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Many of my constituents have written to me in praise of the recent BBC investigative documentary about the cladding scandal. One of my constituents who lives in a dangerously clad house talked about how much she appreciated having an independent state broadcaster to challenge unethical companies. I remind the House that it was the BBC that revealed that warnings about cladding quality issues had been ignored for years. Does the Secretary of State recognise the BBC’s crucial investigative role? In the discussion that she keeps talking about, will she assure the House that her proposals will not cut the budget for the BBC’s investigative programmes?
Ms Dorries
I do not set the budgets for the BBC’s investigative programmes; the BBC does.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Reform is clearly needed. It is absurd in the modern world that people can be criminalised for not paying a licence fee just for an entertainment channel. However, the devil is in the detail. I represent a rural constituency where many smaller villages and hamlets cannot get superfast broadband. If we are to base public policy on the fact that everyone can stream programmes, can we ensure that they actually can stream programmes before any final decisions are made or reforms are implemented?
Ms Dorries
There is no policy; we are just starting a discussion and a debate. This is not based on whether people can achieve streaming or not, but 100% of households achieving superfast broadband or gigabit broadband is the objective.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I heard what the Secretary of State said about S4C, but my constituents would simply not recognise what she says about the rest of the BBC being some sort of London bubble. We have seen a 54% increase in our creative economy locally, with thousands of people employed and the BBC at the heart of that—“Doctor Who”, “Casualty”, “Shreds” and the BBC National Orchestra of Wales. Every pound invested in our local economy by the BBC generates almost double that in return. Does the Secretary of State accept that what she has suggested today puts that at risk, along with jobs and opportunities in Cardiff including those in deprived communities?
Ms Dorries
S4C will receive a further £7.5 million per annum from the licence fee to support its digital investment. In total, S4C will be provided with approximately £88 million in licence-fee funding per annum. We are committed to S4C, and we are providing it with additional funding.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
As a former BBC and ITV journalist, I look forward to taking part in discussions about the future of the BBC. I am a big admirer of local and regional BBC journalism, such as the Local Democracy Reporting Service, and its coverage of rugby league and local football, which maybe would not happen on any other platform. However, in terms of Yorkshire and the location of Channel 4’s new headquarters, how does today’s announcement impact on the timescale for announcements about Channel 4’s future?
Ms Dorries
I have made no announcement other than to say that we are starting a discussion about the future funding of the BBC. I am here to make a statement on the licence fee settlement, and I am not conflating that with Channel 4.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State does not appear to be being straight with the House. Her tweet at the weekend clearly said:
“This licence fee announcement will be the last.”
That is why many of my constituents are worried that the BBC’s unique range of programming that brings together the UK’s nations, regions and diverse communities is not safe in this Government’s hands. The BBC’s mission to inform, educate and entertain has worked for almost a century, so will the Secretary of State rule it out that she is seeking to undermine and sacrifice this great national institution in order to save the Prime Minister’s political skin?
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
At a time when household budgets are under unprecedented pressure, the decision to freeze the licence fee will be universally welcomed in Blackpool. My constituents will also welcome the Secretary of State’s comment that it is high time we had a discussion about the very existence of the licence fee. In the meantime, what discussions is she having with the BBC to ensure that the licence fee can achieve value for money?
Ms Dorries
I have regular meetings with the director-general, the chair and other members of the BBC to discuss those very issues.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State says she cannot tell the BBC what to do, but she also says she wants the BBC to play “God Save the Queen” more often, so I wonder whether she thinks today’s announcement makes that more or less likely. The BBC has been described as the glue that holds the Union together, so will slashing its funding in the way that she wants make that glue stronger or weaker?
Ms Dorries
I did not hear the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but what I would say is: what is wrong with playing “God Save the Queen”? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] What is wrong with it? He asked the question as though that was a dirty word or something that should not be said. What is wrong with playing “God Save the Queen”?
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Like many of my constituents who are also the parents of young children, I have a daily battle to guide my children away from some of the content on some channels and towards the relative nourishment they will find on the BBC. As we look to the future of the BBC, and in addition to the scrutiny that is rightly placed upon the financing model, what objectives or processes might my right hon. Friend have in mind to ensure that the quality of the output, where the BBC is world-leading in so many areas, is maintained for the long-term?
Ms Dorries
That is the point of discussion. I have said again and again that this is about how we protect the BBC and how we ensure that, under the present agreement and settlement, it can continue to meet its mission and its purpose. How do we protect the BBC going forward? How do we ensure that we have good quality content made in the UK that stays in the UK and that we can sell from the UK? And how do we, in this changing, shifting, rapidly moving landscape, have a BBC that is funded for the future in order to protect it?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I am glad that the Secretary of State responsible for digital has noticed that business models for content creation have changed in the last 100 years, but the need for a unifying, shared expression of British culture, identity and creativity has not. Is not the real reason for this attack on the BBC that it is a successful British public sector institution, and she just cannot stand that?
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I was proud to spend the first seven years of my career at the BBC, but it is worth remembering that back then, in the 1990s, there were only four main terrestrial TV channels. The Secretary of State is absolutely right to say that the whole landscape has changed fundamentally since then, and I tend to agree with her that the licence fee must therefore be on borrowed time, but does she agree that any new long-term model of funding for the BBC will need to take into account the possible implications and repercussions for the commercial public service broadcasters that currently rely on advertising?
Ms Dorries
That is a very important point. Everything needs to be considered in the round: all the elements of the BBC’s reach, everything that it does and everything that it achieves. That is why we have to start the debate now, even though the future funding model would not come in until 2028. We need that time to prepare, to ensure that all the elements that are beneficial to the UK, to the BBC and to producing that great British content will remain.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It was pleasing to hear the Secretary of State claim that she recognised the importance of Welsh language broadcasting, but she then proceeded to announce a real-terms cut to the BBC settlement. That settlement provides around £20 million of S4C programming annually in addition to the Welsh language services provided by BBC Radio Cymru and Radio Cymru 2 and by BBC Cymru Fyw. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain how a real-terms cut to the BBC settlement will not see a reduction in its important contribution to Welsh language services?
Ms Dorries
S4C’s settlement will consolidate S4C’s current £74.5 million licence funding with its current £6.8 million annual DCMS grant income. On the real-terms cut to the overall BBC that the hon. Gentleman has talked about, that is a fact because we have frozen the licence fee for two years, but S4C’s funding, which has not increased for five years, will now increase. The BBC’s funding has always increased every year; it will now freeze for the next two years. S4C’s funding has been frozen for the past five years, and it will now increase.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
We have to accept that the media landscape, and importantly its use, has changed beyond recognition over the past few years, so I agree with Lord Grade, the former chair of the BBC, that a universal regressive tax to pay for a BBC that is no longer universally used is no longer defensible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC, now and in future, has a vital role to play in creating a version of our common truth at home and abroad?
Ms Dorries
That vital role of the BBC moving forward is one of the issues that we have to ensure we protect, along with the British content that we make, as I have said. The fact is that the BBC is a global beacon around the world and people in other countries depend upon it, as hon. Members have mentioned. Maintaining the BBC is something we have to protect, but how it is to be funded is the question. That is what the discussion will be about.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am British and proud of it, and I am proud of the BBC. It reaches 468 million people in 42 languages around the world every week. It is the envy of the world. Cutting funding to the BBC and the World Service already leaves the path clear for Russian and Chinese influence in those countries. Does the Secretary of State agree that only an unpatriotic party would cut the real-terms funding of that national treasure?
Ms Dorries
Unpatriotic? I do not think it was this side of the House that was laughing about the prospect of the national anthem being played on television; I think it was that side of the House. I disagree—I am not unpatriotic; I am very patriotic.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want the licence fee to be scrapped. When I had 3,000 respondents to a survey, 96% of them agreed with that. They feel that the BBC spoke down to them when they voted for Brexit and that it is out of touch with the people and values of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. It is time for the BBC, like the Labour party, to get out of the metropolitan bubble and spend some time in Stoke-on-Trent in order to understand what people think. It is welcome that my right hon. Friend has frozen the licence fee and opened the conversation, but does she agree that it is time to scrap the licence fee altogether?
Ms Dorries
We can all see how, once again, my hon. Friend speaks up for his constituents. I am interested in the survey and I would love to see some of the responses. He spoke about scrapping not the BBC but the licence fee, because I am sure that his constituents want to watch and enjoy the BBC. This is about how we fund the BBC in a modern digital landscape at a time when young people consume their television in different ways. How do we fund the BBC to protect and maintain it moving forward, but in a different way?
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wish the Secretary of State would stop with the crocodile tears about the cost-of-living crisis, because £159 is a lot of money, particularly for my constituents, but it happens to be exactly the same amount, on average, as they will pay in extra national insurance from April this year. If the Government really cared about the cost-of-living crisis, they could do something about that. My real fear is that she simply does not understand how intrinsic to the nature of the BBC and its success around the world the licence fee is. It means that there is something for everybody—for all my constituents—including the poorest constituents, who cannot afford Sky. She says that the BBC gets lots of money, but Sky got five times as much money this year, and its revenues this year increased by 18.9%. Yes, this is an unpatriotic move to dismantle one of the greatest British treasures.
Ms Dorries
The hon. Gentleman talks about £159, but the BBC wanted it to project to £180. This is one of the levers that we have in Government to help hard-working families, given the increasing inflationary pressures. We are here to help and protect the BBC, and the only way we can do that—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) again: does she support the two-year freeze on the licence fee to help hard-working families? Again, no plan. The hon. Lady dodged that question on media this morning and she is dodging it here in the Chamber.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I praise the Secretary of State for helping to tackle the rising cost of living for many families at a difficult time. Does she agree that since they are having to tighten their belts, perhaps the BBC should do the same? A good place to start might be with salaries, including that of one of its presenters, who earns £1.36 million a year.
Ms Dorries
Businesses across the UK are having to tighten their belts. Households across the UK are facing inflationary pressures and having to tighten their belts. The two-year freeze on the licence fee means the BBC will be doing the same. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Last Wednesday, at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister was challenged about the future of the licence fee. He seemed to caution against this by referring to the BBC as a “great national institution”, yet by the weekend the Secretary of State was tweeting that this would be the last licence fee agreement. Will she explain to the House what on earth has been going on in No. 10 since Wednesday that has led to what appears to be a screeching U-turn?
Ms Dorries
As I have said on a number of occasions, we have been having these discussions for months. In fact, my predecessor had the discussions before me. Legally, I have to make an announcement as far in advance of April as possible. That is why I am here today.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for freezing the licence fee and launching an inquiry into its future. Will she confirm that, first, impartiality and the licence fee are different issues? Secondly, if Netflix can go from one twentieth the size of the BBC to eight times its size in just 20 years, is there not plenty of scope for creative thinking? Thirdly, will she encourage the leadership of the BBC to respond positively, and not with the defeatist and backward-looking attitude of the Labour party?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. Impartiality and the licence fee are two entirely separate things. The Serota review made its recommendations, and the leadership of the BBC fully agreed with those recommendations and agreed to implement them. We now want transparency, to see what difference those implementations make, but they are a completely different issue from the settlement of the licence fees.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am very proud of the BBC—it is the best of British, and it is recognised and respected around the world. It is also the best of value. Its fee works out as two thirds of the price of a pink of milk per day—I happen to know the price of a pint of milk. Is the simple truth not that the Prime Minister, unlike previous Prime Ministers such as Margaret Thatcher and many others, is frightened of the BBC and of being scrutinised? Margaret Thatcher actually phoned in to Radio 4’s “Today” programme. This Prime Minister would prefer to hide in the fridge.
Ms Dorries
The Prime Minister is a huge fan of the BBC and of “Today”. The discussions that we are having are to help protect the BBC, because if anyone sitting here thinks that we could go to households in 2028 and expect them to pay the licence fee—with fear of prosecution if they do not—in order to watch the television that they have bought and put in their house, they are, frankly, a dinosaur. We in this House have a responsibility to protect the BBC. As part of that responsibility, we have to look forward and think how we can change the BBC and fund it in a changing digital landscape.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
On the Conservative side we have a proud history with S4C. Today is another important step forward. I thank the Secretary of State for putting S4C at the core of her statement, and for the £7.5 million increase per annum. Could I draw her into a meeting with me and likeminded colleagues about the Welsh language, and the fact that core public service broadcasters have nurtured it and helped it grow, such as S4C and BBC Radio Cymru?
Ms Dorries
I thank my hon. Friend and am happy to have such a meeting. For five years S4C had no increase in its funding, and it was high time that it did, given that the BBC has had year-on-year funding increases.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The family in Cumbria that the Secretary of State talked about, who were streaming five different movies in five different rooms, are probably paying a minimum of £43 a month for Netflix, Sky and broadband. That does not include the social value that the BBC provides, from educating youngsters through CBeebies and CBBC, to the company it provides for those suffering from loneliness, along with the innovation of BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds. Will she assure me that this freeze will not diminish the vital services that the BBC provides?
Ms Dorries
The licence fee settlement ensures that the BBC can continue to meet its mission and its purposes, and it will continue to receive billions of pounds of funding—£23 billion over the licence fee settlement period.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When the BBC came before the Public Accounts Committee, it was striking how unambitious its target was for growing commercial revenues, which represent just 6% of its current income. Will this welcome decision, including the increase in the borrowing limit, which the BBC asked for, come with a requirement for the BBC to increase that income rapidly and reduce the burden of the licence tax?
Ms Dorries
Increasing access to private equity was one of the first steps towards doing that.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
We have already seen the loss of hundreds of jobs of BBC journalists involved in the much-valued regional news and current affairs programming, including the excellent “Inside Out” programme. Before making the decision to freeze the fee, what assessment did the Secretary of State make of the impact on local and regional news programming?
Ms Dorries
This is about increasing and reforming services across the BBC, to ensure that the BBC is there in the future and able to service the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, by adopting a funding model that means the BBC will be sustainable and will be there for the long term.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
Putting “BBC documentary” into YouTube is one way of obtaining a world-class education, because it is possible to learn about so many different things. However, that sentence also suggests that the world is evolving. Although I am a huge fan of the BBC, I welcome the licence fee review. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we ensure that this stuff is still there for people like me in future generations?
Ms Dorries
I do agree. My hon. Friend has encapsulated the situation we face, given the fact that BBC documentaries are being watched on YouTube. Young people, I was amazed to learn, consume huge amounts of television via YouTube. This is why we have to review the situation and start discussing what the future of the BBC funding stream will look like.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch, Mr Speaker. There will be considerable concern in Wales about the post-2020 situation, because the implied subscription-type model will never work for S4C or Radio Cymru, or indeed for the wider BBC in Wales. Will the Secretary of State pledge to ensure that there is a full consultation with Welsh stakeholders so that the Welsh language does not become collateral damage in the British Government’s culture war against the BBC?
Ms Dorries
I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to thank me for the additional £7.5 million that we are giving to S4C. I thought he was going to thank us for the fact that S4C’s funding, having been frozen for the past five years, is now being increased and we are freezing the BBC’s funding. I have never mentioned the word “subscription”. As I have said time and again, we need to start a dialogue about how we fund the BBC in the future.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the freeze in the licence fee and the debate that is to come. Given the millions across the United Kingdom and abroad who do love the BBC, there must be countless options for future funding models for content that can be commercialised, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important strand of any reform is de-linking the requirement that in order to watch other content people must pay for the BBC?
Ms Dorries
That is an interesting concept, and I am sure that it will be part of the discussion.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Is one option that the Secretary of State is considering to increase funding by allowing the BBC to carry advertisements? If so, has she considered the risk that that will remove the balanced factual basis of BBC news reporting?
Ms Dorries
As I said when I arrived at the Dispatch Box, we are beginning the discussions about how a future funding model for the BBC will look. We have not gone into that level of discussion yet.
Ukraine
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I will not run this statement for long, because of the nature of what is coming afterwards, but it is important that it be taken.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the situation in Ukraine.
As of today, tens of thousands of Russian troops are positioned close to the Ukrainian border. Their deployment is not routine; they are equipped with tanks, armoured fighting vehicles, rocket artillery and short-range ballistic missiles. We and our allies have legitimate and real cause for concern that the configuration and scale of the force being assembled, supported by Russian air and maritime long-range strike capabilities stationed in the region, could be used for the purpose of conducting a multi-axis invasion of Ukraine, but whatever final decision the Russian Government take on the use of such forces, their presence and levels of readiness are contributing to a destabilising and coercive atmosphere that risks miscalculation at best, and at worst, conflict.
Furthermore, in recent weeks, we have observed hardening Russian rhetoric, heightened cyber-activity and widespread disinformation that could serve to provide a false pretext for a Russian military intervention. False narratives are very much part of the Kremlin’s playbook; they were used in 2008 before Russia’s invasion of Georgia, and in Ukraine in 2014. False narratives are being peddled again today: Russia has suggested that its military build-up on the border of Ukraine is in response to NATO aggression and an agenda by the west to use Ukraine to divide and rule the Russian nation. It has put forward this outlandish notion that NATO is attempting to encircle Russia.
Let me be clear. No one is trying to rule the Russian nation. Only one sixteenth of Russia shares a border with a NATO ally, and NATO is and always has been a defensive alliance. NATO, at its core, holds a belief that any country in the alliance, no matter how big or small, is by right of membership owed a pledge of mutual defence: if you attack one of us, you attack us all.
From 12 founding countries in 1949, the NATO alliance has grown to a total of 30 today. Those countries have joined the alliance not because NATO is making them do so, but because of the freely expressed will of the Government and people of those countries. Countries choose NATO; NATO does not choose them. If Russia has concerns about the enlargement, it should perhaps ask itself why, when people were free to choose, they chose NATO.
NATO is an alliance of like-minded nations that, as well as sharing a commitment to mutual defence, share a set of common values. The sovereignty of other nations is respected by all. Each nation has a sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements. That is a fundamental principle of European security—one, indeed, to which Russia has subscribed in the past—yet Russia now seeks a veto over who joins NATO.
The United Kingdom will stand up for the right of countries to choose their alliances. More important than the choice they make is the right to have that choice. On my recent visit to Sweden and Finland, two non-NATO countries, it was clear that Kremlin attempts to dictate what sovereign states can or cannot choose had been rejected across the political spectrum.
I must stress that no one wants conflict. The Ukrainians are not seeking confrontation, despite the illegal annexation of their lands in Crimea and the occupation of Donbass, and I am sure that ordinary Russian people who remember the first Chechnya conflict and other, older conflicts do not want yet another quagmire either. Last week, there were intensive discussions on the international front to achieve a diplomatic solution to the current situation, including at NATO and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Engagement at the NATO-Russia Council made it clear that NATO is open to dialogue with Russia on a range of issues to protect Euro-Atlantic security, including risk reduction, transparency, arms control and lines of communication, but we will not reward aggression.
We are open to dialogue on a bilateral basis. On 23 December, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Tony Radakin, spoke with his Russian counterpart, General Gerasimov. In their call, they agreed the vital importance of maintaining communications to understand each other’s intentions and to avoid miscalculation.
When the Prime Minister spoke to President Putin on 13 December, he expressed the United Kingdom’s deep concern over the build-up of Russian forces on Ukraine’s border, and also reiterated the importance of working through diplomatic channels to de-escalate tensions and identify durable solutions. The Foreign Secretary continues to engage with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, including recently in person at the margins of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Stockholm on 2 December.
Russia has the largest conventional force of any single nation in Europe. It has a proud history. We have fought together. We celebrated the courage of the Arctic convoys at the 80th anniversary last year. Russia is a nuclear power. It does not have anything to fear from NATO or Ukraine or the other countries that strive peacefully on the continent of Europe. Today, I am extending an invitation to my Russian counterpart, Sergei Shoigu, to visit London in the next few weeks. We are ready to discuss issues related to mutual security concerns and engage constructively in good faith.
The UK’s position on Ukraine is also clear. We unequivocally support its sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders, including Crimea. Ukraine is an independent, sovereign country of proud, independent Ukrainian people. The UK Ministry of Defence already has a long-standing relationship with our Ukrainian counterparts, and we continue to provide support in many areas, including security assistance and defence reform. Since 2015, the UK has helped to build the resilience and capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces through Operation Orbital, which has trained more than 22,000 Ukrainian troops. We maintain the right to deliver bilateral support to a sovereign nation when requested in areas that will better help them defend themselves.
It is important that Ukraine has the capability to defend itself. After Ukraine lost large parts of its navy to Russia’s illegal occupation of Crimea, it became important to help Ukraine build up and sustain a naval capability. We should not forget the thousands of Ukrainians who have lost their lives defending their country and who, every day, are murdered by snipers from across the divide. That is why, in 2019, I expanded Operation Orbital to include naval co-operation, and that is why, last year, we agreed a range of measures, including supplying Ukraine with two mine counter-measures vessels as well as agreeing the joint production of eight new ships equipped with modern weapons systems—defensive weapon systems.
As I said in the House last week, the framework agreement presented to Parliament in November 2021 affirmed the principles that the UK will provide both training and defensive capabilities to Ukraine to help it best defend itself. Within that same principle, I can today confirm to the House that, in light of the increasingly threatening behaviour from Russia and in addition to our current support, the UK is providing a new security assistance package to increase Ukraine’s defensive capabilities. We have taken the decision to supply Ukraine with light, anti-armour defensive weapons systems. A small number of UK personnel will provide early-stage training for a short period of time within the framework of Operation Orbital before returning to the United Kingdom.
This security assistance package complements the training and capabilities that Ukraine already has and those that are also being provided by the UK and other allies in Europe and the United States. Ukraine has every right to defend its borders, and this new package of aid further enhances its ability to do so. Let me be clear, this support is for short-range and clearly defensive weapon capabilities. They are not strategic weapons and pose no threat to Russia. They are to use in self-defence. The UK personnel provided in the early-stage training, as I have said, will return to the United Kingdom after completing it.
The Prime Minister has been clear that any destabilising action by Russia in Ukraine would be a strategic mistake that would have significant consequences. That is why there is a package of international sanctions ready to go that will make sure that Russia and its Government are punished if they cross the line. But the cost of an invasion will not just be felt by the west. I have visited Ukraine five times since 2016, and I know that the Ukrainians are a proud people who will stand and fight for their country, for democracy and for freedom. Any invasion will not be viewed as a “liberation”, but as an occupation and I fear that it could lead to huge loss of life on all sides.
The current difficult relationship with the Kremlin is not the one we wish to have in the United Kingdom. It does not have to be this way. The UK respects the people, culture and history of Russia. We have more in common than we may think—culturally, historically and technologically. We wish to be friends with the Russian people, as we have been for hundreds of years. There is a world in which we can establish a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia, working together on shared areas of interest and addressing mutual security concerns. The current gap is wide but it is not unbridgeable. I still remain hopeful that diplomacy will prevail. It is President Putin’s choice: whether to choose diplomacy and dialogue or conflict and consequences. But Russia’s current behaviour is not only threatening the sovereignty of a proud nation state; it is also destabilising the rules-based international order and challenging the values that underpin it. That is why it is all the more important that we stand in solidarity with those who share our values, including our NATO allies and partners like Sweden, Finland and Ukraine.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I welcome its contents and make clear Labour’s full backing for the steps the Government have been taking on international diplomatic efforts to de-escalate threats, on defensive support for the Ukraine military, on necessary institutional reforms within the country, and on tough economic and financial sanctions in response to any fresh Russian invasion into Ukraine.
There is unified UK political support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including Crimea, in the face of escalating Russian aggression. This bilateral UK backing is hugely appreciated in Ukraine, as I and the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), confirmed when we visited Kiev last week. Four things were clear to us from our wide-ranging discussions. First, this crisis is made in the Kremlin. Ukraine’s independence and borders were guaranteed by Russia, alongside the US and the UK, in the 1994 Budapest agreement under which Ukraine also decommissioned its nuclear weapons, then making the whole of Europe much safer. What special role and responsibility does the Defence Secretary believe the UK still has as a guarantor of this agreement? Ukrainians warmly received recent visits from Defence Ministers, as well as the Defence Secretary himself, just before Christmas. When will the Foreign Secretary also visit Ukraine to underline the UK’s strong continuing support?
Secondly, talking is better than fighting. The international unity last week, especially at the NATO-Russia Council, is very important to Ukraine. NATO, as the Defence Secretary said, has acknowledged Russian security concerns. What are the areas it has offered as open to dialogue, and is any further international diplomacy scheduled with Russia?
Thirdly, Ukraine has faced active Russian aggression for many years. Russia’s big military build-up on its borders now is part of the continuous attacks Ukraine has faced, as the highly destructive malware detected by Microsoft at the weekend in many Government networks shows us and reminds us very strongly. What role will the UK play in delivering the new cyber co-operation agreement that NATO and Ukraine have signed today but the Defence Secretary did not mention in his statement?
Fourthly, Ukraine is a different country now than it was in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea and Russian proxies seized parts of eastern Ukraine. Some 13,000 Ukrainian lives have been lost in fighting since then. Its military, its sense of identity, its resolve to resist Russia, and its determination to become a good European country—as Prime Minister Yatsenyuk put it to us—have all become much stronger. It is critical that the Kremlin appreciate that any new military attack on Ukraine will be bloody on both sides. What is the Defence Secretary doing to get across to President Putin that important message on miscalculation? When did he last meet his Russian counterpart?
Finally, I turn to military support to Ukraine as a sovereign nation seeking to defend itself. The shadow Foreign Secretary and I were told many times last week how highly Ukraine values UK military training, and how frontline troops bring out their British Operation Orbital certificate when asked about the best help they have had. We welcome the recent expansion of bilateral British support to naval co-operation, and we back the new delivery of defensive weaponry that the Defence Secretary has announced this afternoon, but let us be clear that that will be framed by Russian propagandists as provocation. Will the Defence Secretary spell out clearly that those are defensive anti-tank weapons with a much shorter range than the US Javelin missiles that Ukraine has had for some time, and that they will not be used unless Russia invades?
These are dangerous days for security in Europe—especially for the Ukrainian people. Even at this 11th hour, we across this House hope deeply that diplomacy, sound judgment and respect for international law will prevail with President Putin.
Mr Wallace
I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Front Bench for their support and for the detailed engagement that they have undertaken with the Ukrainians. I know that it has meant a huge amount to them to see cross-party support for their rights. I thank him personally for the effort that he and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), have gone to.
These are difficult and dangerous times, as the right hon. Gentleman said. It is important to navigate the very thin path between provocation and defence of people who are clearly under threat and intimidation, so that whatever we do cannot be exploited by the Kremlin for its own narratives. I have continued to brief the Opposition and other Members of this House to make sure that they are fully informed.
I will try to answer some of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, the Budapest memorandum is indeed one of the three main treaties that Russia is in breach of or is not upholding. It was a fair deal done between the Ukrainians and Russia, and it is important that we remind Russia—through diplomatic channels first of all—of those obligations. The situation is a stark reminder that we cannot pick and choose from treaties that have been signed up to.
We believe that the subsequent Minsk protocol is something that we would wish to support and for Russia to engage in. It respects some of the concerns around the Donbass, and I hope that that is one of the best paths towards securing a peaceful resolution. It does not seem at the moment that Russia is engaging enough on that. I think that is definitely the treaty to look at. Of course, it is underwritten by France, Germany and the United States through the Normandy format, and we would support the use of that. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to visit Ukraine soon, which is also important. I have spoken to her about it, and I think her office is just working out dates for her visit.
On cyber, I will write in detail to the right hon. Gentleman about the NATO initiative. We have supported Ukraine for a number of years with cyber-defence to ensure that its resilience is improved, taking the lessons that we have here and sharing and working with them. That is why it is so useful that the National Cyber Security Centre is not only domestically but internationally recognised. When its experts come to give advice, it certainly helps with resilience.
On what more we can do, one concern that we have to address is Russia’s sense of encirclement, as I said at the beginning, and a fear that is untrue and based either on a misconception or, indeed, a falsehood. One way to address that is through better transparency. We have had schemes such as the Open Skies scheme, and we have had a number of treaties, some of which have been broken by Russia, which is unfortunate, but I certainly think that more transparency is needed. We often have Vienna inspections in this country; we had some only the other month by Russian military personnel who visited an RAF base. That is one of the best ways to demonstrate the realities on the ground, and that NATO is not an aggressor and we are not planning some offensive.
More work can definitely be done to deal with that situation, and to give Russia its voice. I was delighted that we had the Russia-NATO Council, the first in two years, only last week, because it is incredibly important that we get to hear and meet Russia face to face. I have not met my counterpart, and obviously since the Salisbury poisonings relationships have been at a low ebb. For many years, the Russian Defence Secretary and the British Defence Secretary have not had periodic or routine meetings, and I think it is important we offer that. Whether Russia will accept it is a different issue, but it is important that we reach out, at the very least, and have a discussion, and give each other the respect that I think sovereign nations deserve.
On weapons systems, I concur with the right hon. Gentleman. Absolutely—these weapons are short-range. They are not strategic; they are tactical. They are the sort of systems you use if someone is attacking you. This is an infantry-level type weapons system, but nevertheless it would make people pause and think about what they are doing. If tanks were to roll into Ukraine and invade, it would be part of the defensive mechanism.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I thank the Defence Secretary for not only keeping the House informed, but for working tirelessly behind the scenes to push NATO to do as much as it can, given the limits of that alliance. Talks in Brussels, and indeed Geneva, have reached their conclusion, or inconclusion. Cyber-attacks have now commenced, and we now see that Putin clearly intends to invade as part of his wider strategy to expand Moscow’s sphere of influence, and indeed help to label and retain NATO as the adversary that Russia must stand up to.
Russia has now amassed the land forces, weapon systems, and even the field hospitals to allow an invasion to take place. Will the Secretary of State say when the anti-armour weapon systems that he is providing will be operational in Ukraine? If Putin gives the green light to invade, what additional military support does the Secretary of State believe NATO could provide or offer to Ukraine to help to thwart Russian aggression east of the Dnipro river?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. There is still a way to go. We still have NATO, we still have our alliances, and we still have the international community and its efforts to try to find a diplomatic solution. We will carry on doing that until the very last moment. I think that President Putin has still not made a final decision, but I hope that that is enough to ward the Kremlin off. A united front on sanctions, which is what we are developing, is prepared and ready if something were to happen, and the strong resilience in Ukraine should, at the very least, give people pause for thought. On the wider issues about the systems, the first systems were delivered today in country, and the training will take place. As I have said, these are not major strategic weapons systems, so therefore they are fairly simple and the training package will not be drawn out. As I have said, the trainers will then return.
If Russia attacks militarily, the first and foremost response will be, as we have said, in the areas of sanctions and diplomacy, and in the consequences that President Putin would face as a world leader in what could potentially be a very bloody war, triggered by an invasion that is neither within international law nor what anyone wants in this world. First, reputationally, economically, and militarily we would of course explore whatever we could in those areas, but as I have previously made clear, Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and British troops will not be deploying to fight Russians.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. To help everybody, I am expecting the statement to end round about 6.30 pm, so Members should help each other with quick, short questions and answers. First we come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Dave Doogan.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Many thanks, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We remain clear that Russia’s actions in recent weeks and months, with the massing of 100,000 combat-ready troops, tanks and heavy military equipment near Ukraine’s eastern border, is unacceptable. In that we are in accord with the Government.
The behaviour of Russia in causing the crisis is wholly inconsistent with the norms of state behaviour on matters of sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is therefore incumbent on us all to stand firm in the face of such threats to the international rules-based order and to stand behind our friends in Ukraine in the face of that aggression.
We can see from the tone and content of Russia’s preconditions for de-escalation that there remains a major diplomatic challenge in resolving the crisis through dialogue, yet that must remain the Government’s principal objective. Russia’s demand that NATO withdraws troops and military equipment from countries neighbouring Russia, which of course include not only Ukraine but our NATO allies in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, is clearly designed not to be acceded to. Nevertheless, it would be heartening for the Baltic states to hear the Secretary of State underline what an absurd proposition the demand is on NATO, that it will never happen and that the bedrock of NATO as a defensive alliance remains the solidarity between its member states.
Will the Secretary of State confirm what role the Russian military studies centre at the Defence Academy in Shrivenham has in informing the Government’s thinking in this crisis? Can he reassure the House that the work to deliver a peaceful and diplomatic outcome remains this Government’s main priority? Within that dynamic, what is the role of negotiations on Nord Stream 2?
Mr Wallace
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for supporting our progress so far. His responsible response is very welcome, and I will continue to brief the party spokespersons as information comes to us. First, on solidarity with the Baltic states, I am off to Latvia tomorrow. The Baltic states are among the smallest in NATO, but they are right on the frontline. It is important to get the message across that we are there to defend the countries in NATO, big or small, as they share our values. It is also important to remind neighbouring states such as Finland that the right to choose is more important even than what they choose. I would defend Sweden and Finland’s right to choose. If they choose not to join NATO, that is their choice. But we should never take away the choice, which is what is so unreasonable about the Kremlin’s demand that, somehow, countries between the United States and Russia do not get to have a say on their own sovereignty. That is incredibly wrong.
We are all working for a peaceful outcome, and no one wants conflict to happen. We think the conflict would be long and bloody. It is also important that we recognise there is other thinking in the Kremlin. We can engage on the NATO debate, but I point hon. and right hon. Members to the article written by President Putin in July. In those 17 pages, NATO appears in one paragraph. This is really about ethnonationalism, a sense of reuniting a mother Russia that did not quite exist and picking dates to fit the narrative. The article written by the President of Russia should concern us all, and I have previously read such articles in other areas, and they usually lead to the most awful bloodshed.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as helping Ukraine militarily, we constantly need to make it clear to President Putin that his very concept of a Russian near abroad—a veto on the security and foreign policies of his geographic neighbours—is at odds with international law and completely at odds with the concept of self-determination? Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we are witnessing now is a classic example of the KGB doctrine of reflexive control, which is all too often a precursor to Russian military action?
Mr Wallace
What we are seeing, as the United States said, is the playbook narratives, cyber-attacks, disruption of minorities and division all used to prey on that country. There is also something else. What are the consequences for the rest of Europe of a successful military invasion of Ukraine? I visited Sweden and Finland last week. When such countries—strong European countries that are not members of NATO—are genuinely concerned and worried about their neighbours, all of us in Europe should sit up and listen. If there were a successful invasion of Ukraine, what would it mean for President Putin’s other ambitions?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend him for his article in The Times this morning, which laid out clearly the false narrative that President Putin is using to justify his actions against Ukraine. What more can be done in the information war? Will he specifically back an initiative by Congressman Gerry Connolly, the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, who is calling for a centre for democracy within NATO to argue the case for why the freedoms of thought and action are so important?
Mr Wallace
On the latter question, I would definitely support NATO and NATO members going out and about and supporting not only the values we stand for, but my point about the right to choose, even if the choice is not NATO. I think we have forgotten about what we have often argued for. We have taken for granted our values and the cost of freedom around the world. We must never stop arguing for that and making the case. Too often over the decades, it has been too easy to stop making that case, or indeed to trade it off against an economic issue. That is why Nord Stream 2 is important. It is important that we recognise that, if it is a success, it will not be a success for Europe, but it will increase friction and division. We should press our German friends to do more, should Russia invade Ukraine.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the support across the House for the Ukrainian people. It is quite true that a free people choose freedom, and the Ukrainian people are trying to do just that. Would my right hon. Friend care to mention other failures of the Putin strategy, such as turning former friends and allies of Russia against it? Is this not an extraordinarily sad day for the Russian people, who have been so abused by this tyrannical dictatorship under Putin? Even countries that have had such strong relations with them, including the Ukrainian people, are now seeking assistance from us to ensure that their homes are not violated by Russian troops?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If the aim of President Putin is to de-escalate, or push back NATO from his borders, he should reflect on why so many people have wanted to join NATO. It is predominantly a consequence of his actions, whether that is in Georgia or Crimea, or the sub-threshold actions that are putting real fear into countries such as Sweden and Finland. It is no coincidence that, in the Finnish and Swedish Parliaments, a sense of being closer to NATO than they have been in the past is growing. That is not because of NATO—there is no secret plot—but because of the actions of the President of Russia.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Defence Secretary is absolutely right. When Putin talks of trying to bring together ethnic Russians into the motherland, it does remind one of the 1930s, when Hitler referred to trying to bring all Germans, including Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, back into mother Germany. Of course we are right to be very cautious. When the Defence Secretary says he has offered this invitation to his Russian counterpart, I hope that does not mean that we are announcing that we are normalising our political relations with Russia. The all-party parliamentary group on Russia has been keen to ensure, as have the House and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, that we are not normalising our political relationships until such time as Russia is able to hand over the evidence that is clearly needed in relation to Salisbury.
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right on his last point. I was the Security Minister when Salisbury happened. This is not about normalising relations, but about opening a line of dialogue so that we can hopefully address a range of issues. The GRU belongs to the Russian Ministry of Defence, and I will not be forgetting that in any way, but I do not fear anything by engaging with my counterpart. On his point about ethnic nationalism, it is something that in the UK is against our DNA, because of the lessons we have seen over hundreds of years. People would be wise not to believe that that article that the President wrote is the right course of action; the course of action is through dialogue and addressing the here and now, not harking back to snippets of history.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Mr Putin knows that NATO will not start world war three to defend Ukraine, but has he been made aware of precisely what non-military sanctions will follow? For example, are Finland or Sweden likely to proceed with an application to join NATO, as has been suggested?
Mr Wallace
First, there is a basket of sanctions that are prepared both by the United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, the EU is addressing and formulating a package and, obviously, Sweden and Finland would be part of that. I cannot speak for Sweden and Finland about whether they would join NATO. One of the fundamentals of NATO is the open door policy. We have been clear on that, but, as I have said, I am even more clear that defending a country to choose is actually more important often than what it chooses. We enhance and work our relationship with Finland and Sweden through the joint expeditionary force, which is 11 nations—Scandinavian and Nordic, and Britain—working together and exercising together in the defence world. That is brilliant: it binds together the EU, NATO and other members to make sure that we can deter by being as professional as possible with our armed forces.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
In the recent negotiations, NATO rightly rejected the wholly unreasonable demands of Russia for the reasons that the Secretary of State has so clearly set out to the House, but it did indicate that it would be willing to talk about other matters. Does the Government support, for example, putting arms control and limits to military exercises on the table in any further discussions?
Mr Wallace
Certainly when it comes to arms control, we have always felt that arms controls are good things. I am old enough to remember the 1980s and the work people went into to get those, and it has been sad that Russia has breached a number of those treaties and the United States pulled out of the open skies treaty not so long ago. I think we should try to work towards getting back to a place where we can have more confidence in each other, first and foremost.
On exercising, first, NATO should exercise in order to keep itself at the best it can be for defence. I also think it is the right of a sovereign country to choose to exercise in its land. If Lithuania or Estonia wish to exercise militarily, either bilaterally or multilaterally, that is a choice for that country, and we are always happy to work together. I am not sure I want to give Russia a veto over where we exercise, but I am very supportive of making sure that we are as open as possible, so that people do not miscalculate when we do exercise and they recognise that it is an exercise rather than an operation.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Like the Defence Secretary, I read President Putin’s essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” this summer. In it he clearly does not recognise Ukraine in its current borders, but he also lays out what he thinks are justifiably Russian lands: the oblasts—the counties—that run along the north side of the Black sea linking Rostov with Transdniestria and Odessa. Did he get the same thinking from reading the article?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend is right. The article even goes further and talks about Carpathian Ruthenia, which is part of the Czech Republic. The other bit that I think was deeply sad was that anyone who disagreed was effectively described as Russia-phobic. I cannot tell you how wrong that is. It is perfectly possible to disagree with the Kremlin and the actions of President Putin without disagreeing with the people of Russia or, indeed, supporting Russia. I am a proud Scot, and the Scots and the Russians spent most of their time in each other’s courts—there were admirals, there were generals and there were physicians, and 150 years of Scottish-Russian links helped to build the Russian medical system that we know today. I think the worst part of his article is the part that says that to criticise is to be anti-Russian, which is quite wrong.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Norwegian Prime Minister has recently spoken about Russia increasing hybrid operations, including cyber-attacks and signal jamming. I compliment the Secretary of State for his visits last week, but clearly one of our great allies is Norway. Can the Secretary of State outline to me what specific steps have been taken during the Ukraine crisis to ensure that in no way is Norway’s security compromised?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman will know that Britain and Norway are really old allies—indeed, we can almost see Norway from his constituency—and I was there as well, after Finland and Sweden, last week. First, we exercise regularly at all levels in all areas. Both our intelligence relationship and our military relationship are strong. The Royal Marines have been present in the high north for decades, and we were planning even more exercising to do together.
Norway also plays a really key role in bringing alongside a NATO country Finland and Sweden, so we exercise in the Arctic and the high north, which is of course a growing domain and, indeed, an area where Russia can use sub-threshold activity—everything from migrant flows. There was a period in its history when it put migrants on bicycles—it gave them free bicycles—to drive them across the border not so long ago. I think it is really important that we work together to have the shared understanding, and to say to Russia that the messaging in that part of the world is, “We are all one people”. Our links go across for centuries, but understanding what it is up to is as important.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the Defence Secretary’s statement today. He will know that, in 2014, Russian aggression severely degraded the Ukrainian navy. Will he update the House on the Ukrainian capabilities enhancement project? What progress has been made since that was signed in June?
Mr Wallace
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Ukrainian navy was snatched, effectively, with the invasion of Crimea, which was one of the main navy bases, and it has been operating predominantly on gifts of patrol boats from the United States. That is why last year we entered into an agreement to help Ukraine to build boats to enable it to protect its coastline, and to put infrastructure investment into ports so it could start to rebuild its navy. It is important that Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe, has the ability to export and free navigation. Russia has already threatened that, and we saw the aggressive action toward HMS Defender earlier in the year, so it is important that we help the Ukrainians to help themselves.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Although it is important that we take Russian security concerns seriously, we must resist at all costs any attempts by Russia to re-imperialise eastern Europe. May I press the Secretary of State on two dimensions of his twin-track strategy? First, how ready is NATO to accede to requests to join not only from Finland but from countries in the western Balkans and Georgia, so that any tactical advance into Ukraine is a strategic defeat? Secondly, will the Secretary of State say a word about the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, because it is hard to envisage an arms control framework for Europe without some measure of control over ground-launched cruise missiles—even if they are non-nuclear—on the continent of Europe?
Mr Wallace
On the latter question, may I write to the right hon. Gentleman about where we are with that? Overall, as I said about strategic treaties, better transparency is really important. The last thing any of us wants is a growing arms race, but we want to have confidence that as the technology grows it does not become more dangerous, and the treaties can adapt with technological growth.
What is the narrative that the Kremlin does not want to hear, but is true? The No. 1 point is that it has been shown that a consequence of this aggression is the expansion of NATO, not a contraction, and plenty of other countries are watching. If there is one message I want to get to President Putin it is that others are watching, and the track record shows that they will do the opposite of what he wants when he behaves in this way.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must urge brevity. I call Alicia Kearns.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of our Ukrainian allies’ resolve to not just repel but resist a further invasion, and what further capabilities are required to enhance this? Will he also keep an eye on Bosnia, given that we know Putin is seeking to cause similar issues for our friends there?
Mr Wallace
The other part of the article said that, somehow, the Ukrainian people were just waiting to be liberated. The other message I want to give President Putin is that these people will fight; they are strongly of the view that Ukraine is a sovereign country and they will stand and defend their freedoms. It is not the case that they will welcome with open arms a great liberator and/or rush back into the fold. That is another important lesson.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I commend the Secretary of State for his announcement this afternoon. His realism in December has been repeated today. The factual position of Ukraine not being a NATO member and the restrictions that places on us also add to our vulnerability. Does he envisage circumstances in which the position of no deployment of UK or allied troops might be revised?
Mr Wallace
The United Kingdom will always work with its allies to do what it can for its own and its allies’ security. We will always keep all options open, but I have to be honest: Russia has the biggest armed forces in Europe and Ukraine is not a member of NATO. In that environment, it would be holding out false hope to say that British armed forces would unilaterally go to join forces alongside the Ukrainians. That is why we are putting all the effort into helping the Ukrainians to help themselves, the sanctions package and diplomatic efforts.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
How can we reach out to the Russian people and tell them that NATO is a defensive alliance, so they do not have to swallow wholesale the Putin narrative that we are aggressive and trying to take over Russia?
Mr Wallace
First, as the international community we have to be consistent in that messaging. The other message, as my hon. Friend will know, is that Russian mothers and fathers do not want to see their sons and daughters come back as they did in the first Chechnya war. We should remind them that this will not be cost-free on either side, and it is not the way forward. However, we do that multilaterally together, both as NATO and as the international community, and we keep that messaging going all the way through. We do not detract or let them distract with false narratives.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is mere coincidence that I am wearing the tartan tie of the Republic of Estonia today, Madam Deputy Speaker. Reflecting on that nation’s history, will the Secretary of State advise the House? When the Estonian Republic was illegally occupied by the former Soviet Union, the continuity of its Government was assured here in the UK. Will he make that assurance—that continuity of a democratically elected Government, if required, for the Government elected by the people of Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
Not for the first time, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I will happily look at it and discuss it with my colleagues in the Cabinet.
On his point about Estonia, I am going next door to its neighbour Latvia, which of course has a Scottish embassy from the old days; Scotland and England did not trade together, so we went to Riga.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
In the early 1980s, a Soviet refugee from Ukraine called Mr Bailey had the unfortunate task of trying to teach me the cello. He was much more successful at teaching me about the proud history of Ukraine. What does this announcement do to our longstanding friendship with Ukraine more broadly in this context?
Mr Wallace
I hope that it does what it does for all nations in Europe. Britain will always be interested in the security of Europe, whether we are in the EU or not. The security of Europe is important for our security as much as it is for that of others. Britain will mean what it says. Britain will not just say, “Please don’t do this” on behalf of those people; we will help people defend themselves. That is why this announcement today is just one of those steps. That is sometimes the difference between us and others.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
When the Minister meets his Russian counterpart in a few weeks’ time, will he use that opportunity to widen the debate into nuclear disarmament and security measures in general, to build up a dialogue with Russia so that we can deal with all the issues and also de-escalate the dangerous tensions, which are rising? Will he assure the House that no British troops are going to be sent to or stationed in Ukraine?
Mr Wallace
First of all, I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my invitation; I have made it, and I hope he does. Of course we will start the process of establishing a dialogue on a whole range of issues, which hopefully will involve security, confidence in each other and transparency, to make sure that there is no miscalculation going forward.
British troops who are orbital have been based in Ukraine for years. They are not NATO bases, as President Putin alleges: no one is setting up NATO bases in Ukraine and no one is positioning strategic weapons in Ukraine. This is unarmed orbital: we train people in all sorts of methods. As I said, the trainers that come over on these systems will leave once the training is done. All I can say is that this is not new—we have had people there for years. But of course we are there at the invitation of the sovereign nation of Ukraine.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is hard to fathom the seriousness of the situation as it is developing. Can he shed any light on unconfirmed reports that Russia is now moving armed forces into Belarus—on to the road to Kiev in Belarus, and now threatening from the north of the country? If those reports are confirmed, will the Secretary of State undertake to return to the House to make a further statement?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend makes the point about this very worrying build-up that we have seen and is growing; the latest is that there has been very sizeable movement of aircraft and aviation capabilities in the last few days. Significant numbers have been moving to key areas.
I will go back and look at the details around Belarus as well. I absolutely commit to Members that I will come to the House and keep them updated periodically—not only about the build-up, if that does continue, but about every next step.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the Defence Secretary for his statement. It is clear that President Putin is trying to destabilise a number of countries in eastern Europe: we are seeing things happening not only in Ukraine, but in Bosnia. We are also seeing, to some extent, Belarus and Poland being destabilised by his actions.
In his statement, the Defence Secretary said:
“Each nation has a sovereign right to choose its own security arrangements.”
If Russia does invade Ukraine, as I think likely, it would seem that Ukraine will not have that choice. International sanctions will obviously play a role after that, but are the Defence Secretary and our allies thinking that in the longer term this may mean more than just economic sanctions and military assistance?
Mr Wallace
I think that in the long term, if President Putin does invade Ukraine, there are two worries. The wider worry is what happens in other parts of Europe, but Europe, the United Kingdom and the international community should not let President Putin forget the consequences. I think that one of his calculations is that a number of countries will just forget about it in a few months or years and that he will be able to carry on as normal. If it happens, I think the international community has a duty to remind President Putin that what he has done is unacceptable, that only the return of the sovereign territory to Ukraine is acceptable, and that he faces the consequences of his actions. Until he does so, he may well end up very isolated.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
We know that Russia is the master of misinformation to advance its military ambition. Does my right hon. Friend think that the provision of this defensive security system package will be spun by the Russian media as an act of provocation?
Mr Wallace
I expect all sorts of allegations, but that is why I have come to the House: to be transparent about it, not strategic. Secondly, the United States and other countries have already provided support over months and years to Ukraine. You cannot cry wolf more than once or twice. Indeed, the Russian media themselves approached me at the conference of the parties about our sales of missiles for patrol boats. If it was not provocation a year ago with another nation, I think it would be unreasonable to allow them to peddle that message.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid that we cannot take any further contributions. It has become normal for every question on a statement to be taken, but that is not actually normal practice. The House must be aware of the next business, which will require some time, so we will have to conclude questions on the statement.
Elections Bill
Monday 17th January 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 January 2022 - large print - (17 Jan 2022)
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 236 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:26 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 325 / Noes: 234 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The programme (No. 2) motion has not been moved. We will therefore proceed in accordance with the original programme order of 7 September 2021. Report must be brought to a conclusion no later than 9 pm; any debate on Third Reading must be concluded no later than 10 pm. There will be a single debate on all new clauses, new schedules and selected amendments until 9 pm. Decisions at the end of the debate will be taken no later than 9 pm in the sequence on the revised selection list, which is slightly different from the sequence on the amendment notice paper.
I hope that that is clear; it is because the notice paper was prepared to match the programme (No. 2) motion on the Order Paper, which has not been moved.
New Clause 11
Power to make regulations about registration, absent voting and other matters
“Schedule (Power to make regulations about registration, absent voting and other matters) contains provision, including provision amending Schedule 2 to RPA 1983, in connection with applications relating to registration, applications to vote by post or proxy, and applications for particular kinds of document.”—(Kemi Badenoch.)
This new clause, to be inserted after clause 1, introduces NS1.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: (a) ‘Section 54C (making a false declaration as to whether profit condition is satisfied or failing to provide accounts) On summary conviction in England and Wales or Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year’. (b) ‘Section 55A(6) (failure to comply with a national security call-in notice) On summary conviction in England and Wales or Scotland: statutory maximum or 12 months On summary conviction in Northern Ireland: statutory maximum or 6 months On indictment: fine or 1 year’.”
Government new clause 12—Purposes referred to in section 39.
New clause 1—Voting from age 16 in parliamentary elections—
“In section 1(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (definition of voting age for parliamentary elections), for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’.”
This new clause would lower the voting age to 16 in UK parliamentary elections.
New clause 2—Permissible donors—
“(1) Section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a), after ‘register’ insert ‘at the time at which the donation is made, but not an individual so registered as an overseas elector;”.
This new clause would prevent overseas electors donating to political parties in the UK.
New clause 3—Citizens’ assembly on electoral systems—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a citizens’ assembly representative of the population aged 16 and over to consider electoral systems in the United Kingdom.
(2) The Secretary of State must, for each category of election reformed by section 10 (Simple majority system to be used in elections for certain offices), provide to the assembly a report assessing the effects of the reforms on the matters in subsection (3).
(3) The matters are—
(a) voter engagement and understanding,
(b) electoral integrity,
(c) fairness and proportionality.
(4) A report under subsection (2) must be provided to the assembly no later than three months after the first election in each category of election after this section comes into force.
(5) The assembly must—
(a) consider the reports under subsection (2),
(b) consider other evidence relating to the matters in subsection (3).
(6) The assembly may make recommendations for legislative or policy change, including for parliamentary elections.”
New clause 4—Automatic Voter Registration—
“(1) It is a duty of—
(a) the Secretary of State; and
(b) registration officers
to take all reasonable steps to ensure that persons eligible to register to vote in elections in the United Kingdom are so registered.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations require public bodies to provide information to registration officers in accordance with the duty under subsection (1).
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must apply to public bodies including but not limited to—
(a) HM Revenue and Customs;
(b) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;
(c) the National Health Service;
(d) NHS Scotland;
(e) all types of state funded schools;
(f) local authorities;
(g) the Department for Work and Pensions;
(h) HM Passport Office;
(i) police forces;
(j) the TV Licensing Authority.
(4) Registration officers must—
(a) use the information provided under regulations under subsection (2) to register otherwise unregistered persons on the appropriate electoral register or registers, or
(b) if the information provided does not contain all information necessary to register a person who may be eligible, contact that person for the purpose of obtaining the required information to establish whether they are eligible to register and, if so, register them on the appropriate electoral register or registers.
(5) If a registration officer has registered a person under subsection (4), the officer must notify that person within 30 days and give that person an opportunity to correct any mistaken information.
(6) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers on fulfilling their duties under this section.
(7) Where a person is registered under subsection (4), that person shall be omitted from the edited register unless that person notifies the registration officer to the contrary.
(8) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.”
New clause 5—Voting by convicted persons sentenced to terms of 12 months or less—
“In section 3(1A) (exceptions to the disenfranchisement of prisoners) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, after ‘Scotland’ insert ‘or a parliamentary election’.”
This new clause would allow prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or less to vote in UK parliamentary elections.
New clause 6—Voting by qualifying foreign nationals—
“In section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, for paragraph (c) substitute—
‘(c) is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a qualifying foreign national; and’”.
This new clause would allow foreign nationals who either do not need leave to remain in the UK or have been granted such leave to vote in UK parliamentary elections.
New clause 7—Voting by EU nationals—
“In section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, for paragraph (c) substitute—
‘(c) is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union; and’”.
This new clause would allow EU citizens to vote in UK parliamentary elections.
New clause 8—Fines for electoral offences—
“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 5, leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘£500,000, or 5% of the total spend by the organisation or individual being penalised in the election to which the offence relates, whichever is greater’.”
This new clause would allow the Electoral Commission to impose increased fines for electoral offences.
New clause 9—Permissible donors to be based in the United Kingdom and associated offences—
“(1) Section 54 of PPERA (permissible donors) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).
(2) At the end of subsection (2)(a), insert ‘ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation.’
(3) After subsection (2)(b)(ii) insert—
‘(iii) employing a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom, and
(iv) employing at least five staff within the United Kingdom’.
(4) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert ‘has a majority of partners who are on a UK electoral register, are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and are domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation, employs a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom, and employs at least five staff within the United Kingdom.’
(5) At the end of subsection (2)(h), insert ‘has a majority of those persons with significant control who are on a UK electoral register, are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and are domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation, and also either employs no staff at all, or employs a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom.’
(6) Section 61 of PPERA (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations) is amended in accordance with subsection (7).
(7) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) A person commits an offence if they are a director of a company, hold a position of significant control in an unincorporated association, or are a partner in a limited liability partnership, and that company, association or partnership—
(a) is not a permissible donor and offers a donation to a political party (whether the donation is accepted or not), or
(b) commits, or otherwise causes to be committed, an act which were the body be a person, would be an offence under subsection (1) or (2).’”
This new clause makes requirements for individual and company donors to be based in the United Kingdom and makes persons running companies liable for donation restriction evasion offences committed by those companies.
New clause 10—Removal of requirement for election agent’s address to be published—
“(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 67 (appointment of election agent), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(6A) Though if the candidate or the person acting on behalf of the candidate under this section provides a statement signed by the candidate that the candidate requires the address of the election agent not to be made public and instead states the relevant area within which that address is situated, the public notice under subsection (6) should state that relevant area rather than the address.
(6B) In this section, “relevant area” means—
(a) for a parliamentary election, the constituency,
(b) for an Authority election, the Assembly constituency,
(c) for any other local election, local government area, or
(d) if the address is outside the United Kingdom, the country within which it is situated.’”
This new clause would remove the requirement for public notice of the addresses of election agents (including candidates acting as their own agent) to be given at parliamentary and local elections. The area in which the address is situated could instead be given, as for candidates.
New clause 13—Proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons—
“(1) The simple majority system must not be used for any Parliamentary general election after the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to establish a new proportional representation system of election for Members of the House of Commons that would be expected to result in seats being held by each party roughly reflecting the proportion of votes cast for candidates of that party at the preceding general election.
(3) A system is suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) if it would over the past five Parliamentary general elections have had a mean average Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision (which may include provision amending any enactment) contingent on the prohibition in subsection (1).”
This new clause would abolish first past the post for UK general elections and require the Government to take all reasonable steps to introduce proportional representation.
New clause 14—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at parliamentary elections—
“(1) Section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (c), after ‘Ireland’ insert—
‘or a foreign national who has—
(i) the right of abode in the United Kingdom;
(ii) settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme;
(iii) indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom; or
(iv) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.’”
New clause 15—Prohibition of double registration—
“In section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government elector), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) A person is only entitled to be registered at one address within the United Kingdom at any one time.’”
This new clause seeks to provide an additional check and balance against double voting in UK Parliamentary elections.
New clause 16—Restrictions on foreign and foreign-influenced donations—
“(1) PPERA is amended as follows.
(2) In section 54(1) (circumstances in which party may not accept donation), after paragraph (aa) insert—
‘(ab) the party has not been given a declaration as required by section 54C; or’.
(3) In section 54(2) (permissible donors), in paragraph (b)(ii), for ‘carries on business in the United Kingdom’ substitute—
‘satisfies the condition set out in subsection (2ZAA)’.
(4) After section 54(2ZA) insert—
‘(2ZAA) The condition referred to in subsection (2)(b)(ii) is that the company or limited liability partnership’s profits generated and taxable within the United Kingdom over the previous 12 months are greater than the value of the donation given.’
(5) After section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied), insert—
‘54C Declaration as to whether profit condition is satisfied
(1) A company or limited liability partnership making to a registered party a donation in relation to which the condition set out in section 54(2ZAA) applies must give to the party a written declaration stating whether or not the company or limited liability partnership satisfies that condition.
(2) A declaration under this section must also state the company or limited liability partnership’s full name, address and registration number.
(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.
(4) The Commission may issue a notice to a person to provide accounts for the purpose of verifying whether a declaration made under this section is accurate.
(5) A person who fails to comply with a notice under subsection (4) commits an offence.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a declaration under this section to be retained for a specified period.
(7) The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply where, by reason of section 71B(1)(b), the entity by whom the donation would be made is a permissible donor in relation to the donation at the time of its receipt by the party.
(8) For the purposes of the following provisions, references in this section to receipt by a registered party should be read instead as follows—
(a) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 7, receipt by the regulated donee;
(b) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 11, receipt by the recognised third party;
(c) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 15, receipt by the permitted participant;
(d) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 2A of the Representation of the People Act 1983, receipt by the candidate or the candidate’s election agent.’
(6) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors), insert—
‘55A Donations and national security risk
(1) The Commission may give a notice (“a call-in notice”) if the Commission reasonably suspects that a qualifying donation has given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity.
(2) If the Commission decides to give a call-in notice, the notice must be given to—
(a) the person who made the donation,
(b) the party that received the donation,
(c) the Secretary of State, and
(d) such other persons as the Commission considers appropriate.
(3) When assessing whether a donation has given or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity, Commission must consider the characteristics of the person who made the donation, including—
(a) their sector or sectors of commercial activity or holdings,
(b) their technological capabilities,
(c) any links to entities which may seek to undermine or threaten the interests of the United Kingdom, including the integrity of its elections,
(d) their ultimate controller, or if they can be readily exploited, (e) whether the acquirer they, or their ultimate controller, has committed, or is linked to, criminal or illicit activities that are related to national security, or activities that have given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security.
(4) In this section, a “qualifying donation” is a donation of an amount exceeding £25,000.
(5) The Commission may, in relation to the Commission’s functions under this section, issue a notice to a person to—
(a) provide information, or
(b) attend, or
(c) give evidence as if such a notice was a notice under section 19 or 20 of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.
(6) A person who fails to comply with a notice under subsection (5) commits an offence.
(7) In this section, “assessment period” in relation to a call-in notice under this section has the same meaning as in section 23 of National Security and Investment Act 2021 in relation to a call-in notice under that Act.
(8) The Commission must, before the end of the assessment period in relation to a call-in notice—
(a) make a final order, or
(b) give a final notification to each person to whom the call-in notice was given.
(9) The Commission may, during the assessment period, make a final order if the Commission—
(a) is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the qualifying donation to which the call-in notice applies has given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity, and
(b) reasonably considers that the provisions of the order are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of preventing, remedying or mitigating the risk.
(10) During the assessment period, the Commission may make an interim order in relation to a qualifying donation if the Commission reasonably considers that the provisions of the order are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of safeguarding electoral integrity during that period.
(11) An order under subsection (9) or (10) may—
(a) require a donation to be held unspent for a period as may be prescribed in the order,
(b) require a donation to be refused,
(c) require a donation to be returned, or
(d) prohibit the acceptance of any donation by any registered party from the person who made the donation to which the call-in notice applies, or from a prescribed person or category of person connected to that person, for a period as may be prescribed in the order.
(12) The Commission must keep each order under review and may vary or revoke it.’
(7) In section 156 (orders and regulations)—
(a) in subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(za) any order under section 55A;’;
(b) after subsection (4D) insert—
‘(4E) Subsection (2) does not apply to regulations under section 54C and regulations may not be made under that section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’
(8) In Schedule 20 (penalties), at the appropriate places insert the following entries—
This new clause is intended to provide safeguards against the risks of foreign influence in UK elections flagged by the Intelligence and Security Select Committee in its report on Russia, ordered to be printed on 21 July 2020 (HC 632).
New clause 17—Publication of candidates’ home address information—
“(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 6(5)(b), after ‘constituency’ insert ‘, or town or village,’.”
This new clause would allow candidates who do not wish their full home address to be published the option (as an alternative to giving the constituency of their home address) of providing the town or village within which that address is situated. That information would then be published on the returning officer’s statement of persons nominated by virtue of Rule 14(3A).
New clause 18—Unincorporated associations and permissible donors—
“(1) An unincorporated association required to notify the Electoral Commission of political contributions by paragraph 1 of Schedule 19A to PPERA must make permissibility checks on donations to the unincorporated association in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) An unincorporated association must take all reasonable steps to establish whether the donor of a relevant donation is a permissible donor under section 54 of PPERA.
(3) In this section, a ‘relevant donation’ is any donation which is either intended for political purposes or might reasonably be assumed to be for political purposes.
(4) An unincorporated association must not accept a relevant donation from a person who is not a permissible donor.”
This new clause requires unincorporated associations to establish whether a person making a donation for political purposes is a permissible donor and, if not, reject that donation.
Amendment 1, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
This amendment would remove the Voter ID provisions.
Amendment 126, in clause 3, page 2, line 25, leave out “dishonestly”.
This amendment probes the necessity of adding a further test of dishonesty to the defence in subsection (4) of the inserted provision 112A.
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 11, leave out lines 20 to 31 and insert—
“(a) in paragraph (3A)(b), for ‘a device’ substitute ‘equipment’;
(b) after paragraph (3A)(b) insert—
‘(c) such equipment as it is reasonable to provide for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for, relevant persons to vote in the manner directed by rule 37.’;
(c) after paragraph (3A) insert—
‘(3B) In paragraph (3A)(c), “relevant persons” means persons who find it difficult or impossible to vote in the manner directed by rule 37 because of a disability.’”
This amendment would retain the requirement for returning officers to make specific provision at polling stations to enable voters who are blind or partially-sighted to vote without any need for assistance from the presiding officer or any companion and change the nature of that provision from “a device” to “equipment”.
Amendment 9, page 20, line 19, leave out clause 13.
Amendment 4, in clause 13, page 22, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not designate the statement under section 4A unless the Scottish Parliament has, before the end of the 40-day period, passed a motion of the form ‘That the Parliament approves the draft Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved Scottish functions’.”
This amendment would require the Scottish Parliament to approve an Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved Scottish functions before the strategy could have effect.
Amendment 127, page 22, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not designate the statement under section 4A unless Senedd Cymru has, before the end of the 40-day period, passed a motion of the form ‘That Senedd Cymru approves the draft Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved Welsh functions’.”
This amendment would require Senedd Cymru to approve an Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement so far as it relates to the Commission’s devolved Welsh functions before the strategy could have effect.
Amendment 10, page 25, line 20, leave out clause 14.
Government amendments 13 to 17.
Amendment 11, page 33, line 2, leave out clause 23.
Amendment 12, page 34, line 19, leave out clause 24,
Amendment 3, page 37, line 5, leave out clause 26.
This amendment would remove the provisions relating to joint campaigning by registered parties and third parties.
Government amendments 18 to 52.
Government new schedule 1—Power to make regulations about registration, absent voting and other matters.
Amendment 5, page 65, line 2, leave out schedule 1.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Government amendments 53 to 124.
Kemi Badenoch
The Government are committed to increasing participation in our democracy and empowering all those eligible to vote to do so in a secure, efficient and effective way. An important part of that is ensuring that electoral services—be they registering to vote, applying for an absent vote or applying for a voter card—are as convenient and accessible as possible. To that end, we have tabled new clause 11 and new schedule 1 to provide powers to introduce an online absent vote application service and an online voter card application service. These amendments also provide similar powers for such applications in Northern Ireland.
As it stands, it is not possible for electors to apply for an absent vote online. Electors who wish to apply for an absent vote must do so via a paper form that they must submit to their local electoral registration officer via post. New clause 11 and new schedule 1 will enable the identity of applicants using those services to be verified, as well as identity verification for paper absent vote applications, as is already the case for registration applications. That includes powers to enable real-time identity verification—that is, identity verification while an applicant is in the process of completing their application—for voter card applications, absent vote applications and registration applications.
That issue was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). The Government agreed in principle with her points and committed to considering an online service for electors to make applications for an absent vote once further work was done to understand how best to implement such a service. That commitment is being honoured here with the tabling of amendments to provide powers to introduce an online absent vote application service.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for being receptive to the points that were raised in Committee about putting many more of the ways in which we engage with democracy online. I wonder if she has had time to reflect on whether the Government may have gained advantage from pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill, because it strikes me that not only did the instruction order after Second Reading bring forward parts of the Bill that were not given scrutiny by the full House, but there have also been a huge amount of Government amendments at this late stage. What reflections does she have on the ways in which she might consult the House on constitutional matters before bringing forward Bills in future?
Kemi Badenoch
I have nothing further to add to what we discussed in Committee. I understand the hon. Lady’s point—we want our legislation to be as rigorous and robust as possible. I hope that the open relationship that she and I had when she was shadowing me is one that I will be able to continue with her successors. That is how we will get very good legislation on the statute books.
As I was saying, that commitment is being honoured here with the tabling of amendments to provide powers to introduce an online absent vote application service. That will include a process by which the identity of absent vote applicants can be verified. The identity verification process will be made to apply to paper applications as well as to applications made online.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for going through the implications of new clause 11, which I very much welcome. Does it at all affect the Government’s position on the length of election campaigns, which she will be aware has been a point of debate within this Bill and the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill? Will the measure help to shorten election campaigns in the long term?
Kemi Badenoch
I think it is very possible that this measure will assist people in speeding up the process by which they can register, which will of course have a positive impact in terms of the length of time people have to get ready for elections. I know that my right hon. Friend has other concerns about the length of time required to conduct elections, and those matters are separate from what we are discussing today, but I am very happy to continue discussions on that with her.
New clause 11 and new schedule 1 also include powers to enable identity verification of partially completed voter card applications, making the process more efficient and minimising unnecessary delays in processing applications. I am pleased to say that these new clauses will support our aim to ensure that voter identification works for all eligible voters.
I know that the detail of voter identification remains of great interest to hon. Members. The Government have always committed to being open about our plans. I wish to use this opportunity to highlight to the House the policy statement on voter identification published on gov.uk on 6 January that sets out in more detail our implementation plans for the policy.
Today, we are introducing a group of clarificatory amendments on voter identification that support those plans. Amendments 53 to 56 and amendments 62 to 65 will ensure that any elector who does not possess one of the wide range of photographic identification documents accepted under our proposals would be able to apply for a voter card or anonymous elector’s document when registering to vote, thus simplifying and making the system more accessible.
For electors who are registered to vote at multiple addresses, such as students, amendments 57 and 66 clarify that it will not be mandatory to make an application to each electoral registration officer with whom they are registered—only one would be needed. It is also important that voter cards and anonymous elector’s documents are designed appropriately, and amendments 61 and 70 provide some additional flexibility around how to ensure that.
With respect specifically to anonymous electors and the anonymous elector’s documents, amendments 71, 80, 83, 85 and 88 will ensure that an anonymous elector’s identity can still be verified effectively at the polling station without risk of their anonymity being compromised, and that they can be provided with an anonymous elector’s document in a convenient way.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate the amendments that clarify what travel documents are permitted. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, on which I sit, has passed a report, and when I questioned the hon. Lady’s predecessor, it was clear that the list of documents could have been expanded to all photo ID concessionary cards, including the young person’s travel card, which requires a photo in all documentation. However, the Government chose to ignore young person passes and only include the older person passes in the main. May I ask why the Minister has done that? Her predecessor did say that she would think again about it. Why have they not done so on this issue?
Kemi Badenoch
I did look into this issue, and the reason why we have not accepted it is that the process for getting travel concessionary passes for older voters is more rigorous and robust than that for young people. The new robust checks that we would have at the threshold for voter ID are met by the older voters’ concessionary passes but not by the young voters’ passes. That is why this is the case.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Rather than outlining a list, why does the Minister not take the approach of outlining the thresholds that her Department think are required for an ID to be valid? The travel companies might then wish to meet that threshold. In that way, everyone will know what the Minister is talking about, rather than her just producing a random list and then dismissing the other passes.
Kemi Badenoch
That is a good question. It is something that we discussed in Committee and we decided that the best way to do that would be through secondary legislation. We did debate what the thresholds were, but this is something that can be resolved when further detail comes out in secondary legislation. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s comments at that stage.
As I was saying, amendments 82, 84 and 87 will help ensure clarity to both electors and polling station staff as to which forms of identification will be accepted. In line with other registration decisions, amendment 74 introduces an appeal process against the refusal of an application for a voter card or absent vote.
Finally, on this group of Government amendments, amendments 49 to 50, 76 to 79, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96, 105 and 108 seek to provide the chief electoral officer of Northern Ireland with the ability to provide confidential lists of dates of birth to polling stations at all elections in Northern Ireland, which will facilitate the implementation of existing provisions.
Cat Smith
Before the Minister moves on, I just wonder whether she, since taking up her post, has had a chance to meet the Association of Electoral Administrators, which has raised the concern that it is already quite difficult to recruit volunteers to staff polling stations. Its concern is that being asked to check these forms of ID will be a disincentive for volunteers to come forward because of the potential conflict between a voter whose ID is not valid and the volunteer who is staffing the polling station. Has she discussed that with the Association of Electoral Administrators, and if so, how did that conversation go?
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, I have had a meeting with AEA representatives and we talked about a range of issues. I cannot remember the discussions verbatim and to the letter, but these are matters that we are taking into consideration throughout.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
A Government’s role should be to try to encourage more and more people into the democratic process. The introduction of photo ID cards, in my view, will do exactly the opposite. Can the Minister explain to the House how the introduction of photo ID cards will increase participation, particularly for the elderly and those in vulnerable communities?
Kemi Badenoch
We have tested this measure in extensive pilots. Most people have photographic ID, and those who do not will be provided with voter ID free of charge. It is important that we protect the franchise. This regulation has not been updated since 1872. We have debated it extensively—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present when we discussed it—and we are confident that it will not have an impact on voting.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Does the Minister welcome the fact that in Swindon, when we had the voter ID pilots, our turnout went up? When the pilot came to an end, my residents complained that it was not already in place.
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and shows that we have carried out thorough investigations into the impact. I am pleased that pilots such as the one in Swindon have been able to prove the Government’s case.
Turning to the Government amendments on franchise measures, there are two technical amendments to schedule 7 for the EU citizen voting and candidacy provisions. Amendment 116 seeks to apply provisions in the Bill to amend the voting and candidacy rights of European citizens to the relevant elections in the City of London, which are governed by a unique legislative frame- work. It was therefore necessary to conduct additional investigations and engagement in order to finalise the provisions for inclusion in the Bill. The effect of the amendment is to bring City of London ward elections into line with those of the rest of England.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Government themselves say time and again that EU citizens make such a contribution to the UK. Does the Minister agree that it seems a cynical move that EU citizens with settled status will now be disenfranchised?
Kemi Badenoch
We had multiple discussions on EU citizenship when we debated Brexit legislation. These are technical amendments to City of London voting rights, and some relate to the business franchise as well, so the hon. Lady’s remarks are not relevant to this piece of legislation.
Amendment 117 is a minor technical amendment that corrects an oversight in the drafting and makes no changes to the effect or scope of the Bill. It reinserts a cross-reference to the definition of “qualifying Commonwealth citizen” in section 79 of the Local Government Act 1972. This will prevent any ambiguity and will ensure a common understanding of the term in this instance.
The technical amendments to the digital imprints provisions will ensure that the new regime clearly delivers the policy intent. On new clause 12 and related consequential amendments, it was always the policy intention for the enforcement of digital imprints to broadly mirror the enforcement of the print regime. Since introduction, we have identified that, although certain types of material were already included in the provisions for unpaid material, it was not sufficiently clear that they were captured in the provisions for paid-for materials and, as drafted, would not fall to be enforced by the Electoral Commission.
The amendments will ensure that the enforcement responsibilities of the police and the Electoral Commission can be correctly assigned and are consistent across all material. That will enable the commission, in practice, to enforce material about registered parties and referendums, as well as material about categories of candidates, future candidates and holders of elected office. That is broadly in line with the existing split of responsibilities between the enforcement authorities in the print regime. There may be a degree of overlap between material about categories of candidates, future candidates and holders of elected office, and material that is about more than one particular candidate, future candidate or holder of elected office. In these instances, it is for the authorities to establish, based on the particular facts, where the enforcement responsibility lies.
These amendments will make the provisions easier for campaigners to understand and for the authorities to enforce, while delivering a regime that provides transparency for voters across a wide range of campaigning material. The amendments will also clarify that no electronic campaigning material, be it paid or unpaid, needs to make express mention of the candidate, party, future candidate, elected office holder or outcome of the referendum it relates to in order to be in scope of the regime. By clarifying that, the amendments will remove any uncertainty.
The remaining Government amendments to the digital imprints clauses are, again, small technical clarifications. Amendment 20 amends the definitions of candidates, future candidates and elected office holders so as to include those of municipal elections in the City of London, ensuring that a consistent approach is applied to the transparency of unpaid electronic and printed campaign material.
Amendment 25 simply clarifies that the imprint rules will apply only to unpaid material wholly or mainly related to referendums when published during the referendum period. That ensures that the regime takes a proportionate approach, providing transparency around material when it is most likely to be shared and therefore influence the outcome of a referendum.
Finally, I will turn to the last set of amendments relating to the measures in the Bill on the Electoral Commission. Amendments 13 to 15 seek to future-proof the appointment mechanism of Ministers to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. As currently drafted, clause 15 enables a Minister of the Crown with responsibilities for the constitution appointed by the Prime Minister to deputise for the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, following the Transfer of Functions (Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) Order 2021. Several transfer of functions orders have been needed over recent years to ensure appropriate Government membership of the Speaker’s committee. It is an unnecessarily burdensome process that could be avoided by future-proofing these provisions against future machinery of government changes or changes in ministerial responsibilities.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does this slew of technical amendments relating to machinery of government changes reflect the increasingly kleptocratic and nepotistic nature of this Government? Subject portfolios are handed to Ministers largely on the basis of who they are, rather than on the good functioning of government. Can the Minister give us an example of any other Government anywhere in the world under which elections and the constitution are managed by the same Department as housing policy?
Kemi Badenoch
I think the hon. Gentleman may be confused as to the reasons why we are making this change. We have had several transfer of functions orders to ensure that we minimise disruption due to the wording around the membership of the Speaker’s committee.
We propose to amend clause 15 so that the Minister of the Crown appointed to exercise concurrent membership of the Speaker’s committee with the Secretary of State does not have to have specific responsibilities in relation to the constitution, or any other portfolio, in order to be appointable. These amendments will not amend the overall Government membership of the committee because, as is currently the case, the Secretary of State and the Minister would not be able to attend committee meetings jointly and deputisation would not be available to the other Government member of the Speaker’s committee.
Additionally, amendments have been tabled to update the Bill to reflect the recent machinery of government change. On 8 December, elections policy was formally transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Some provisions in parts 5, 6 and 7, and in certain schedules to the Bill, currently refer to “the Minister”. That is defined in clause 60 as meaning the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office. In order to bring the Bill into line with the new allocation of responsibilities within Government, these amendments replace those references so that they refer only to the Secretary of State. I urge the House to support these practical amendments.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings. I am taking on this role partway through matters, but fortunately I stand on the shoulders of outstanding colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who did a tremendous job and will no doubt continue to do so. Having read the Official Report of the Committee stage, I suspect that the Minister is rather relieved to face off with me rather than my hon. Friend—although she is in her place, so perhaps it is a two-for-one proposition.
Although the personnel may have changed, the fundamentals have not. This is a bad Bill. It is full of solutions in search of problems. Rather than opening up our democracy to greater participation, it will do the opposite, all the while further weakening our democracy to dodgy finance. It is conventional to call it Trumpian, but it is not even that. It is the sort of partial nonsense that can be seen in US statehouses: partisan leaders who just cannot help themselves, gerrymandering and seeking to tilt election outcomes by putting their thumb on the scale. Do not take my word for it, Minister; the Government should have heeded the calls from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its excellent report, when it said that the Bill ought to be paused.
Justin Tomlinson
In that case, why does my local Labour party insist on photo voter ID when it comes to select my opponent in each election?
Alex Norris
I confess that I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would ask me that. I have been a Labour party branch secretary, branch chair, constituency secretary, constituency chair, councillor, Member of Parliament and shadow Minister, and I have never once been asked for voter ID at a meeting. That has only ever happened in cases where certain Labour parties were in special measures and it was seen as a proportionate protection. It is proportion that we are talking about.
The hon. Gentleman said in a previous contribution that there is enthusiasm in Swindon for the measure to tackle that one solitary aspect of personation. In fact, if we were to replicate the findings of the pilots he relies on across the country, 184,000 people who wanted to vote would be turned away and would not return. That makes it 184,000 to one; this is racking up faster than Downing Street parties. The Cabinet Office itself says that that approach will exclude 2% of the electorate without the right form of ID, but according to the Electoral Commission the actual figure of those without the right ID will be between 1 million and 3.5 million.
In addition, the people excluded will not be evenly spread and that goes to the heart of the Government’s problems with inclusivity in the Bill. Some 77% of people in the UK hold a full driving licence, whereas the figure for black people is 53% and the one for Asian people is 61%. Similarly, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the poorest are six times more likely than the best-off to miss out under these proposals—the measure is not inclusive.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Bill also includes provisions for totally free and suitable photographic ID for anyone who needs it, so the poor are protected?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman reads my mind, because I was about to turn to that issue. I was going to say that the Government will now instead rely on a voter card. First, putting hurdles in the way will take people out and reduce turnout. That alone is a bad thing, but, again, the effect will not be evenly distributed; it will be harder for those in rural communities, who have further to travel, to make good. Indeed, what about those who live with a disability and all the extra burdens in their lives—why on earth would we give them another one, not least when we are not really solving a problem?
The Association of Electoral Administrators has raised serious concerns about the huge burden on overstretched local authorities, which will be supposed to deal with photo ID cards alongside the burden of registering significant numbers of new or overseas electors—I will reference them shortly—ordinary registrations and renewed postal voters. We know that that that burden peaks at the same time, approximately six weeks before an election, because, funnily enough, people work in those cycles.
Governments ought to bring people together, and the Government have succeeded with these provisions, as they have united civil society. They have united academia and cross-party Select Committees against them. Why will the Government not listen? If they want that secure, fair, modern, inclusive and transparent Bill, they should accept the amendments. Should they not do so, we will know what they really want from the Bill.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My hon. Friend is making excellent progress. One point made by Government Members is that people could apply for ID. Even where non-photographic ID was used in the trials and given to everyone, about 1% of people were turned away just because they had forgotten to take it from their house to the polling station. Now in a number of our seats 1% is a margin of error that would have changed the course of an election, and in tight years it could change the course of who is in government. Does he think it is right that the measures could change the course of who governs this country?
Alex Norris
I want the course of elections to be changed by people—by those eligible to vote. Although some of the seats in this place come down to very fine margins, across virtually every council area there are hyper-marginal seats, and indeed hyper-marginal councils, that will swing on this measure. As I have said, the Bill seeks to tackle something that has yet to be proved to be a problem.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech thus far. He has talked about the need for photographic ID. The Equality and Human Rights Commission made it clear that the groups that would be affected included people from different ethnic minority backgrounds, older people and, more important, disabled people. The Bill is doing more to disenfranchise disabled people by depriving them of accessibility.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend knows that of which she speaks. In this place she is a leading campaigner on such issues, and that is exactly what the campaign groups and the representative groups are saying. The only people who do not seem to understand that point are the Government.
Let me now turn to inclusivity. Our amendment 2 seeks to retain the current requirement for returning officers to make specific provision at polling stations to enable voters who live with blindness or partial-sightedness to vote without any need for assistance from the presiding officer or any companion, and to change the nature of that provision from “a device” to “equipment”. As it stands, the Bill could have the dangerous consequence of removing the fundamental principle that electoral staff must enable voters to vote
“without any need for assistance”.
Although we recognise and support the broader duty in the Bill to enable all people living with disabilities to vote, it is wrong not to carry over the previous requirement to enable people to vote
“without any need for assistance”.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that that measure will create a postcode lottery for people who are partially sighted or blind, because it will depend on which returning officer will decide what equipment will be provided?
Alex Norris
That is an excellent point. The question of who provides the requisite equipment and who does not will differ greatly between authorities. I cannot believe that that is the Government’s intention, and I hope that in her closing speech the Minister will clarify how the problem is to be resolved.
Let me now deal with new clause 1. If the Government were truly serious about improving democratic engagement and modernising democracy, they would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds who live in this country. Much has already been said on the subject, but I want to add a significant element to the debate. The greatest risk to our democracy, and to democracies globally, is apathy. If people stop valuing it, they will care less when they see it eroded. The best way to build a culture of participation is to start early. We already expect to remain connected to 16 and 17-year-olds through education, employment or training. We should be using that time to teach and develop an interest in citizenship—in our rights and responsibilities. The right to vote is an anchor in that regard. Let us use the time that we have with those young people to talk about voting—about their local councils, and about national Government.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
One issue that I discuss regularly with my constituents, especially young voters, is their wish to participate in our democracy, and when I visit schools, colleges and sixth forms up and down the country, that issue arises time and again. Does my hon. Friend feel that this is a missed opportunity for the Government to include those young people in our democratic process?
Alex Norris
I share my hon. Friend’s view. What I hear during my visits is very much in line what she is hearing. We know that 16 and 17-year-olds, when given the chance, take it very seriously. In Scotland and Wales, they have higher rates of turnout than 18 to 24-year-olds, with 75% voting and 97% saying that they would vote in future elections. They have also accessed more information from a wider variety of sources than any other age group. They have taken it seriously, and we ought to take them seriously.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I am interested to know the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, from a Labour point of view, on Labour Live in 2018. When people signed up for a ticket it said: “All under-18s need to be accompanied by an adult or guardian at Labour Live. That means all youth and child tickets must be bought alongside an adult full price ticket and ID will be checked at the festival gate.” I would be grateful—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. What is all this shouting? The hon. Gentleman will make his point and the Opposition spokesman will undoubtedly be able to answer it without shouting from the background.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hoped that we were going to talk about his new clause, but instead, as he knows as well as I do, he is creating a false equivalence between a licensed event and going to vote in a polling station, where, as yet, I have not been offered a pint at the ballot box. Maybe that will be in the next elections Bill.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Voting Labour is much more dangerous than having a pint.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman knows that I will always take an intervention from him, so should he wish he will find me in listening mode.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
With regard to voter participation among 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland, another reason we have such a healthy turnout is that all the elections in which they participate are conducted on a proportional basis. There are amendments tonight that would extend that to elections to this House. Will the hon. Gentleman be supporting them?
Alex Norris
I have significant issues with new clause 13, as drafted, which simply asks to introduce a proportional system. For something as seismic as that, there ought to be greater detail about what is being proposed. I am also a strong believer—this speaks to new clause 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—in the desirability of a citizens convention on our democracy that would look at voting systems but also look a lot more widely. This is a good moment and a good mechanism to reboot our democracy.
On new clause 14, in my name, and new clause 10, having left the European Union, we need new, easy-to-understand arrangements that are fair. People who live in this country ought to have a say in how it is run and the services that affect their lives. It is odd that the Bill does not do more for them, and indeed does more for those who do not live here than those who do. The provisions we seek to implement would address that, and I hope they are looked on favourably.
Turning to new clauses 2 and 9, the Bill creates another odd paradox. It opens the floodgates for a potentially large influx of foreign-based money into our democracy, but at the same time makes it harder for civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to have their say, despite the massive contribution to British life that they make. What is fair or transparent about that?
Labour Members are on record as thinking that 15 years is a reasonable and proportionate amount of time for someone to retain a vote after leaving the UK and for the arrangements to ensure that they can to remain practical. We fear that the Government have created a system vulnerable to overseas interference. It allows a person to call up any and every local authority to say that they were resident in the area 30 or 40 years ago, provide flimsy proof—it will not be photo identification, that is for sure—and then be able to donate massive sums of money. I would hope to hear from the Minister that that is not the intention, but nevertheless there is a chance to make good on it. New clause 2 would simply prevent anyone registered as such an overseas elector from donating to political parties in the UK, while new clause 9 would require individual and company donors to be based in the UK while making those in charge of companies liable for any offences caused. We also have new clause 16 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). So if the Minister really does not want to see that weakness in our democracy, she has a real menu to choose from and she will find us very supportive, because these are proportionate safeguards.
Research from The Times shows that the Conservative party was able, through existing methods, to accept about £1 million from UK citizens living in tax havens ahead of the 2017 general election. The Bill takes away the barriers that kept it at £1 million. The strength of feeling on the issue is shown by the variety of other new clauses—2, 8, 16 and 18—that cover that subject. As the Government seek to ensure that those in tax havens have a stronger voice, they are seeking at the same time to undermine the ability of civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to engage in our democracy. Amendment 3 would remove those provisions.
Mrs Miller
This debate is about important changes to one of the pillars of our democracy: the way we run free and fair elections. May I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for her diligent work listening to the debate and deliberations, and for making the changes that she has put before us?
I will speak in particular to Government new clause 11 and new schedule 1. In September, in the earlier stages of the Bill, the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), stressed the importance of an elections system that works for voters. Making that system work for voters is where I will focus my remarks.
New clause 11 is linked to absent voting and a power to make regulations, and it paves the way for new schedule 1. New schedule 1 includes verification evidence needed to register, but also, importantly, the opportunity to introduce online absent-voting application services. I think that is a really important step forward because those provisions potentially give us an opportunity to absolutely make the system better for voters, particularly those who are absent, who in the past have had to take many days, or even weeks, to make an application to vote. This system of online applications could well improve things significantly.
Ian Lavery
Will the right hon. Lady explain how what she has just said will encourage people from right across the political piece to participate in the democratic process?
Mrs Miller
Because it will enable people to be part of the system, to register online and to have confidence in what is going on in our election process.
I want to probe the Minister on the length of election campaigns, which have, I believe—this is to the hon. Gentleman’s point—not served us well in helping to engage people in the election process. Many hon. Members who took part in debates on the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill made the point about the continual lengthening of our election campaigns being not a benign act, but an act that has potential consequences—consequences we are not that aware of. Emerging research suggests that longer election campaigns are potentially disengaging for electors. They mean that the interest of electors wanes over time—perhaps all of us who have knocked on doors have seen that over the last two decades, when election campaigns have increased significantly in length.
Will new schedule 1 and new clause 11, tabled by the Government, provide some sense of opportunity that at least the length of election campaigns will not increase? The former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North, spoke about her understanding of the importance of potentially shortening election campaigns as well. Hon. Members will remember that in law at the moment election campaigns are currently 25 working days, and amendments that I and my hon. Friends tabled the last time these matters were discussed in this place considered shortening campaigns to 25 days.
Will the Minister update the House on the undertaking to consider research into the length of election campaigns, in conjunction with new clause 11 and new schedule 1? That could provide an opportunity for us to understand better how election campaigns affect voter participation, and how the length of campaigns may be shortened in a realistic and sensible way as a result of her new provisions. Will she help the House to understand how she will take that forward to ensure that our democratic process is as strong as it can be? The lack of consideration about the length of campaigns should be something that is of the past, and the issue should be central to the thoughts of the Government in the future.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, as well as new clauses 3 to 8, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I welcome the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) to his place. It is a pleasure to see him.
Before addressing the new clauses, I wish to put on record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North and the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who, day after day in Committee, went through the Bill forensically and exposed the fundamental threat to our democracy that is contained in almost every line of it. From restricting the franchise through the introduction of voter ID cards, to giving the Government power to set the strategy and policy of the Electoral Commission, abolishing a progressive, proportional voting system, and constraining how whole sections of civil society are allowed to campaign, this Bill has it all.
This Bill, which—let’s be honest—would not be out of place in the hands of Viktor Orbán or Jair Bolsonaro, should not be seen in isolation and has to be viewed in the wider context, as it includes plans to criminalise peaceful protest and to allow the Home Secretary to strip someone of British citizenship with the stroke of a pen. It places onerous legal constraints on journalists and whistleblowers. Ministers will be allowed to ignore legal rulings made under judicial review and there are plans to abolish the Human Rights Act. It was Peter Geoghegan, writing in openDemocracy just before Christmas, who said:
“This is what democracy dying…looks like. And we need to act now before it’s too late.”
That is why we opposed the Bill on Second Reading, why we sought to amend it radically in Committee, and why, unless Government Members wake up to what they are about to do and fundamentally amend the Bill today, we will oppose it this evening as well.
We in the SNP fully support new clause 1, which would simply bring the age at which people can vote in Westminster elections into line with what already happens in Scotland and in Wales. The SNP has advocated this for a long time—indeed, the legendary Winnie Ewing, when she made her maiden speech from these Benches 55 years ago during a debate on lowering the voting age from 21 to 18, said:
“There are moral and intellectual reasons why it is good sense to make people responsible at the age of 18 if not sooner… I am absolutely on the side of youth.”—[Official Report, 20 November 1967; Vol. 754, c. 980.]
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the future of this country would look entirely different, particularly when it comes to the climate emergency, if we lowered the voting age?
Brendan O'Hara
The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point, which I will address specifically as I continue my speech.
What is different now from 1967 is that, with two nations of the United Kingdom already having this provision in place, new clause 1 does not ask the UK Government to take a step into the unknown. We can see how well it is working in Scotland and Wales, where the change has been both seamless and uncontroversial. Any concerns that we might have had about 16 and 17-year-olds not being interested in politics or being unable to understand the issues have been shown to be without any foundation.
Jerome Mayhew
I once met Winnie Ewing when I was at school and she came to talk to a politics class I was attending. However, on the new clause, I rise to ask what is the rationale for choosing the age of 16, when people are not considered to be responsible enough to decide whether to buy cigarettes, rather than some other age—say, 15 or 14?
Brendan O'Hara
I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing private rights and public rights. There are public health issues around the consumption of alcohol and the purchase of cigarettes. These are exactly the same debates as we had in 1967, when there were fears about taking a step into the unknown. What is different now, as I said, is that it is not a step into the unknown. It has been proven to work. Why should young people in England and Northern Ireland have different rights from those in Wales and Scotland?
When we had our referendum in 2014, 90% of 16 and 17-year-olds registered to vote and 75% of them turned out to vote on the day. As the hon. Member for Nottingham North said, studies showed that young people had investigated the issues and had multiple sources of information, and many were far better acquainted with the issues than were their parents or grandparents. To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), if we look at the age of the people leading the fight against climate change and the demonstrators at COP26, we see that overwhelmingly they were young people making their voices heard above everybody else’s. That tells us all we need to know.
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It was a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee with him. He and his colleague the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) did as much as to scrutinise every line of the Bill as I and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) did.
The hon. Gentleman talks about extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Much of the case made for the Bill has been about making our democracy more secure. One of the ways we can make our democracy more secure is by encouraging more people to participate in it. The more people are voting, the harder it is to swing an election unfairly. That is what we heard in the evidence given to the Bill Committee. Does he agree, therefore, that extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, who will go on to develop a far stronger commitment to voting, will actually strengthen our democracy against foreign interference in British politics?
Brendan O'Hara
The hon. Lady is absolutely spot-on. As she says, we heard from many witnesses who said that the wider the franchise and the more the people who vote, the less there can be untoward interference.
Why are the UK Government so opposed to giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote? Unfortunately, the Minister for Levelling Up Communities is no longer in her place. In Committee, I hoped to find out why she thought it was okay for Scotland and Wales, but not for England and Northern Ireland. Her reply to me was:
“There is no need for me to rehash the arguments. I ask him to ask his parliamentary researcher to research Hansard.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 371.]
That was a Minister’s response on this very issue in Committee, and I am sorry she is no longer in her place to correct it.
Patrick Grady
Are these new clauses not a challenge to Members from other parties, particularly Scottish Conservative MPs? If they believe in the strength of the Union and in sharing experience across these islands, these new clauses would bring the Westminster franchise into line with the Scottish franchise. If these new clauses were pressed to a Division, I would hope the Scottish Conservatives, wherever they might be, would support them.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that Conservative Members for Welsh constituencies must be having a similar dilemma. If this is good enough for Scotland and Wales, why is it not good enough for the rest of the United Kingdom?
We want to say to EU nationals and those with the right to remain that, as an integral part of Scotland’s future, they should have a stake in and a responsibility for how we are governed. That is why Scotland has a thriving, healthy, robust democracy. It is telling that, while Scotland and Wales do everything they can to extend this franchise, those on the Government Benches do the exact opposite.
I will turn now to the last of our new clauses, new clause 8. In Committee, Conservative Members regaled us with tales of widespread personation, voter intimidation, postal fraud and the harvesting of votes—indeed, all manner of fraud, theft and deception—yet when they were asked to give the Electoral Commission the power to tackle those abuses and impose a meaningful fine on those found guilty, they refused to do so. Imposing a paltry £20,000 fine has been shown to be no deterrent whatsoever. It is viewed by the worst offenders almost as a cost of doing business. We believe that our proposal for a maximum fine of £500,000 or 5% of an organisation’s or individual’s total spend will give the commission far greater power to act as a genuine deterrent to lawbreakers.
As I said at the beginning, these are incredibly dangerous days for our democracy, and this Elections Bill is just the start of a process that, if passed, will take democracy into a very dark place from which it will be difficult for it to return. This is not happening by accident. The architects of this plan understand exactly where it will lead. Just last month, Elizabeth David-Barrett, the professor of governance and integrity at the University of Sussex, used the phrase “state capture” to describe what is happening. She described state capture as
“a type of systematic corruption where narrow interest groups take control of the institutions and processes that make public policy, buying influence not just to disregard the rules but also to rewrite the rules.”
That is where we are currently. It is extremely dangerous, but it can be successful only if there is a compliant legislature and a widespread public attitude that it could never happen here. But it is happening here, and it is happening here right now.
The parliamentary arithmetic means that only Conservative Members can stop this plan in its tracks, and tonight they have a decision to make. As the soon-to-be ex-Prime Minister heads for the exit door, are they really going to acquiesce meekly and allow his final act to be the fatal undermining of our democracy? Are they really content to have history record them as having been party to one of the biggest betrayals of our democracy, and to have done it at the behest of a man whose days are numbered and who will almost certainly go down in history as the worst and most self-serving Prime Minister this country has ever had? That is complete madness. I ask Conservative Members, please, to think long and hard before backing this dreadful Bill; the Prime Minister is on the way out the door, but they should not let him take their reputations with him as he goes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious that a great many people wish to speak and that we do not have very long. We have to finish this stage of the Bill at 9 o’clock, so I shall immediately impose a time limit of five minutes.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I cannot promise to be as succinct as I was in my last speech before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, which clocked in at a loquacious 10 words, but I will do my best.
I rise to support the Bill having been on the Committee; I am confident that we have before us a sensible and necessary package of measures to ensure the continued robustness of our electoral system. Before speaking to the general merits of the Bill, I would like to speak to some of the new clauses and amendments selected for discussion. With a Bill of this size and complexity, Members will have a range of views on these issues, but I am quite disappointed to see that some of the things we voted down in Committee have found their way back for a second go.
I will start with some of the measures proposed by the Scottish National party. As a member of the Electoral Reform Society, I have to say that I have a small amount of sympathy with new clause 3, but I do not think its proposals belong in this Bill. However, I will cheerfully have a conversation with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) if he wants to bring them forward another time.
Although I understand the motivations behind new clause 4, I cannot be the only one to have baulked at the long list of organisations required to provide our personal data to the state. On the whole, registering to vote should be positive affirmation of someone’s intention. Simply adding everyone to the list will not increase participation and make people exercise their franchise. It will just be more names on a list.
New clause 5, I am afraid to say, is completely beyond the pale. When we deprive somebody of their liberty as a result of their criminal acts, we deprive them of their most fundamental freedoms, including the right to exercise their franchise.
New clauses 6 and 7 and, by extension, new clause 14, are opportunistic and completely unprecedented. No EU state allows British citizens to vote in its parliamentary elections. That we should extend the franchise to EU members when, even as a member of the European Union, we could not, is completely and utterly inconceivable. The UK already has one of the widest franchises in the world, allowing Commonwealth and Irish citizens to participate in our general elections. If someone is that committed to participating in our democracy but they cannot because of their nationality, they are more than welcome to apply for citizenship.
As I mentioned earlier in respect of new clause 3, I have some sympathy with the provisions of new clause 13 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), but something of that magnitude should be done not as an amendment to a Bill but as a separate debate.
I am concerned by new clause 15, because I disagree not with the general intention but with its prescriptive nature. There are any number of legitimate reasons why somebody might want to be registered in more than one area, but I accept the principle that we must do more to tackle multiple voting.
I particularly like new clause 17. I represent a borough named after its principal town—I see the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) in his place. I represent two towns in that borough that have no particular affinity for the main town and have a strong sense of their own identity; in fact, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency there will be areas such as Littleborough and Wardle that would like to be identified as such rather than as Rochdale. I have some sympathy with the idea of allowing people to describe more accurately on the ballot paper where they live. If we are not going forward with the new clause tonight, I would be pleased to see it come back at a later date.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As someone who was responsible for bringing in the original provision that people could just say the constituency where they live, the only word of caution I suggest is that we do not want to get into a competing war between candidates about who was more or less precise about where they live. It is really a security matter.
Chris Clarkson
I completely understand my right hon. Friend’s point. There could be a ridiculous situation of “I live at No. 1 Acacia Drive” and, “I live at No. 3 Acacia Drive”. As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will not press the new clause to a vote, but I would still welcome a discussion on how we could make that work.
In the interests of time, I will move on to new clauses 2, 8, 16 and 18. I was going to make a brief comment on them, but given recent revelations in the press, I might say that they are the height of hypocrisy, especially new clause 16. The Bill will make it legal for overseas voters to participate in polls. It is perfectly reasonable for them to be able to contribute to a party or candidate of their choosing. The Opposition like to kid themselves that all overseas voters are fat cats and tax exiles sunning themselves on the costas, but many are ordinary people who have worked hard, saved and decided to enjoy their retirement overseas. Allowing them to donate would not particularly favour one party over another. I am quite sure Labour Members would do quite well out of the villas of Tuscany.
It is entirely possible that hon. Members had the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) in mind when they drafted the new clauses, but perhaps it would be easier just to send him on a training course. The deliberate conflation of foreign interests with ordinary British citizens wanting to contribute to an election in which they are legally entitled to participate is wearing in the extreme. Notwithstanding that, I welcome the comments of the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box earlier; I have no doubt she will work constructively with all parties to tackle the thorny issue of interference in our democratic system.
The Bill is necessary and timely. Whether or not we acknowledge it, our elections have been open to abuse in the past. If they are entirely honest, activists and politicians across the spectrum will have seen some questionable events.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the evidence base from Northern Ireland? The introduction of voter ID in 2002 has proven instrumental in an increase in voter turnout, reassuring people that a proper process was being followed and that the likelihood of fraud was minimised. Voter ID is quite simple: it is to confirm that people are who they say they are. It worked in Northern Ireland, and it can work here.
Chris Clarkson
I absolutely agree. In my own borough, a senior Labour councillor who was a member of council cabinet at the time accepted a caution for voting twice—he was able to do so. We hear this repeated refrain from Labour Members that this is a rare instance and that it hardly ever happens, but I shall pose the same questions that I posed in Committee: what is an acceptable level of fraud? How many votes is it okay for somebody to steal? Surely one instance of fraud is too many.
There is something quite telling and quite worrying about just how strenuously some Members oppose the Bill. We are not asking people to go to any great lengths or take on huge expense. ID will be freely available to people with one of the many qualifying documents. I looked in my wallet before I took my place in the Chamber. I have at least two permissible forms that I habitually carry with me, as do the vast majority of people. It is already the case that most people take their polling card to the polling booth, because they think they have to give it to the teller to prove who they are.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. Let me say briefly at the outset that the fact that the House has less than two and a half hours in which to debate such a Bill on Report is nothing short of an outrage. When the Government brought forward their motion of instruction, they should have recognised at that stage that they had turned this into a constitutional Bill, and the Committee stage, never mind the Report stage, should have been on the Floor of the House. This is an unacceptable and contemptible way for the Government to be treating Parliament.
I rise to speak to new clause 13, which stands in my name, and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends, and a number of others, including Members of the Labour party, the Green party and the Alliance party. I would very much like to test the opinion of the House in relation to this new clause.
We have seen just this weekend, with the Government’s announcements in relation to the BBC, the dangers and just what is possible when we have an electoral system that puts total power into the hands of a party on a minority vote at a general election. These are the arguments that we often rehearse in relation to proportional representation. I will not rehearse them tonight because time is short, but I want to talk a little bit about what proportional representation would mean for Parliament and for this House and how it could lead to a restoration of the standing of the House in public life.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you know how I feel about being a Member here. It has been the privilege of my life to be a Member of Parliament and to have the opportunity to do things for my community and for the individuals who live there. To have a role at the heart of the nation’s politics is the greatest privilege that any of us can hope for.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am sympathetic to electoral reform. He makes the point about being privileged to represent his constituency, as indeed I am and all of us in this House are. I wonder whether he can reassure me on one concern. I would like to support his new clause this evening, but it breaks the constituency link, or at least an element of local representation, as part of a more proportional system. Can he reassure me that if I were to vote for his new clause this evening, some level of local representation would be maintained?
Mr Carmichael
I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. I can assure him that, if anything, the link would be strengthened. I live in a local authority ward that is elected by single transferable vote. I elect four councillors. Each of them has a link to the constituents and, between them, they are able to represent the views of just about everybody in their community, not just those who have voted for them and those who agree with them. In that way, using the single transferable vote, the link between the elected and the elector is, in fact, strengthened.
I was just saying that it has been the privilege of my life to be a Member of Parliament, but, believe me, I am by no means blind to the multiple faults of this House. It would not take an awful lot to make it so much better. We have heard an awful lot of talk in the last week or two about cultures, and about the culture at the heart of this Government in No. 10 Downing Street, but let us also accept that the culture of Parliament has to change.
Time and again over the years, the culture of deference and entitlement has led us into difficulty, as in 2009 with the scandal over MPs’ expenses. I thought that perhaps we would have learned our lesson after that, but last year, with the Owen Paterson affair and all the stories about MPs with second, third and fourth jobs—and the amount of time they gave to them and the amount of money they earned—it became perfectly apparent that the sense of entitlement continues. Unless we can change that sense of entitlement—the culture in this House—we will not change the standing in which we are held by the public.
Why do we find ourselves in this situation? Why do we keep coming back to this place, time and again, where we become our own worst enemies? I can answer that question in two words: safe seats. The existence of areas where parties can depend on the return of a Member of Parliament with a majority of tens of thousands without making any real effort creates that sense of entitlement.
Someone offering themselves for re-election should never be a formality, but for many people elected to this House it is exactly that. Follow the money and look at the expenses returns: in marginal seats the expenses are right up to the limit, and in the so-called safe seats the party makes the smallest possible expenditure. We talk about having a national election, but in truth we campaign only in an ever-reducing base of marginal constituencies.
Wera Hobhouse
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. For a long time people have complained that our country and our political culture are divided and polarised. Does he agree that a proportional system would go a long way towards bringing people together and stopping divisive politics?
Mr Carmichael
I believe it could do. I think we have to be careful not to oversell it, because the electoral system is only part of the story. The principles of those who are elected and their willingness to adhere to those principles when they are here also matter. In referendums in 2014 in Scotland and in 2016 in relation to the departure from the European Union, however, everybody suddenly realised that their vote mattered and that it did make a difference to take part. As a consequence, turnout went through the roof.
The standing of this House in the eyes of our fellow citizens has never been lower. It is now urgent that we address that. We will not address it just through changes to standards, privileges and Committees in this place; we have to change the way in which we are sent here by the electors. We must have a system that gets rid of safe seats so that everybody’s vote, no matter where they live, is of equal value. That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, I very much hope that you might allow me the chance to test the opinion of the House on new clause 13. It matters to us all and it is now urgent.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I welcome some of what the Government have announced today, particularly the safeguards around postal voting. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who already indicated that the Labour party was in office when voter ID checks were introduced in Northern Ireland, and there we have not seen the impact that the Opposition are suggesting.
I start by opposing new clause 1. For me, the question is about who is actually doing the voting and who is making the decision. I just sat on a private Member’s Bill Committee on increasing the age at which people can get married from 16 to 18 in England. Who is making that decision? The argument was made, and basically accepted by the Opposition, that 16 and 17-year-olds are not making it themselves. That is quite an important point. Also, why are we not talking about 13, 14 or 15-year-olds? I cannot understand why 16 is being particularly aimed for, especially when other things—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members wish to intervene, they can stand up.
We have already made big changes over the past few years to raise thresholds to 18, including for cigarettes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) mentioned, and for active service overseas in the armed forces. I think that with 18 we have hit a new level that we agree on, so I do not understand why we would want to open that up again.
Brendan O’Hara
If the 75% of 16 and 17-year-olds who voted in the Scottish independence referendum did not make their own choice, who voted for them? If the research that says that they looked for and discovered the facts and made their own choice is not true, who does the hon. Member think voted for them?
Mr Holden
Wait a second—the hon. Member can intervene again if he wishes. I know that he and the Scottish National party do not want to raise the age of marriage to 18; the Scottish Executive have not made it clear so far, but I think they should. Article 1 in part 1 of the UN convention on the rights of the child says that a child is a child until 18 years of age, so I do not understand why the SNP is still backing child marriage.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does the hon. Member not recognise that the same treaty says that under-18s should have a say in the future of their life and have democratic participation in the countries they live in?
Mr Holden
Indeed.
With respect to the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 13, the single transferable vote system is not a proportional vote system, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) knows; it is a preferential vote system, so he is arguing in this Chamber for something different from his new clause. That is a particularly important point, because it relates to safe seats.
Let me give an example. Just under 31% of people voted Conservative in 1997, and 43% voted Conservative in 2019. If we look at how those seats have changed between the 1992 Parliament and this Parliament, we can see that there are far fewer safe seats than under either a proportional system or a preferential system. There have been no studies to show that real preferential systems would make seats less safe. In fact, they could even reinforce them and make them even safer. Much more thought is needed before we engage in anything that the right hon. Member is proposing.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) will speak in support of his new clause 17. I support the new clause, which I think is a very sensible move. I hope that it can be looked at, either now or at a later stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) spoke better than I can about new clause 5, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) about new clause 11 and new schedule 11.
I want to speak briefly to new clause 15, which stands in my name. It is a probing amendment, but I really want those on the Government Front Bench to think about ensuring that people can be registered only in one area. It is unacceptable that if someone is wealthy enough to own multiple properties, they can be registered in different places and can potentially vote in multiple local elections. I think that they should have to choose where to vote in local elections and where their primary residence is. That would also have huge benefits for the tax system, because we would know where someone’s primary residence was and they could not flip-flop around.
I do not think that owning or renting more property should mean having multiple votes. It is just not defensible that people should be able to vote in more than one place in the same year, at the same time, in the same elections. Why should some people be able to vote more than others? It just does not sit right with me that I could potentially vote hundreds of times if I had hundreds of properties across the country.
New clause 15 is a probing amendment, because we need to look at the issue of double voting. It is not acceptable that people should be able to do it, so I really think we need to look at ways of properly clamping down on it. I am glad to have had the support of so many Conservative colleagues in tabling the new clause. I will not press it today, but I hope that in her comments the Minister will reflect on my suggestions.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Over 180 years ago, starting in Blaenau Gwent, thousands of Chartists marched on Newport. From across south Wales, they demanded reforms to elections so that common people could have their voices heard in Parliament. Since then, elections in our country have got more transparent, fair and open, but I am worried about voter suppression, and at stake is the very integrity of our elections.
We all know what is going on in America. Despite the highest election turnout in 120 years, the big lie has been amplified that Trump actually won in 2020. Since then, ordinary Americans are facing higher hurdles to vote in too many states. Raising the bar to lower voter turnout is what the Republican right is up to, and similar tactics here trouble me.
I am particularly concerned about the introduction of voter ID, so I am supporting amendment 1 tonight. Asking for voter ID seems reasonable: someone shows who they are to get a ballot paper. However, it is an old cynical trick: insert an administrative hurdle, dress it up as improving security, watch voter turnout go down—job done, the fix is in. Of course, voter fraud should be stopped, but impersonation is hardly an issue in the UK, and our independent Electoral Commission says the same.
Jerome Mayhew
The hon. Member makes the point that if we put an administrative hurdle, by which he means photographic ID, in the way of the voters the turnout would go down, but that specifically is not the evidence we have seen from Northern Ireland, where the Labour Government put in the requirement for photo ID, and it has been widely accepted and is a general part of voting there.
Nick Smith
I thank the hon. Member for intervening, but those were exceptional times, and I will answer his case in my speech.
Jim Shannon
On that point, the evidential base that the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) referred to is very clear. There has been success in Northern Ireland and voting turnout has increased, but the statistics also show that 98% of voters already have sufficient ID in place for voting, and we are almost there. All we need is for the other 2% to be done, and Northern Ireland will achieve that goal of having everybody with an ID. If we can do it in Northern Ireland, honestly, we could do it here as well.
Nick Smith
I will answer those remarks in my contribution.
I sat on the Bill Committee, and I heard a High Court judge tell us that voter ID was not the solution. He said, and this is a judge who has done many electoral law cases, that asking for
“ID at polling stations, frankly, is neither here nor there.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 15, Q13.]
The data shows that there were just three convictions for personations since 2016. The proposals really are a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Nick Smith
I am going to carry on.
We heard about terrible cases of fraud in Tower Hamlets, Peterborough and Birmingham, and of course they must be addressed. The key is for the Electoral Commission and the police to receive the resources needed to enforce our laws, because they do not have them at the moment. Again, the Government’s main witness felt there should be a hit squad at the Electoral Commission. That would make far better use of the millions that voter ID will cost.
We know that about 2 million people do not have the right ID, many of whom are from our most marginalised groups—older people, disabled people, minorities. The nub is that making it harder to gain their ballot paper means that fewer people vote. Reducing turnout undermines confidence in our elections and sows the seeds of doubt in our democracy. I am proud that British democracy was championed from Blaenau Gwent, but the Bill sets backwards the Chartist cause from nearly two centuries ago. I urge all Members who value our democracy to support amendment 1.
Mr Steve Baker
I am delighted to speak in this debate. The first thing I should say is in response to the Scottish National party Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara): the betrayal would be not passing the Bill. I refer everyone who is concerned about it to my speech in the first Adjournment debate of this Parliament, where I set out in 15 minutes—I will not be able to shoehorn it into this speech—what has been happening in Wycombe. The idea that personation is not a problem certainly does not accord with my experience in Wycombe. [Interruption.] I am grateful that I have been asked how many have been prosecuted, as that is precisely the problem: it is not being prosecuted.
In that speech, which I hope Members will read, I set out time and again the problems we face, with offences not being prosecuted, sometimes even when we present the evidence meticulously. I will not refer to a court case in detail, but I am pleased that a prosecution is in progress before the courts and I say only that I hope it reaches a speedy conclusion. Once it is concluded, I may have more to say about it—it relates to postal votes. Some Members are kidding themselves, and if their elections are in the kind of condition that they say they are, I very much wish that Wycombe reflected their experience. However, I have to say that elections in Wycombe in some quarters need cleaning up, so I welcome the Bill.
I particularly want to speak to new clauses 15 and 1, amendment 1 and new schedule 1. New clause 15 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who is not in his place. I am grateful that it is a probing amendment, because it might be a problem if people could not register twice in two different council elections, but I am grateful he has put that point on the record, because there is more the Government could do on the integrity of the electoral roll. As I said in my Adjournment debate, at the last election I saw a WhatsApp message from someone I could name saying, “Right, I have voted in Birmingham. I am now coming to vote against Baker in Wycombe.” You could not make it up: an open admission of a fraud—[Interruption.] Indeed, we put these things forward.
I support the basis of new clause 15. In practice, the electoral roll does not always correctly list voters who are entitled to vote at a particular address, as the entry can often be out of date or we might find that an elector has registered fraudulently. If people are incorrectly listed on the register, that increases the potential for criminality, especially through absent voting. Not all EU nationals are correctly identified with a “G” marker, and we do know that foreign nationals sometimes vote in UK general elections, although they may not know that they are not entitled to do so.
On new clause 1 and 18-year-olds, I am clear that many of the 16 and 17-year-olds I meet in my constituency are thoroughly politically engaged and ready to vote, but we have to take a decision about when somebody is an adult. We heard some of the examples given in the debate. I would far rather we converged consistently on the age of 18, rather than talking about 16 and 17-year-olds.
I said in an intervention earlier, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) kindly acknowledged, that it is far more dangerous to vote Labour than to have a pint, and I would certainly stand by that, although I would be grateful for the opportunity to buy him a pint to discuss it. Amendment 1, from the Opposition Front Bench team, deals with removing the voter ID provisions, and I have touched on that already. We have already heard from Members that people will be able to get their ID, but some of the accounts of personation in Wycombe that I have heard are so egregious and yet somehow the officers on duty in polling stations have not felt able to report it and stop it. I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to do much more to equip officers in polling stations to do their duty to uphold the law and make sure that personation is prosecuted. I would certainly be grateful if every instance of it was brought before the courts.
Finally, on new schedule 1, which is about making regulations on registration, absent voting and other matters, of course I support the Government, but I say as briefly as I can that they could have gone further. In the limited time available I simply say two things. The first is that voters need explicit information about their rights in election law, so that when they vote postally at home they know what constitutes an offence that infringes their rights. The other issue is that when a person wishes to challenge an entry on the electoral roll, although it is important that an accused person knows who is accusing them, let us make sure that that name emerges late in the process of a charge, so that we do not deter people from making inquiries.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) did a fabulous job of setting out our opposition to the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) for all her work and for her discussions on electoral reform—that is a private joke between us.
Election law is complex. That is why there is a big book on it called “Schofield’s Election Law”, as anyone who has worked in local government will know. The Bill adds to that complexity. The Electoral Reform society said that it has been rushed through Parliament without any formal consultation or any pre-legislative scrutiny, and two Committees of the House have said that the Government have not provided enough evidence for the changes.
I will touch on three points, the first of which is voter ID. Since when in a democratic society do we need a certificate to say we are eligible to vote? Does the Minister in this Chamber, where women had to watch from behind a grille and then had to fight to get a vote, believe that we should return to something similar? That is happening despite the continuing hurt of the Windrush generation having to prove they live here after their parents contributed to this country. That is happening despite the evidence that during the Government’s trial people were turned away from voting in numbers larger than some hon. Members’ majorities.
The second point is interfering with the Electoral Commission, an independent body. The provisions of part 3 of the Bill are not consistent with the Electoral Commission operating as an independent regulator. Why should Ministers issue operational guidance over how the commission fulfils its functions? What is the mischief the Government are trying to stop? The Electoral Commission is responsible for and acts on everyone’s behalf, not just that of the main political parties. It is the guardian and custodian of free and fair elections. A report from the cross-party Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee made it clear that the Government did not provide evidence to justify why the measures that interfere with the Electorate Commission are necessary and proportionate. I hope that the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru do not approve the strategy that this Government are trying to put through without considering it carefully. Our fellow citizens must have confidence in the system. Why should an independent regulator need guidance on what it should have regard to when carrying out enforcement work?
The third issue is the regulation of expenditure. It is right that the electorate can see who is spending money, but the Bill does not allow transparency. It penalises smaller organisations for joint campaigning. It penalises the Labour party, Her Majesty’s official Opposition, for having affiliated organisations. Will the Minister confirm whether third parties such as Operation Black Vote, which is non-party political and just asks people to vote, will be caught up in the Bill? Easing the regulations for overseas voters, saying to them, “You can vote and you can donate,” while someone living here must have voter ID, is bizarre and illogical. Someone can bid at a fundraiser to win a tennis match with a Minister but not get caught by this legislation, and yet a joint campaign on people’s rights at work becomes illegal.
Finally, the Bill adds to the complexity rather than making things more transparent. There is no confidence in any legislation passed by this Government because they have lost the authority to tell us what to do when they do not do it themselves. If the Government care about the democratic process, the Bill should be paused. Anyone who cares about democracy should vote against it.
Dr Luke Evans
It is a pleasure to be called to speak and to inform the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) about my amendment; he will have been waiting with bated breath because he did not get to address it in his speech. My amendment about the publication of a candidate’s home address is short and sweet. Simply, after constituency, I suggest we insert “or town or village”.
When all of us stood as candidates, we faced the choice of what to put on the ballot paper. Do we simply put the constituency but then have the problem, if we live just outside it, of being perceived as residing in an area that we do not represent? Or do we disclose our full address on the ballot paper for all to see and to remain on some websites for evermore? We know that that puts off candidates. We know that it makes everyone think twice. Unfortunately, we have seen in recent times what this can do, with the sad and most harrowing death of one of our colleagues, Sir David Amess. Safety is really important, so I tabled the amendment with a simple idea. Rather than having someone’s full address or the constituency in which they live, there might be a halfway house that allows candidates to show that they have identity in the area while at the same time preserving their safety.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 16, in my name and that of Members from four of the parties represented here in Westminster. We tabled the new clause because the Bill has many flaws, but among the worst is the lack of any attempt to clean up the laundromat of British politics, which is now awash with dark money from dubious sources. We cannot in good conscience now pretend we are unaware. The Government can no longer plead ignorance or innocence: they are either careless or culpable and we in this House cannot tolerate the situation for a moment longer. That is why the amendments we are moving are so important.
Our Pandora amendments are simple. They would insist that party donations must come from profits made here in the UK, and they would establish a new regime that would allow the Electoral Commission to call in donations for an assessment on national security grounds. As it happens, the Government have just introduced precisely that regime for investments in critical national infrastructure. What infrastructure in this country could be more important than the essence of our democracy itself? We have heard warnings from Chatham House, the Intelligence and Security Committee and from Lord Evans this weekend that our system of party funding is now wide open.
We have heard and debated in this House the example of Mr Banks, Leave.EU and the mysterious source of his gigantic loans from Rock Services—or was it Rock Holdings? Thanks to evidence given to Carole Cadwalladr and the heroic reporting of The Guardian, we know that there are all kinds of interesting and no doubt innocent connections, such as the fact that Mr Banks’s wife, Katya Banks, was given entry into the country on a passport serially numbered to a passport given to someone who MI5 reported as a Russian spy. That is no doubt completely innocent, but the fact is that, when the National Crime Agency dropped its investigation into the source of the money, it left the source of the money shrouded in mystery. The Electoral Commission was so alarmed that it issued a warning that it could open the floodgates to donations from offshore.
Let me underline why the national security assessment is important to those on the Opposition Benches, but should be of importance to the Conservative party, too. Let us take another honourable donor, Mr Mohamed Amersi, a man who together with his partner has given nearly £800,000 to good causes and who, it would seem, might qualify for a walk-on part in John le Carré’s “The Night Manager”, but not as Jonathan Pine.
Information I have seen from well-placed sources in the Kremlin shows that Mr Amersi is an associate and business partner of people with all sorts of friends, including some with close connections to the SVR and FSB. They include Yuri Lopatinsky, Ernst Stauffer, and Aleksandr Barunin, with whom Mr Amersi worked on several telecom deals, including the takeover of Megafon, the firm later accused by the Georgians of
“illegal business operations and participation in the military and economic annexation of Georgia”.
Mr Amersi made a fortune helping to sell PeterStar to a Luxembourg-based company, which—surprise, surprise—turned out to controlled by Leonid Rieman, who was none other than President Putin’s former telecoms Minister. Coincidence? You be the judge, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has made some excellent points. The chair of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation, Mick Whelan, has said that trade union money is the cleanest money in British politics, and, listening to my right hon. Friend’s speech, I think I can agree with him. Given that the Bill will make that more difficult, do we not begin to see a pattern forming?
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is right and he will horrified to hear that there is more.
Perhaps the most concerning of Mr Amersi’s connections is Leonard Bogdan, a man with very interesting friends in the FSB and the SVR. Mr Bogdan was a minor partner in Tempbank, which held Soviet Union Communist party assets and then specialised in covert foreign transfers. The bank was associated with several Syrian citizens supplying arms to Syria and Iran and was sanctioned by the US Treasury in 2014. But Tempbank also helped to facilitate another sanctioned firm, Hudsotrade, which dealt with Russian arms and ammunition suppliers. Sources inside the Russian Government say that Mr Amersi was involved in these deals, providing finance from Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates, along with private clients from Syria and Iran, to help exports into the middle east. Mr Amersi, it is said, dealt directly with Hudsotrade and two of the shareholders, who were later sanctioned.
Despite those connections, however, correspondence that I have seen shows that Mr Amersi was asked to chair COMENA—Conservative Friends of Middle East and North Africa—a new political interface between the Conservative party and the middle east established
“on the authorisation of CCHQ”.
Mr Amersi says that he had a half-hour chat with officials from the Conservative party before writing his cheques, but on the basis of the evidence to which I have drawn attention today, I think we would all benefit from the Electoral Commission’s being empowered to call in donations for a national security audit. We have allowed this regime for donations and investments in critical national infrastructure; we now need to bring in that regime to clean up the laundromat of British political funding.
Time does not allow me to highlight further coincidences—
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The point is that I can raise questions here that warrant further investigation—questions about, for example, Lubov Chernukhin, the model of generosity who has given the Conservatives £2.1 million, £1.9 million of it after her husband Vladimir—the same Vladimir who was appointed by Mr Putin’s deputy chairman of Vnesheconombank—received money from Suleiman Kerimov. This was a man who was later sanctioned by the United States Treasury, and not only for being a Russian Government official: he was arrested in France for smuggling in hundreds of millions of euros in suitcases.
Then there is Mr Temerko, another honourable man, who has donated £1.2 million to the Conservative party. I am told that the Prime Minister’s whiff-whaff bats are on the wall of his reception room. The only slight issue is that Mr Temerko is the man who used to operate at the very top of the Russian arms industry, with connections high up in the Kremlin—but, of course, Mr Temerko is an honourable man. He works with another honourable man, Mr Fedotov, who is a key shareholder in Aquind Ltd, which, The Guardian reports, has donated £700,000 to the Conservative party, along with another firm. This is, unfortunately, the same Mr Fedotov who, according to the Pandora papers, has revealed that his fortune was made through an offshore financial structure in the mid-2000s, at about the time when it was alleged to have been siphoning funds from the Russian state pipeline company Transneft. But, of course, Mr Fedotov is an honourable man.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has taken his two interventions, and his time is now up.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), I served on the Bill Committee. It was my first time on a Bill Committee on a major piece of legislation. I do not know how often there is a change in Minister, PPS and Whip during a Bill Committee, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister, and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), on getting up to speed on the Bill so quickly and taking us through the Committee.
Bill Committees can sometimes be sleepy affairs, but that one, like this debate, certainly was not. We had vigorous debates on various parts of the Bill, including the measure on voter ID, which I fully support, as it closes a vulnerability in our electoral system. We discussed a number of points surrounding voter ID, including many examples from abroad—countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands. We are now, through this Bill, introducing a form of legislation that will make us more European, in many ways, than we were. It is interesting that the Opposition parties that would have had us remain members of the European Union are so resistant to a system that is more in line with our continental friends than what we have at the moment. It will be a more secure system. I accept that there is a lot of work for Government to do in order to popularise and inform voters of these measures, and also to roll out the electoral ID card that will be introduced, but if the measures are introduced properly, there is no reason why anybody should be left out.
It is said that these are solutions in search of problems, but problems have been identified in places such as Tower Hamlets, Slough, Wycombe and Birmingham, among others, and this Bill will finally address them.
Jerome Mayhew
In an earlier speech, reference was made to an electoral judge suggesting that personation was neither here nor there, but does my hon. Friend recall the evidence to the Bill Committee where that electoral judge, in a judgment during the Labour Administration of 2005, said, “If you don’t look for fraud you won’t find it”, and described the Government as “having its head in the sand” on this issue?
Tom Randall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the key problems is not only not looking for it—it is a matter of training. There is a big problem that needs to be addressed in terms of making sure that the police are aware of electoral law issues and getting them out there to go and investigate. He is completely right that a lot of this goes undetected.
I am pleased to see that the clauses on undue influence remain. I spoke on Second Reading about having to run the gauntlet of people trying to use intimidating behaviour on election day by thrusting leaflets into people’s faces. The central thrust of many of these measures is to protect the security of the ballot. I appreciate that I may be slightly testing the limits of what I am allowed to say on Report, but I have seen today an email from Scotland Yard to somebody I know who has reported an alleged breach of the secret ballot, but advice from the Electoral Commission and the local authority concerned is that the onus is on the individual who cast their vote to claim that secrecy has been breached. I would suggest that that is contrary to section 66 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which says that every returning officer, presiding officer, clerk, candidate, election agent and polling agent
“shall maintain and aid in maintaining the secrecy of”
the vote. So if this legislation is to be reformed further in the other place, it should not be by removing the parts that we have introduced, but by giving some consideration as to whether the need to maintain a secret ballot is restated in primary legislation.
We have heard the argument for votes at 16, which I will not support. We have raised the age of marriage to 18, we have raised the age at which people have to be in education or training from 16 to 18, and the age at which you can smoke was raised by the Labour Government to 18. We have raised the age at which people can buy a lottery ticket from 16 to 18, I am sure with the Opposition’s support, as well as the age at which people can buy alcohol. Voting is an adult activity; it is something that adults do—if we want to encourage younger people to vote, I see no reason why we cannot introduce votes at 12. I think all the arguments advanced by Opposition Front Benchers could also apply to 12-year-olds.
I support the measures in this Bill. I look forward to its going on to Third Reading and the other place, and to seeing those measures come on to the statute book as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise to speak to my new clause 18, and I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on electoral campaigning transparency.
The Bill has almost nothing to say about the acute issue of secretive campaign finance filtering into British politics. The use of unincorporated associations reveals loopholes that are being used to funnel dirty and dark money into the UK electoral system. As the Committee on Standards in Public Life has warned, these groups can offer a route for foreign money to influence UK elections.
The purpose of the new clause is explicit in not placing an extra burden on the many thousands of small UAs such as sports clubs, which for various reasons want to maintain structures that have no legal existence separate from their members. Equally, I am not arguing that UAs should be banned altogether from donating to political parties; rather, the issue is about addressing the loophole that allows UAs registered with the Electoral Commission to make political donations without conducting adequate permissibility checks on their original donors.
Unincorporated associations are associations of two or more people that do not fall into any of the other categories for permissible donors; the two or more people do not necessarily need to be resident in the UK, only on the electoral roll. The Electoral Commission identified two key vulnerabilities in its submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The first was that although UAs are included in the list of permissible donors, as long as they are UK-based and carry on business or other activities in the UK, those who give money to them are not required to be permissible donors. A UA could, in fact, legitimately receive money from overseas sources and donate it to political parties. If a donation is over the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 threshold of £25,000 in a calendar year, the UA will have to disclose whatever details it knows of the name and address of the person who made the gift, but it would not be prevented from receiving and then donating that gift. Secondly, no transparency is required from UAs when they provide donations to candidates rather than to parties.
The UK Government insist that the current checks are comprehensive and offer sufficient transparency, but the entire public register of donations to UAs amounts to just half a dozen gifts. All were made to the same Conservative association, the Trevelyan Campaign Fund, with the most recent gift recorded in November 2014. That means that it is more than seven years since a donation to an unincorporated association was registered.
To provide greater confidence in the original sources of donations, the permissibility requirements for UAs need to be strengthened. As investigative journalists such as Peter Geoghegan have helped uncover, UAs can be set up with the sole purpose of siphoning money to political campaigns. Perhaps the most infamous example is the Democratic Unionist party’s £435,000 donation to Vote Leave, which was channelled via a UA, the Constitutional Research Council. It was consequently fined just £6,000—a penalty totalling little more than 1% of its donations, which could well simply be seen as the cost of doing business. We still do not know who provided that money originally.
It is clear that such punishment offers little deterrent. The Association of Conservative Clubs, which connects affiliated private clubs around the country, explicitly advises members to set up as UAs rather than limited companies. Those clubs have given well over £1 million to the Conservatives. New clause 18 would quite simply require unincorporated associations that meet the threshold for registration with the Electoral Commission to conduct checks to establish whether a person donating for political purposes is a permissible donor and, if not, to reject that donation as the Committee on Standards in Public Life has recommended. I will have to leave it there.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on this Bill as it continues to progress through this place. I welcome the actions that the Government are taking to make our elections fairer. Changes to the electoral process have been due for some time, and I was proud to stand on a manifesto in 2019 that promised finally to do something about the situation.
The issue of postal vote misuse is particularly important for my constituents when it comes to elections. With that in mind, I put particular focus on new clause 11 and new schedule 1, which have been put forward by the Government. The new clause gives attention to postal votes regarding how applications are made and the verifications needed to make them. As I have previously said in this place, postal voting is an undeniable problem in Keighley and Ilkley. My constituents have expressed their anger and confusion at how it is so easy for people to get away with distorting our electoral process. In fact, my constituency is deemed to be at high risk of such fraud, with one in five reports of electoral fraud coming from the West Yorkshire area. This includes cases of bribery, false statements and exerting undue influence on voters. In Keighley it is well known that postal votes are manipulated during general and local elections and other votes.
Mr Holden
Does my hon. Friend agree that, across the country, people are concerned about postal voting? I am sure hon. Members have heard this whenever they campaign in elections. I stood in council elections in Tower Hamlets back in the mid-2000s, I stood in Preston in 2015 and I have stood in North West Durham. Wherever I have gone, I have seen concern about postal voting. I was delighted to take my constituency from a Labour Front Bencher who stood at the last election, but there is widespread concern, so these amendments are incredibly important.
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted he is here, having taken the constituency from a former shadow Minister.
The manipulation of postal votes during elections comes in several forms. The head of a household might guarantee multiple postal votes for a candidate, with other family members not even having a say in using their basic right to vote. There is also false registration, individuals being put under undue pressure to give away their postal vote and individuals being registered to vote in multiple households where it is clear they do not reside.
New clause 11 will help, but I would be grateful for further assurances from the Government that it will help to address all these problems. I feel the Government could go further by shortening the amount of time someone can vote by post before having to renew their registration and prove their identity, perhaps to one electoral cycle. New clause 11 contains flexibility, and I therefore urge the Government to explore this issue further. Likewise, further information is needed on how plans to stop political campaigners handling postal votes in public will prevent mishandling from happening behind closed doors.
New clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), is a probing amendment that I wholeheartedly support. A person should be entitled to register at only one address in the United Kingdom at any one time. I also welcome new clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). Although I appreciate it is also a probing amendment, candidates should be able to ensure their security while comforting the electorate by identifying where they reside, which is vital.
I welcome this Bill, which is definitely a step in the right direction, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for further assurance that it will be robust enough to tackle postal vote fraud and the other issues I have outlined.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Although I do not wish to repeat in detail the excellent points made by so many colleagues, I want to put on record my unequivocal opposition to the Bill in its current form.
On the issues that this Bill does not cover, last week I tabled new clause 10 that would amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 by removing the current requirement for public notice of the address of election agents, including where candidates are acting as their own election agent. Instead, it would allow for the general area in which the address is situated to be published, and would apply to parliamentary and local elections across the UK. Why is that important? Where a candidate is a lone election agent, the law could very well lead to their home address entering the public sphere.
Politics, by its very nature, can be divisive—look at the anger that this Bill alone has triggered. When we stand for election, we know that that comes with associated risks. Sadly, it becomes essential for us to be hyper-vigilant about our personal safety. Those who are privileged enough to win a seat are afforded some support in that respect, but those who do not win do not get the same support, despite the increased profile that even standing for elections will bring in the local community in many cases.
For me, there is an even more vital consideration. Many of us do not live alone, so we are not taking a solely personal risk. If a successful candidate acted as a lone election agent and were suddenly thrust into a very bright national spotlight, their home address would be out there for anyone to find. Our families do not sign up for the personal safety risk that our jobs bring them—we do. Our husbands and wives, children and, in some cases, parents and siblings, could be at risk, too. That is not acceptable.
I hope that the Minister and the Government see the value in new clause 10 and will consider including it in the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) for tabling amendment 2 to strengthen the accessibility requirements for blind and partially sighted voters.
This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Ballot Act 1872, which gave citizens the right to vote independently and in secret. It is absolutely essential that any new legislation does not limit that right, even unintentionally.
Jerome Mayhew
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said that there was too little time for this debate, but those of us who sat on the Bill Committee will not recognise that feeling, because we had days of seemingly interminable debate, much of which has been repeated this evening.
Patrick Grady
I am afraid that I completely disagree. I sat on the Bill Committee, which the Government rushed through with two days left. As none of the Back Benchers participated, the entire Committee collapsed. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael): the way the Bill has been rammed through this House is a complete and utter disgrace.
Jerome Mayhew
We will have to agree to disagree on that because there was very lively debate in Committee.
I have made a number of interventions, so I will keep my comments short and on only two points. First, on new clause 1 and voter ID, others have spoken movingly—both in evidence to the Bill Committee and this evening—about the impact of voter fraud and the need to take reasonable steps to minimise it. The first step is voter ID, and I fully support what the Government suggest on photographic ID, but for that to be effective, the second step is to have prosecution where evidence is established that a crime has been committed. Much of the evidence that the Committee heard was frustration that the police or the Electoral Commission did not take allegations of fraud sufficiently seriously and bring them before a tribunal.
That brings me to clause 13, which deals with the Electoral Commission’s assumed power to become a prosecution body in its own right. I am very glad that the Government have taken this opportunity to re-establish the status quo, which should be that the police and the CPS are the relevant prosecuting authorities, in part because of the obvious conflict of interest. The Electoral Commission is the body that provides advice and guidance on electoral law. If it then takes off its regulatory hat and puts on its prosecuting hat, it is marking its own homework, which is a clear conflict of interest.
A wider point about the prosecution of crimes in this country, and one that was picked up by the Law Commission recently, is about a move away from what are described as “private prosecutions”, including by the Post Office—we need only mention the Horizon scandal to see why it is clearly wrong for the Post Office to be its own prosecuting authority—and, in my submission, the Care Quality Commission, which I know the Law Commission is looking at. We should move the power of prosecution and responsibility of prosecution away from those private prosecuting bodies and to the CPS and the police.
There is one message that I would like the Minister to take away and think seriously about. It is all fine and well for us to make the laws in this place, but if they are not taken seriously and investigated seriously by the police, leading to prosecutions where the evidence passes the evidential test, we are on a hiding to nothing.
In much of the evidence that came out in the evidence sessions in Committee, and in the experiences of hon. Members on both sides of the House, there was a huge degree of frustration that allegations of electoral fraud were not taken seriously by the police, who seemed embarrassed and unwilling to get into what was seemingly a political area. Instead, the police should realise that the full implementation of our electoral rules is incredibly important and that the defence of our democracy requires them to take those rules seriously.
Cat Smith
I begin by disagreeing with the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew). I do not feel that the Bill has had sufficient time to be properly scrutinised by the House. This is the first time that we have had the opportunity to discuss the legislation since the publication of the PACAC report. There are members of that Committee who have yet to speak and the time is now 8.45 pm. I flag to the Minister that if that is her approach to constitutional Bills, she will not bring the whole House with her, which is a dangerous precedent to set.
On amendment 1, which would remove the voter ID clause in the Bill, many Opposition Members have clearly set out the case. Ultimately, it comes down to what is proportionate. Obviously, cases of voter fraud should be pursued by the police and the Electoral Commission, and our police forces should have the resources to be able to pursue those people to get justice, but is the requirement to show photo ID proportionate to the scale of the crimes that are happening?
In 2019 there were only 34 allegations of impersonation, which is probably the widest way that we can look at it, which works out as 0.000058% of all the votes cast. As was pointed out by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who made such a good first appearance at the Dispatch Box on this topic, someone is more likely to be struck by lightning three times.
I flag that while Neil Coughlan is waiting to have his case heard by the Supreme Court, there is a question mark over the way in which the pilot trials were conducted. I urge the Minister to take a closer look at that case and assess whether this is the right time. The PACAC report was clear that the measures are being rushed through and that, with cases still before the courts, it is not a sound way to legislate.
If the Government want to fulfil their manifesto commitment to ensure votes for overseas electors, they can do so by decoupling the permission to donate, because that seems to be where the tension is in the House. If the Minister is seeking to bring about compromise on this important Bill, she could do that by accepting new clause 2.
On the Electoral Commission, it is right that it is accountable to us in this House. Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, Ministers have stood up and said that Ministers can make strategic statements for other bodies, but this is a body that regulates political parties, and the party of Government gets to decide the strategic direction for the Electoral Commission, which would then be challengeable in the courts.
There is nowhere else globally—I have tried to find an example—where that happens. Our democracy most closely mirrors New Zealand, Australia and Canada, whose electoral commissions are independent. It is important that the voters have confidence in an independent Electoral Commission. This Bill will throw that into doubt, and by throwing that into doubt we are throwing the confidence in our democracy into doubt.
I wish that I had longer to speak, because there is an awful lot that I would like to say about a pattern of behaviour that has been emerging over the last decade from this Conservative Government, including the introduction of individual electoral registration. We lose 2 million voters and that is the snapshot they use to propose a boundary change to reduce the number of MPs to 600. Then a general election throws up some different results and suddenly we are back up to 650 MPs. We look at the Owen Paterson affair, which involved changing the rules to protect their mates. Democracy in this country is a precious thing. It is under threat globally.
Ian Lavery
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill is not really about updating electoral law? It is about driving a bulldozer through the electoral processes of this country, demolishing our democracy, disenfranchising 6 million trade unionists, disenfranchising charities and vulnerable people, and moving them away from voting in this country, rather than towards democratic process.
Cat Smith
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This should have been a Bill to solidify and make our electoral laws more simple and straightforward, but it actually adds an extra layer of complexity.
Criminalising political protest through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, removing the 15-year rule, which opens our democracy to foreign money, and gagging unions and charities from campaigning in elections while making it easier for foreign money to flood our political systems demonstrate a pattern of behaviour from this Government that is undermining democracy in this country.
I believe that the Minister is a good person, and that the previous Minister is a good person. When the previous Minister gave evidence to PACAC, she made it clear that she would not give political direction to the Electoral Commission, but she was not the Minister forever, and the Minister who sits here today will not be the Minister forever. The Conservatives will not be in government forever. We need to ensure that when we in this House legislate, we prepare for the worst-case scenario. If a fascist or far-right party got control, and we had set up structures that allowed it to ride roughshod over our democracy, could we honestly say that we had done a good job? I do not think so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call John McDonnell. There will be no time limit, but he must resume his seat no later than 8.55.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on the work she has done, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) on his eloquent presentation. I serve on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we have urged the House to pause the Bill and not go forward. I too am offended by the limited amount of time that we have been given this evening. The reason we said that is that with constitutional changes such as these, we need to build confidence. The way to do that in the parliamentary process is to have a draft Bill, a Joint Committee and adequate debate before bringing the legislation back here. We took evidence from a whole range of people, and we found no one who supported the Bill being developed at this pace. Helen Mountfield QC said that we risked the allegation that this was being done for political advantage. I regret that.
I want to deal briefly with the voter ID issue. Personation was the issue that was presented to us, but we found limited evidence of that. Also, the pilots were limited. We had one big pilot, though, and it was in Northern Ireland, where 2.3% of the electorate dropped out. If we extrapolate that to our electorate here, that would mean over 1 million people dropping out. Who would that be, most of all? It would be elderly and disabled people, those in residential homes, and members of the BAME and LGBTQ communities.
The reality is that this Bill is being pushed through. Unfortunately, I believe that it is part of a process of voter suppression and that the Conservatives are learning lessons from America. What I fear most of all is the interference in the Electoral Commission, because that presages the Government coming back with more that will undermine our democracy. I believe that would be a stain on this House.
Kemi Badenoch
With the leave of the House, I would like to address some of the points that were raised during the debate. I am afraid that I will not be able to speak to all the amendments. I have to say that I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Opposition remain unable to see the necessity of this simple and proportionate protection for the integrity of our ballot. The fact is that voter ID is supported by the Electoral Commission. It is backed by international election observers who have repeatedly called for the introduction, saying that its absence is a security risk. It is long-established in liberal democracies across the world and is already in place in Northern Ireland.
The Opposition have suggested that specific groups, such as young people or ethnic minorities, would automatically be unwilling or unable to access the freely available voter card. These suggestions are based solely on assumptions about implementation—assumptions that are incorrect and harmful. I will be unambiguous in setting this out. Anyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so. The voter identification policy proposals have been informed by a significant amount of research. I reject the points made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That is not the research that has been carried out by the Cabinet Office, which is quite robust. A significant amount of work has been done with civil society organisations and other key stakeholders.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for her point about the length of election campaigns. She will know that I have looked into this issue, but I am afraid that I have not been able to find the perfect solution for her within the Bill. I acknowledge many of the points that she has made about lengthy campaigns, but I draw her attention to the argument made by the Association of Electoral Administrators in its written evidence to the Joint Committee about the risk of disenfranchising potential electors were the period to be shortened.
I shall also respond to some of the questions from the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on joint campaigning. The measures are simply intended to strengthen the principle of spending limits already in law. They protect the level playing field by ensuring that groups cannot unfairly expand their spending limits when they are conducting a joint campaign. It is logical to extend this principle to political parties and third-party campaigners who work together. All registered political parties and third-party campaigners will be able to continue to campaign as they do now, but they will have to account for any spending that is part of a joint campaign in which they are involved. She also asked specifically about groups such as Operation Black Vote, which is simply campaigning to encourage people to vote. It will not be caught by those new rules as it would not qualify as regulated election campaign expenditure.
There were several issues raised by hon. Members on candidates’ home addresses. I have noted the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) raised about the current provisions. However, any further amendments in this space, although they may seem straightforward at first sight, would entail challenges for consistency in the rules that need to apply equally across differing areas of the country and that require careful and comprehensive consideration. The drafting of the proposed amendment, if accepted, would work well for candidates in rural areas, but it may lead to a less consistent approach for those in cities or remote locations. However, I am grateful that he says this is a probing amendment. I will ask my officials to explore these important issues and remain open to further conversations about how we can improve the current system.
I turn now to new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), which deals with dual registration. I thank him very much for the points that he raised. He is right that voting twice in an election to the same body is a violation of the principle of one person, one vote. It is an offence that already carries a considerable penalty. I share the desire to take action to reduce the risk of this happening, but I do not think that the new clause would achieve that aim. It would be costly and impractical to implement at this time. I am sympathetic to the broad intention of the new clause, which is in line with the Government’s commitment to strengthening security and reducing the opportunity for fraud. This is also similar to new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I understand the points that she raised. We do not think that the amendment is appropriate, for similar reasons, but I am open to further conversations.
I recognise many good points raised by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), saying that we could have gone further. I am sure that this is not the end of looking at electoral integrity. We will continue to see how the franchise can be strengthened. I urge Members not to support the Opposition amendments. I hope the Government amendments will be supported.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Purposes referred to in section 39
“(1) This section sets out the purposes referred to in section 39.
(2) The first purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from—
(a) a registered party,
(b) registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or
(c) candidates or future candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates or future candidates.
(3) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (2), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any party, candidate or future candidate.
(4) The second purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from a particular candidate or particular future candidate.
(5) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (4), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any candidate or future candidate.
(6) The third purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from an elected office-holder.
(7) The fourth purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from elected office-holders who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of elected office-holders.
(8) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (6) or (7), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any elected office-holder.
(9) The fifth purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from—
(a) the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom or any area in the United Kingdom, or
(b) a particular outcome of such a referendum.
(10) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (9)(b), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention a particular outcome of a referendum.
(11) In this section “referendum” does not include a poll held under section 64 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.”—(Kemi Badenoch.)
This new clause and Amendments 22 and 23 replace the purposes set out in clause 39(3) as the purposes intended to be achieved by paid-for electronic material in order for Part 6 to apply to the material. In particular the New Clause makes it clear that this covers material in support of categories of parties, candidates and elected office-holders and applies whether or not the material expressly names the party etc.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
passes funded by the Government of the United Kingdom | an Older Person’s Bus Pass a Disabled Person’s Bus Pass an Oyster 60+ card a Freedom Pass |
passes funded by the Scottish Government | the National Entitlement Card |
passes funded by the Welsh Government | a 60 and Over Welsh Concessionary Travel Card a Disabled Person’s Welsh Concessionary Travel Card |
passes issued under the Northern Ireland Concessionary Fares Scheme | a Senior SmartPass a Registered Blind SmartPass or Blind Person’s SmartPass a War Disablement SmartPass or War Disabled SmartPass a 60+ SmartPass a Half Fare SmartPass. |
“Rule 19B (preparation of date of birth lists) | In paragraph (1)(b)(ii), for the words “register of parliamentary electors in Great Britain” substitute “register of local government electors in Great Britain”.” |
“In paragraph (1DC), for sub-paragraph (b) substitute— “(b) where the voter is registered in a register of local government electors in Great Britain, paragraph 9(1) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.”” |
“Rule 53B (destruction of date of birth lists)””. |
“In subsection (2A), for “register of parliamentary electors in Great Britain or Northern Ireland” substitute “register of local government electors in Great Britain or a register of local electors in Northern Ireland”; |
“In subsection (7A), for “subsections (6) and” substitute “subsection”.” |
Kemi Badenoch
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all Members across the House who have engaged in debating the substance of the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report today. I also thank my officials for their hard work in getting me up to speed so quickly on the policy, after I took over from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). I wish to thank my Conservative colleagues for their thoughtful, informed contributions and support for these important measures—in particular, the members of the Bill Committee, and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Gedling (Tom Randall) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) for their careful consideration of so many Report stage amendments.
I also want to acknowledge the work of the former shadow Secretary of State for young people and democracy, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), together with the hon. Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). While we may not always have agreed on the policy, I welcome their engagement and indeed the challenge on a number of the provisions. Scrutiny in this place is designed to enhance the quality of our legislation, and indeed on a number of points I did ask my team to consider where we might want to think further on the details.
As always, it is a pleasure to engage in reasoned and informed debate on all matters relating to the integrity of our elections. I know that all of us on both sides of the House share the common desire to keep our elections secure, fair, transparent and up to date so that our democracy can continue to thrive. Fundamentally, that is what the Bill is about. It delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure the integrity of our elections and it will protect the right of all citizens to participate in our elections while feeling confident that their vote is theirs and theirs alone. I commend the Bill to the House.
Alex Norris
There are many difficult decisions to make in this place—matters of fine balance, of public policy or of genuine disagreement—that are hard for all right hon. and hon. Members, but this is not one of those. This is a bad Bill brought forward by a bad Government in the pursuit of bad intentions. They have pushed it through without pre-legislative scrutiny, avoided the Committee of the whole House and changed the electoral system for duly elected posts in this country between Second Reading and Committee and during Committee stage.
The Bill has been rushed. It has been debated today on tiny margins—Third Reading will last for seven minutes. The Government could have sought to build consensus, if they had really wanted to tackle the problems that they said they did, but they have not.
What is the sum total of the Bill, when we take account of what the Government have proposed? If someone lives in this country, it will be harder for them to vote. If they live in a tax haven, it will be easier for them to take part. If they work for a poverty charity, it will be harder for them to express their views, but if they have deep pockets, it will never have been easier—[Interruption.] Government Members have had their opportunity; now I will have mine.
The Electoral Commission—an anchor institution in protecting politics from itself—is again to be fettered. That is what the Government want. They want silenced opposition and weaker rules on big money.
As the Minister said in her summing up and in previous stages of the Bill, I know that she has not liked the Opposition, the issues that we have raised or how we have raised them. All I would say is, if she does not like what we have raised, she should wait for the public conversation on the Bill and the conversation in the other place. People will see through it.
I will finish by saying to hon. Members, as they make their decision on the Bill, that there are important questions coming up in the coming days that will define their time and this period in Parliament. This is one of those, because it is indelible. It will be on the statute book and they will be tied to it. We as custodians of this democracy should not be making such changes that weaken it in this way.
Brendan O'Hara
There is no doubt that this is a dreadful Bill designed to undermine democracy, but I put on record my thanks to everyone involved in its passage, particularly all those Members who saw the dangers that it poses to our democracy and sought to oppose it every step of the way. I also thank the staff of the Public Bill Office for, again, the remarkable level of professionalism and assistance they provided throughout the passage of the Bill through the House.
The Bill could have not passed without the support and help of the Committee Chairs, so the steady hand and experience of the right hon. Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Neath (Christina Rees) were much appreciated. I put on record my personal thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for his advice and support in the last few months and to Mr Josh Simmonds-Upton for all his work in preparing us for Second Reading, Committee and the debates tonight.
To my deep, deep regret, the Bill has passed. The irony that it has passed to the unelected second Chamber to try to salvage an element of democracy should be lost on nobody in this House. What has the United Kingdom become? Hopefully our soon-to-be independent Scottish Parliament will look at the Bill as a perfect example of how not to organise an electoral system.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business without Debate
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Breast cancer screening in Fleetwood
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Nearly 2,000 of my constituents in Fleetwood have joined a Facebook group highlighting the fact that the mobile breast cancer screening van is no longer located in Fleetwood, having relocated to Lytham. Given that breast cancer screening saves lives and that women from less affluent areas are less likely to take it up, my constituents are concerned that it now takes three buses and more than an hour to travel to access breast cancer screening. I would encourage all women to come forward for breast cancer screening:
“The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Department for Health and Social Care to work with the local health providers to enable fairer access to the service for all women. And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the Petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Lancaster and Fleetwood in Lancashire, Declares that the mobile breast cancer screening unit in Fleetwood should be reinstated because access to breast screening is life-saving and the loss of the mobile screening van in Fleetwood makes accessing this service more difficult, more expensive and more time consuming for residents. The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Department for Health and Social Care to work with the local health providers to enable fairer access to the service for all women. And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002705]
Midwives in the NHS
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
In late November, midwives, doulas, families and healthcare professionals across the country marched in their thousands. They powerfully set out their concerns about the issues they face, and 100,000 people signed a petition to ensure their voices are heard. It is both a privilege and a daunting prospect to be standing here to try to represent their views.
Before I continue, I declare an interest. I am pregnant and, although I was hoping people would think I had eaten too much Christmas trifle, I realise I am now struggling to hide the bump. God willing, there will be a summer bundle of joy to give me additional sleepless nights over and above the ones that are normal for an MP. This makes me a current case study for maternity services, with literal skin, blood and placenta in the game.
So far, I am one of the lucky ones. The service I received from the Stroud and Gloucestershire midwifery teams during my first pregnancy was world class. It is testament to Gloucestershire’s commitment to local expectant mothers that I not only received consistent care during my first pregnancy but I have the same midwife again. I thank them all, and Jan Partridge in particular. Her name should be enshrined in Hansard, as she is a legend not only in my household but in many others around my community. I know parents across the country feel the same about their own midwifery teams for their help during one of the most frightening, painful but special moments of life.
I stood on a manifesto promising to make the UK the best place in the world to give birth, with personal, high-quality support. I sincerely hope that we can make that a reality. The March with Midwives manifesto sets out demands, which include: listen—they seek an urgent consultation to understand the steps required to address the immediate crisis; fund—an immediate appropriate restorative pay rise for midwives and financial support for student midwives; enable—to make it possible for self-employed midwives to work, thus putting 250 experienced midwives immediately back into the workforce and providing flexibility; and reduce—provide a £5 million crisis fund to charitable organisations for the provision of breastfeeding support and antenatal education, to reduce the pressure on midwifery staff.
The manifesto is wide-ranging, but it does highlight a number of important concerns. All the briefings that I have been sent and everything I have read indicate that many things lead back to staffing levels.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate; the number of MPs here is an indication of its importance.
In the Royal College of Midwives annual survey, over half the midwives surveyed said they were considering leaving their jobs. Fifty per cent. said they would leave the NHS next year. Of those who were leaving, eight out of 10 said that they were concerned about staffing levels—the very thing that the hon. Lady has referred to—and that they were not satisfied with the quality of care that they were delivering.
Does the hon. Lady agree that urgent action must be taken today to support those midwives considering leaving the NHS, so that they feel able to do their jobs to the best of their ability?
Siobhan Baillie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Staffing issues are absolutely crucial and I want to pose a number of questions about them.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on the forthcoming addition to her family.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about staffing levels, does she agree that one of the most important reasons why we need to fill the staffing shortfalls—the 2,000 extra midwives needed immediately—is that we need to be better at identifying higher-risk pregnancies? Continuity of care, so that people are looked after by the same midwife throughout the pre-natal, birthing and post-natal periods, is an incredibly effective way to do that.
Siobhan Baillie
I could not agree more with both interventions. I think we are going to hear more from other Members about continuity of care, which is the way to manage pregnancy and how most midwives want to work. But that can be achieved in many hospitals and many midwife teams only if we have the staffing. Given the numbers at the moment, this is a key issue.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing today’s debate and also wish her well with her pregnancy.
I have spoken to midwives in York and visited maternity services. Many women find that they are diverted from York to other maternity services at the time of delivery—clearly, very stressful for them—because we just do not have adequate staffing. Does the hon. Member not agree that we need a proper workforce plan to ensure that women have the safety that they require through their pregnancy and particularly at the time of birth?
Siobhan Baillie
I think what we will hear from the Government is that there is a plan for recruitment, but we need more details. The Royal College of Midwives is certainly asking questions. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) knows from the work of the Health and Social Care Committee that when the current Culture Secretary was maternity services Minister last year, she was incredibly passionate about this issue. She accepted that the NHS was short of the equivalent of 1,932 full-time midwives—but since then, sadly, the number has fallen by a further 222, leaving the shortage at over 2,000. Since records began in 2009, the number of NHS midwives has fallen in England year on year. We are in a really difficult situation at the moment.
To put this into perspective, there were more than 613,000 births in England and Wales in 2020. At the last count of midwives in 2021, there were 26,901 in England, but that drops to 22,301 if we look at part-time figures. By looking at the birth rate and the number of midwives, we can see just how stretched midwives are.
The Association for Improvements in Maternity Services says that
“urgent action is certainly needed to shore up what seems to be a maternity service that is losing staff at a catastrophic rate.”
Over half of midwives surveyed by the Royal College of Midwives say they are considering leaving their job. I know personally a wonderful midwife, Stevie, who has chosen to retire this year, and I wonder how many midwives are making the same choice. My mother, who is a nurse, not a midwife, is choosing to retire as well. They have had a pretty tough two years in the NHS, as we know, but the most worrying feature of the RCM survey, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, is that the highest levels of dissatisfaction are among newer midwives—those who have spent five years or less working in the NHS. So we have a pipeline problem, a new intake problem and a problem with retention of experienced staff.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this important debate, and on the part she has played in looking at the best start in life for every baby, which we worked on together over many months. Does she agree that the problems not only for midwives but for the whole early years workforce have been exacerbated by the covid lockdown, with far too many families unable to see their health workers face to face and partners often excluded from important events such as scans and the birth itself?
Siobhan Baillie
I could not agree more, and I thank my right hon. Friend for everything she has done for early years provision. When we think about the early years and the importance of giving children the best start in life, we remember that midwives have children in their hands at year zero; it could not be any earlier than that. I will give more details of the reality of the pandemic world and what midwives and NHS staff have faced, but the effect on the beginning of the relationships and the fear when you do not have your partner with you in the ward has been absolutely awful. I appeal to all Ministers to think extremely carefully about further covid restrictions, if they ever again become necessary.
We know that the staffing shortage does not affect only midwives and hospital staff, but it has a real impact on families trying to bring new life into the world. As the hon. Member for Strangford alluded to, 87% of RCM members say that they delay using the toilet due to lack of time, more than 75% skip meals, and over half say they feel dehydrated most or all of the time at work—no doubt telling women to hydrate while unable to do so themselves. These professionals have the lives of our most precious loved ones in their hands. I ask the House: are those really the conditions we want them to be experiencing?
I have had messages from midwives all over the country. Last year, I received a letter from a former midwife saying that she was
“extremely concerned about the deepening crisis within maternity care.”
She handed in her notice. That is a loss of more than 10 years’ experience in clinical midwifery—experience that we cannot magic up overnight to replace her. She felt that she could not always provide the good, kind midwifery care that she was trained to give. She cited increasing paperwork, long hours and the inability to work hours that fitted around her family as key concerns. She had begun dreading each shift. Being required to work faster and do more than was humanly possible meant fearing making a mistake that could lead to a tragic outcome.
Another midwife wrote a blog entitled, “How do we keep going when there is nothing left to give?” in which she talks about midwifery being a celebration of new life and how midwives get to share the joy of families starting out, but also how they are struggling in a system that does not allow them to do what they dreamed of, trained for and worked so hard for. With no staff available or even in the pipeline, the midwife describes having to close facilities, reduce antenatal education, and minimise post-natal visits. Another midwife talks about trusts having to introduce incentive payments, selling back annual leave and employing agency staff, but even then staff are declining the extra work because they are so cream-crackered and feel constantly stressed that the money just does not get them over the line.
Maternity staff are all incredibly caring human beings and they want to do a good job. They tell me they can recover from the physical strain of their job each day, but the mental anguish is weighing heavier and heavier. That mental strain is very real, as problems and errors in maternity services can have devastating consequences.
Although outcomes for mothers and babies have improved in so many areas in the last 10 years, any loss is too great. Understandably, the families affected cannot rest until they have knowledge of what happened and believe that it will not happen again. My heart breaks for them and, if I am honest, I will struggle to tell their stories without crying.
Birthrights is a UK charity that provides advice and information on legal rights, and trains doctors and midwives. The Ockenden review, which looked at maternity services, took serious evidence following the devastating loss at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital, and I know that the Health and Social Care Committee has also investigated maternity. Approximately 59%—about £4.2 billion—of the value of new clinical negligence claims is attributable to poor maternity care. In 2021, maternal mortality rates were found to be more than four times higher for black women, two times higher for mixed-ethnicity women and almost twice as high for Asian women. There is clearly so much more that we need to learn and change.
I know that this is issue is close to the hearts of many across this House. Between them, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House boast a lot of experience of births, and the Minister is an excellent person to be responding given her own professional experience. The Government have made two important commitments: the first is to train 3,650 student midwives over four years, starting in 2019-20, and the second is to employ an additional 1,200 midwives. Obviously, that is hugely welcome, but given the seriousness of the situation and the fact that midwives are taking to the streets, I ask the Minister to update us on any progress and explain the recent decline in the number of midwives.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on her pregnancy, but on securing the debate. As the son of a community midwife, I know how hard our midwives work. The issues that she is outlining are not just about recruitment, but about retention. Does she have any ideas on how we can tackle that retention issue, too?
Siobhan Baillie
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister on that. Midwives and some of the marchers have suggested talking about financial payments, but there also needs to be a culture shift. If we are asking midwives to do things that they desperately want to do, such as the continuity of care, but they do not have the staff teams to do them, they will feel as though they are failing. No money in the world will make that any better. Working together constantly and joined-up thinking are important to help that retention. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s mother.
I have some questions for the Minister. How many midwives are currently in training and recruitment? Why are babies not counted in the patient headcount to determine staff ratios? What measures, such as flexible working, are being considered to make the profession more attractive to those who have caring responsibilities or who are choosing a second career? Are we looking at salaries and financial support for students?
The issues that midwives face are incredibly complex, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) said, it is not just about staff. Midwives tell me that, without proper administrative support to reduce their huge non-clinical workload, they feel they are drowning in their jobs. The Association for Improvements in Maternity Services says that midwifery is a service that seems unable to support its own staff, including precious newly qualified members, with frequent reports of bullying. That is incredibly worrying. In England, that cultural problem was a key focus of the “Better Births” report in 2016, and it is an issue that the ongoing maternity transformation programme has been working to address.
The pandemic restrictions, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) mentioned, caused huge problems for mothers and partners. Mothers are now so scared that the restrictions will come back.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Further to the intervention from our right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that, contrary to NHS guidance, my own NHS trust, Sandwell and West Birmingham, stopped allowing birthing partners to be with expectant mothers. We managed to get that decision overturned, but just to re-emphasise the point, does my hon. Friend agree that birthing partners form an important partnership with midwives in ensuring that the safety of expectant mothers is paramount in the delivery process? I am sure she will expand on that later in her speech.
Siobhan Baillie
I thank my hon. Friend for all the campaigning that he has done—as has my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who is not in the Chamber this evening—and he is absolutely right. Birthing partners not only provide that immediate bond and that precious time with the baby; they provide support for the mother and support for the team, and have the important ability to spot what is going on. A mother who is taking quite a lot of gas and air might need someone else to have a couple of conversations when she cannot do so herself.
We are making changes in schools so that we do not see restrictions and closures again, and I think that if we are ever faced with the need to introduce further covid restrictions, we cannot do that in maternity services. The restrictions have had a knock-on impact on midwives as well: seven out of 10 RCM members have experienced abuse about visiting restrictions. That abuse may well have come from very worried and well-meaning people, but there is no doubt that it has contributed to their wish to leave their jobs.
The campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed did a great deal of work on this, and 98% of respondents to its survey said that the possibility of further covid restrictions on maternity services was causing them anxiety. There is enough for pregnant women to be worried about without their having to worry about that. Mothers reported rushing their hospital care during the pandemic, and seeking early discharge so that they could get home to be with their partners. As was mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey, women-centred care is the ethos of midwifery. and continuity of carer is the national recommendation. It is the right approach, but at no stage have the current staffing levels and the impact of covid been taken into account to assess the viability of a new system. The vaccine mandate continues to cause concern, and the potential loss of more staff is adding to the pressure-cooker effect.
We in Stroud are hugely proud of the facilities that we have. In the past, Stroud constituents have come together and fought to save the maternity unit, and that fight was so strong that I do not think anyone would dare to try to close it down again. We have also recently instigated an important campaign to deal with mental health and birth trauma. Between 25% and 40% of women view their experience of giving birth as traumatic—I am probably in there somewhere—and one in four have experienced sexual abuse. Such issues often have a huge impact on fears for pregnancies and future births. The campaign and the dedicated mental health team that Gloucestershire is setting up will change perceptions and conversations surrounding birth from the off. Our minor injuries unit across the road from the maternity unit has received a welcome £2 million for refurbishment purposes. I was at the hospital recently for my scan, and it is really buzzing. Although I have raised some serious matters, I do not want expectant mums to be worried about the care that they will receive at Stroud or anywhere else, as professional maternity teams will look after all of them.
One midwife told me that midwives do not speak out because they are always trying to put the women in their charge at ease, but unfortunately it has reached the point at which they feel that they must do so, which is why they have sent me here today. That said, although a Minister will respond tonight, the issues raised are clearly not just for the Government to address. NHS trusts, their human resources teams, managers, and all of us as patients in society need to think about how we behave, how we use the NHS, and how we can improve it. Making the NHS a political football, claiming that more and more money is the only way to fix issues, or putting the NHS on a pedestal so that there can be no criticism or open scrutiny, will not help a single midwife in this great country. I believe that the men and women of our maternity services deserve better. They literally hold new life in their hands, along with all the hopes, dreams and responsibilities that come with that job.
I leave the final words to a midwife who told me:
“I love my job. I love supporting women and the team. But I too feel that maybe this is as far as I can go. I have never suffered with mental health concerns prior to this last year. Anxiety has crept into my normally happy life due to work issues.”
I think that that is quite a stark way in which to end the debate, and I genuinely think that we can do better. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who I know cares deeply about this issue, and I am grateful for the time that I have been allowed tonight.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and the Minister have agreed that Taiwo Owatemi may make a short contribution. I ask her please to allow the Minister some time to sum up.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will be very brief. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this important debate and wish her well with her pregnancy.
We in Parliament have been talking about the issues that midwives face and their working conditions for quite a while now, and they were discussed just last year in a Health and Social Care Committee report on maternity health. As a member of that Committee, I have two simple points to make.
The first is about NHS staff shortages, which have affected many midwives in this country and which our Committee has been looking at for a while. Our report last year clearly shows the severe staff and resource shortages that have affected the NHS and midwives specifically. According to the Royal College of Midwives, just 4,773 midwives have joined the register since 2019. The number of midwives working for the NHS in England has actually reduced: the full-time equivalent numbers have gone down by 125. The demand for midwives has not decreased, and nor has the supply of registered midwives, but the number of midwives in the NHS has done so. As many hon. Members have said, it is important that the Government do more to ensure that fully certified midwives get the much-needed jobs and fill up the spaces in the NHS.
I will move on to my second point, because I am aware of time. As a result of the lack of resources and staff, midwives are suffering under terrible working conditions. Midwives across the country have stated that they are not getting loo breaks, that they do not have time to eat lunch and that they are working on minimal sleep. That is really concerning, particularly because it can affect patient care. It is common sense that mothers and their babies in my constituency of Coventry North West will suffer if midwives are being overworked and under-resourced. It is vital that the Government do as much as possible to ensure that midwives are not placed in that situation or in impossible working conditions. It is time that we fixed these burdensome circumstances and that the Government provided resources for midwives.
Finally, I thank all the wonderful, hard-working midwives at Coventry and Warwickshire Partnership NHS Trust for all the work that they do despite the current working conditions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this debate and wish her well with her “vested interest” and her pregnancy. I am sure that her experience with her midwife, Jan Partridge, will be positive.
I want to thank all midwives and maternity teams up and down the country. For the past 18 months to two years, they have gone above and beyond their duty. I have visited maternity units, spoken to midwives and heard how difficult it has been, particularly with covid. Being on a maternity ward, particularly a labour ward, is a busy enough experience anyway, but if there are women there with covid, the added infection control measures bring extra pressures. With staff isolating and being off sick, it has been an incredibly busy time, and I have heard at first hand many of the experiences that my hon. Friend raises.
I say to midwives that I fully recognise the pressure that they are under. Sometimes there are not enough staff on the wards, and they are dealing with more complex cases. I hate to use the term “geriatric women”, but we are seeing women becoming pregnant much later in life, with the risks and complications that that brings. We are also seeing babies being born much earlier. The expertise and skills that a midwife brings to those situations mean that we all see the incredible work that they do.
There are three areas that I think we need to address. The first is staff numbers, an issue that the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud all raised. I reassure hon. Members that we are trying to get on top of staffing levels. Health Education England undertook a survey based on the Birthrate Plus midwifery workforce planning tool to assess the numbers of current midwives in post, current funded posts and recommended funded posts to try to bridge the gaps between the three. Following that, NHS England invested £95 million to support the recruitment of 1,200 more midwives and 100 more obstetricians and to support multidisciplinary teamwork. There is also £450,000 for a new workforce planning tool at a local level, so that maternity units can calculate their own staffing level requirements.
We are trying to increase the number of midwives in practice. Returners are being encouraged to join Health Education England’s Return to Practice programme, where a payment of £5,000 is given to employers to support returners. Funding is given to the students to pay for their fees and their Nursing and Midwifery Council tests of competence, and they get a stipend while they are learning.
My hon. Friend is right about new students. We have increased student training places to 3,650. We are also recruiting from overseas. Early this year, we are advertising and interviewing for between 300 and 500 overseas midwives to join the NHS in the next 12 months. We are also recruiting extra maternity support workers to support the work of midwives.
We are also trying to improve the environment and to bring in a positive working culture. Some £52 million has been brought in to accelerate the digital maternity programme, so that the burdensome paperwork and paper records that midwives are having to work with will hopefully come to an end. Improving that documentation will improve the outcomes for mums and babies, too.
There is so little time to express how much we are doing. We are trying to bring in a positive working culture; it is not right that midwives are having to go without toilet breaks or are unable to drink during shifts. That is completely unacceptable, and it creates a vicious circle: because working conditions are so tough at the moment, we are losing experienced midwives, which makes trying to recruit and retain more staff even more difficult.
The debate we have had this evening is just the start, and I want to work with Members across the House to ensure that we support midwives as much as we can. We are serious about increasing staffing numbers and improving the working environment for midwives, because that is how we improve the safety of maternity care.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Speaker and his team send their congratulations to the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie).
Question put and agreed to.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1382).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1435).
Maggie Throup
The Government have always been clear that it is vital that we act in a balanced and proportionate way in response to the threat of the virus. We continuously monitor the latest data and updates from across the NHS, social care and wider sectors across the nation to ensure that there is balance and proportionality in our approach.
As of 9 December 2021, important changes to the self-isolation rules have helped align our domestic and international arrival self-isolation policies on vaccination recognition. The self-isolation regulations mean that a person vaccinated outside the UK is exempt from self-isolation when identified as a close contact of a positive covid-19 case if their vaccination status is recognised for the purposes of international travel rules. Those who have taken part in qualifying clinical trials abroad are also exempt from self-isolation if they are a close contact of a positive case.
The self-isolation regulations also clarify the process for those who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons to provide evidence of that, in line with the international travel regulations and the vaccine or test certification regulations. By bringing consistency, these changes extend the exemptions from self-isolation for close contacts of a positive case, which will help to limit the impact on people’s lives—a move that I know is welcomed by many.
We are also debating a statutory instrument that makes minor amendments to the regulations regarding the need to show evidence of being fully vaccinated, a negative lateral flow test in the last 48 hours, proof of medical exemption, or evidence of participation in a clinical trial, as a condition of obtaining an NHS covid pass in order to gain entry into certain settings in England from 15 December.
The original regulations—the “certification regulations” —were introduced following parliamentary approval and as part of plan B measures in response to the omicron variant. The regulations we are debating make small amendments to correct minor cross-referencing errors and an omission in those original regulations. They correct the calculation of the number of attendees at a category D event—an event with 10,000 or more people—so that it must be made on the basis of all attendees to the event, whether seated or unseated. The regulations also correct the calculation of the number of attendees at a category B event—an indoor event with 500 or more people likely to stand or move around—so that it must be made on the basis of all attendees to the event, excluding the workforce and excluding attendees with an assigned seat, even if they are standing next to their seat.
The regulations also correct how venues adhere to spot check criteria, so that when the responsible person wished to admit persons using spot checks at an event or venue before 31 December 2021, they needed to apply to the local authority as soon as practicable before the date of the event, rather than the usual 10 working days before the event. That date was amended from 29 December to account for bank holidays and to provide 10 working days between the certification regulations coming into force and the requirement for an application to be made at least 10 working days before the event.
Finally, the regulations amend the certification regulations such that a prior designation of an authority to which fixed penalty notice payments must be paid, made under the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Local Authority Enforcement Powers and Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 or the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021, is designated for the purpose of the certification regulations. That means that the designations continue to apply for payment of fixed penalty notices issued under the certification regulations, and that the chief executive officer of the ACRO Criminal Records Office has the authority to collect payment of any fixed penalty notices issued. I assure hon. Members that the correcting regulations were made as soon as possible and came into force at 6 am on 15 December, in line with the initial regulations.
As we look ahead to the coming weeks and months, we continue to monitor the data daily, and we maintain our commitment that coronavirus measures will not be kept a day longer than is necessary. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to all those in the NHS and social care, and volunteers across the country, for their tremendous work in helping us to get through these challenging times. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks and, indeed, for the opportunity to discuss these important measures. I also want to add my thanks to all those in the NHS and all the volunteers across the country for the sterling effort they have put into fighting this pandemic and keeping us safe.
As we have made clear repeatedly, the Labour party will not play politics with public health or stand in the way of measures that protect lives and livelihoods. As the Minister has outlined, these proportionate measures have enabled us to stem the tide of rapidly rising omicron cases while protecting essential aspects of our day-to-day liberty. They are measures that no Government wanted to take but that it was necessary to take in the extraordinary times we are living in. It is for that reason that Labour did not oppose these measures on the Floor of the House, and we will not do so today.
I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity on several points related to these two statutory instruments. The first instrument relates to self-isolation and exempts those who have come into contact with someone who has tested positive for the virus from the requirement to self-isolate, so long as they are vaccinated. The instrument makes provision for those medically exempt from taking the vaccine as well as those undergoing clinical trials.
Alongside this legislation, the NHS recommends that someone should take a daily lateral flow test after close contact with a positive case—one a day for seven days—to protect themselves and others. Given the importance of regular testing in tackling the omicron variant, can the Minister reassure colleagues that the Government are not planning to scrap the provision of free lateral flow tests at this time? Furthermore, can she outline what actions the Government are taking to ensure that we do not face a shortage of lateral flow tests over the coming months? What lessons have been learned from the Christmas period, when many people struggled to get their hands on lateral flow tests?
The second instrument relates to entry to venues and events. It is right that, while we tackle an incredibly transmissible variant, those wishing to visit venues and large events are given the peace of mind that precautions have been taken to avoid mass infection. I am grateful to the Government for taking on board our concerns, including on the option of a recent negative lateral flow test as an alternative to vaccination status, which has made a big difference. We felt that this was a proportionate instrument that enabled clubs and large-scale events to operate while keeping individuals as safe as possible.
I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could clarify some points relating to the NHS covid pass and vaccination status. At the moment, full vaccination is defined as two doses of the vaccine at least 14 days before the permitted entry to an event. Given that research has highlighted the efficacy of the booster vaccination in tackling omicron, can the Minister advise us what discussions she has had with colleagues on altering the definition of full vaccination to three doses, and whether that is something that the Government plan to implement? It is important that she is clear on that as we need to ensure that people are fully prepared for any changes, if there are to be any, and that they are given the opportunity to get that third dose if they have not done so already.
Furthermore, on that point, can the Minister advise what assessment she has made of the booster roll-out for immunocompromised clinically vulnerable and clinically extremely vulnerable people, which has been stalling for the past few months? Will action be taken to promptly address that? As colleagues will no doubt be aware, these restrictions are due to be reviewed prior to the expiry date of 26 January, so can the Minister provide colleagues with an update on how discussions relating to that review are progressing?
I seek reassurance from the Minister on one further point. When the related regulations were debated in the House last month, the Government faced an extraordinary rebellion from their own Benches. Those proportionate and sensible measures got through the House only thanks to Labour support—something that the Government do not always acknowledge on occasions when perhaps they should. Can the Minister reassure those of us on the Opposition Benches that the Government will continue to take public health decisions based on scientific and epidemiological merit, and that they will not give in to any reactionary elements in their own party? That is an important question because we are still in an incredibly precarious position, and the public must be assured that Ministers will always act in the public’s best interests, rather than according to partisan interest, particularly given the vulnerable position the Prime Minister currently finds himself in.
Maggie Throup
I thank the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish for his measured approach and his support for the regulations. I will start by answering some of the questions he raised, which were fair questions. As he rightly says, the provision of free lateral flow tests has been an integral part of the way we have combated the virus. We have had three strands: our world-beating vaccination programme, our testing strategy and our antivirals. Together, they have ensured that we are fighting the virus in a very effective way.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have plenty of lateral flow devices. In November, 100 million were distributed throughout the country. In December, that went up to 300 million. This month, we are expecting 400 million, and we have the availability for that. In addition, we have negotiated for Royal Mail to distribute more lateral flow and PCR tests on a daily basis. Earlier in December, it was distributing 400,000 units a day—I was delighted to visit a sorting office that was delivering lots of them in mid-December—and its capacity is now 900,000 units a day. We thank the NHS staff, social care workers and volunteers, but there are lots of other workers we need to thank for going above and beyond to ensure that people can get either a vaccine or a test whenever they need it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the provision of free lateral flow tests. In our autumn and winter plan, we said quite openly that, at some stage, we would have to look at the provision of the universal offer, but now is not that stage. He also asked about the definition of “fully vaccinated”. We rightly look at all the data, and at the effectiveness and the efficacy of the vaccines, and keep that under consideration as we look at that definition.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the immunosuppressed. I am delighted to inform the Committee that, as of today, 12 to 15-year-olds who are immunosuppressed or a close family member of someone who is immuno-suppressed can get their booster dose. I visited a vaccination centre in Manchester this morning, and I could see that it was geared up for that. That was really good to see. The vaccinators and volunteers there were really up for any changes that will be made as we move on and learn more about the virus.
However, the hon. Gentleman is right to ask about the immunosuppressed. We have written to many of the immunosuppressed—those who qualified to get their third jab and then their booster jab. We have also made provision for a certain cohort to have a PCR test at home in readiness, so that if they get symptoms and they test positive, they can have antivirals prescribed for them very rapidly.
The hon. Gentleman asked, finally, about the regulations for plan B. Quite rightly, we are checking the data on a daily basis. As the Prime Minister has said, we do not want to keep these regulations in place for a day longer than necessary, but we will continue to base our decisions—the hon. Gentleman is right about this—on the science and the data in front of us. That is what we have done throughout the pandemic, and we will continue to do it.
The changes to the self-isolation rules we are debating today bring about welcome alignment between our domestic and international arrival self-isolation policy. As I indicated earlier, the certification regulations were introduced on 15 December after being approved by Parliament. The regulations in front of us today make small amendments to correct minor cross-referencing errors and an omission in those original regulations. The correcting regulations were made as soon as possible and came into force at 6 am on 15 December; there was no delay between the initial regulations and the amending regulations.
The certification regulations sunset on 26 January, and they are part of the review of plan B, on which Parliament will be updated and have its say. It is important that we strike the right balance between the safety of the public and keeping the country open. I assure the Committee, as I have already said, that we will not keep these measures in place any longer than we have to.
We all have a part to play in keeping the country safe. The vaccines are our best line of defence against the virus and for helping us to live with covid. I again urge everybody to get boosted, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
I allowed the debate to go slightly beyond the strict limits of the two SIs, but I thought Members would want to hear the answers to those questions.
Question put and agreed to.
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (ENTRY TO VENUES AND EVENTS) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Entry to Venues and Events) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1435).—(Maggie Throup.)
Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that Mr Speaker has enjoined us all to maintain social distancing and to wear our masks in Committee if we choose to do—which I will be doing, and I hope the Committee will, too.
The Minister for Europe (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 1404).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
The statutory instrument was laid on 13 December 2021, under the powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, also known as the sanctions Act. The instrument revokes and replaces the Burundi (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to remove one of the purposes of that regime and its corresponding designation criterion.
After reviewing the Burundi sanctions regime in the annual review, in accordance with our statutory obligations under section 30 of the sanctions Act, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the sanctions Minister, decided that the 2019 Burundi regulations were no longer appropriate for all their purposes. The purpose in regulation 4(b) of the 2019 regulations encouraged the Government of Burundi to
“participate in negotiations with its political opponents in good faith to bring about a peaceful solution to the political situation in Burundi”.
Following elections in Burundi in May 2020, there was a managed and broadly peaceful transfer of power to a new President and, although political tensions remain, there is no longer an immediate political crisis. As such, Lord Ahmad decided to revoke and replace the 2019 regulations to remove the purpose in regulation 4(b) and its corresponding designation criterion, regulation 6(2)(a)(ii).
Apart from that, the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 maintain the same effects as the 2019 Burundi regulations. Hon. Members should note that there are currently no designations under that regime.
In response to the improved political climate in Burundi, we decided not to transition the specific individual designations under the EU sanctions regime to the UK’s autonomous Burundi sanctions regime at the end of the transition period. We have seen more positive developments in Burundi since that time, and we warmly welcome the Government of Burundi’s closer co-operation with the international community over the past year. We also note, for example, that the Government have re-engaged with some media outlets. We welcome that increased commitment to human rights.
While those are encouraging steps towards peace and stability in Burundi, the UK Government still want to see further progress over a sustained period of time. We remain concerned by reports of human rights violations and abuses being committed against the political opposition and other critical voices. We are concerned about the treatment of human rights defenders in Burundi, and the ongoing impunity of those who have violated or abused human rights in Burundi and of those who do so now. Breaches of human rights and the impunity of perpetrators sully and compromise the gains made towards long-term stability in Burundi.
The purposes of the sanctions regime now are to encourage the Government of Burundi: first, to respect democratic principles and institutions, the rule of law and good governance in Burundi; secondly, to refrain from policies or activities that repress civil society in Burundi; and, thirdly, to comply with international human rights law and respect human rights. Maintaining the regime, even without designations, underlines the seriousness of our desire to see that progress. It also allows us to designate persons for sanctions swiftly should the need arise.
Finally, I wish to draw to the attention of the Committee to the fact that, after laying the regulations in Parliament on 13 December last year, an error was identified in one of the purposes of those regulations. The error is the inadvertent omission of “including” from part of the “Purposes”, in regulation 4(c)(ii).
That provides that the purposes of the regulations contained in the instrument are to encourage the Government of Burundi to comply with international human rights law and to respect human rights, including, in particular, to respect the right of persons not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Burundi in the context of rape, other forms of sexual violence and gender-based violence. The intention had been to refer to the right of persons not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Burundi, including in the context of rape, other forms of sexual violence and gender-based violence, but the word “including” was omitted. However, this omission does not make a substantive difference, as the purposes are clear that they encourage the Government of Burundi to comply with all international human rights law—not just in the context of sexual or gender-based violence—and that regulation 4(c)(ii), which omits the word “including”, is an example within a wider definition. Nevertheless, the intention is to correct the error as soon as a suitable opportunity to amend the regulations arises. I obviously welcome the opportunity to hear the views of the Committee on the regulations, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you chairing the Committee, Mr Gray, and I thank the Minister for what he has set out. I understand that, overall, these are largely technical changes. The Opposition will not oppose the overall framework for the sanctions regime, because if we wanted further designations to be made in the future, or further actions to be taken, removing it would make no sense at all.
However, I have some questions for the Minister, because I fear that he somewhat skipped over some of the serious and genuine concerns about the human rights situation in Burundi. I hope he can explain in a bit more detail why there are now no designations and rollovers of individuals. What assessments were carried out on the individuals who had previously been designated, or indeed on others about whom concerns have been expressed to the Government either privately or publicly, of which there are a number?
I will come back to some wider questions about the sanctions regime that the SI is part of in a moment, but the Minister said that political tensions remain. I fear that is somewhat understating the situation. Humanitarian and human rights organisations have highlighted consistent abuses in Burundi that, in some cases, are alleged to amount to crimes against humanity. There were initially promising signs that the Government of Burundi were taking steps under the new Administration to improve the human rights situation, including a return to open dialogue, which had largely deteriorated previously, and progressive statements made by the new President—for example, to rein in violent youth groups, to release political prisoners and to expand journalistic freedoms. In reality, however, little has been achieved and structural human rights abuses continue to take place. In some cases, it is alleged that they have actually got worse.
I fear that relinquishing all sanctions against individuals in Burundi is only likely to encourage those who want to take a more repressive approach and take the country back into very difficult territory. It is not just me saying this; it is the view of a number of senior and significant individuals, including Doudou Diène, the chairperson of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, who said:
“We call on everyone concerned for Burundi to look under the surface. Since President Ndayishimiye’s inauguration 15 months ago, not only have grave human rights violations continued to occur, but in some respects the situation has deteriorated”.
The UN Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, established in 2016, continues to document grave human rights violations. It concluded in September 2021 that
“no structural reform has been undertaken to durably improve the situation. Serious human rights violations have continued to be committed by State officials and members of the Imbonerakure with the acquiescence of the authorities or even at their instigation. The rule of law continues to be progressively eroded.”
Indeed, it has been alleged that excessive brutality has been shown to anyone suspected of opposing the authority of the ruling party, with arbitrary arrests, torture and even killings. Of course, that applies to a whole range of individuals—whether civilians or journalists and others who have provided criticism—and dissenting civil society and members of the media have been at serious risk of detention and forced disappearances. The United Nations working group says that, as of 2020, there had been more than 238 people disappeared. Cases of violations by the police forces and others that would amount to crimes against humanity according to the UN Human Rights Council, have also been documented.
Of course, there are issues as well across the borders, with horrific stories of bodies floating down the Ruzizi river. Bodies that are cuffed have been seen floating in the rivers. Survivors of situations have described torture, and Human Rights Watch and others have detailed harrowing accounts, substantiating abuses conducted over many years by a number of Administrations. So I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to some of those allegations and explain, in that serious and worrying context, why he is so optimistic about the progress that is being made, because that optimism is clearly not shared by a range of independent observers.
In conclusion, I want to raise a couple of wider points, because this measure is obviously part of the wider sanctions regime. The Minister will be aware that there was a debate in Westminster Hall just a few weeks ago regarding the wider sanctions regime, and there was criticism of it, which directly relates to this measure. It was asked why we are not sanctioning more individuals using the powers under the sanctions legislation—indeed, under the Magnitsky amendment that was part of it.
There has been some suggestion that that is due to capacity issues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for investigating individuals. Some excellent staff work in the sanctions unit and elsewhere; I know the fantastic work they do. However, we need to ensure that they are properly resourced and have all they need at their disposal, because we seem to be lagging behind the United States and others in designating individuals, whether it is in relation to Burundi or a number of other circumstances. Can the Minister say whether further, similar measures will come out of the reviews that the Department has been undertaking? Can we expect further statutory instruments like this one to be brought forward in the weeks ahead?
We want these powers to be used fully and proportionately. Fundamentally, however, we have these powers and we should hold to account those guilty of human rights abuses, corruption and illicit finance—all these things that we all say we want to see action on—and use the powers to their fullest extent, not just in Burundi but more broadly.
I hope that the Minister can answer some of those questions.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for his points and his questions, and I will try to answer as many of them as I possibly can.
I guess that I will take the second bit first, because we are using the Magnitsky sanctions regime a great deal. Since the UK’s global human rights sanctions regime was established in July 2020, we have designated 75 individuals and six entities under the global human rights sanction regime, and we have also designated 27 individuals under the global anti-corruption sanctions regime since it was established last April.
Obviously, the full sanctions list is available for everybody to see on the gov.uk website and it provides quite some detail about those individuals and entities designated under sanctions regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act. We work with our international partners and take soundings from all the non-governmental organisations that the hon. Gentleman referred to when we are establishing the detail before going through any sort of designation.
The hon. Gentleman asked some very legitimate questions about Burundi itself, including why we are not designating more people in Burundi. Maintaining the regime that we have encourages the Government of Burundi to build on the recent positive political developments. It also underlines the seriousness of our desire to see further progress. It allows us the flexibility to designate, should we see fit and should the evidence suggest that is what we need to do. It also allows us to designate swiftly if the need arises.
We keep the sanctions regime under constant review and monitor political developments in the country, including on human rights, on a very regular basis. The hon. Gentleman mentioned what other people are doing when it comes to designations in Burundi. I note that the US Government revoked its Burundi sanctions regime in November. The UK and the US have different legislative frameworks and powers for imposing sanctions. However, we also note that the EU renewed its Burundi sanctions regime in October.
On the more general point about human rights in Burundi, we welcome the Government of Burundi’s closer co-operation with the international community over the past year. We note that the steps that the Burundi Government have taken to demonstrate greater commitment to human rights, including prisoner releases, are very positive and we urge them to deliver further progress over a sustained period.
However, we also watch the situation in Burundi very closely and take advice from a number of the entities that the hon. Gentleman referred to. We remain concerned about reports of human rights violations and abuses being committed against the political opposition and critical voices, and we are also concerned about the treatment of human rights defenders in Burundi, as I outlined in my opening remarks. Breaches of human rights, coupled with impunity of perpetrators, compromise the gains made towards long-term stability in the country.
While Burundi’s human rights situation remains concerning for the UK, we want to recognise the positive steps and progress on human rights that have been made under the new President’s leadership. We want to see that progress continue. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a small diplomatic presence, in the British Embassy Liaison Office Bujumbura, through which we continue to work with the resident international community to advocate improved human rights in Burundi. We also engage through a whole host of international forums, such as the UN Human Rights Council, to continue that push.
We continue to call on the Government of Burundi to co-operate with all UN human rights mechanisms, including the new special rapporteur, and to enable the reopening of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Burundi. We have also provided support to a range of local human rights and media freedom actors, as well as the national human rights commission. We take such matters extremely seriously, and I hope that hon. Members see how important we consider them to be.
As I set out in my opening speech, the Burundi (Sanctions) Regulations 2021 in essence maintain the same effects as the those of the previous regime. The UK Government are pleased to work with the Government of Burundi on priority issues, including human rights. We call on the Government of Burundi to co-operate with all the UN human rights mechanisms, including the new special rapporteur, and to facilitate the reopening of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Burundi.
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for his points and questions. If I have missed anything, I will happily write to him. I hope that the Committee will support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Stephenson
In the 26 seconds left, I will say that the national bus strategy, which is part of a £3 billion spend on buses over this Parliament, should address many of the issues about buses raised by hon. Members. Obviously, during the pandemic, we provided £1.5 billion in emergency funding to keep the buses in the region going. We have supplied the region with £710 million in dedicated funding for active travel, and more has been announced by the Chancellor as part of a £2 billion package.
[Official Report, 12 January 2022, Vol. 706, c. 306WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Department for Transport:
An error has been identified in my speech.
The correct information should have been:
Andrew Stephenson
In the 26 seconds left, I will say that the national bus strategy, which is part of a £3 billion spend on buses over this Parliament, should address many of the issues about buses raised by hon. Members. Obviously, during the pandemic, we provided £1.5 billion in emergency funding to keep the buses in the region going. We have supplied £710 million in dedicated funding for active travel, and more has been announced by the Chancellor as part of a £2 billion package.
Written Statement
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: Transport Plan
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games will take place from 28 July to 8 August 2022 and will be the biggest sporting event ever held in the city featuring thousands of world-class athletes and over a million spectators. With an estimated global television audience of 1.5 billion people, the games will showcase Birmingham, the west midlands and the entire country as an amazing place to live, work, study, visit and do business.
We know that putting in place effective transport provision is a crucial part of any major sporting event and requires detailed planning and coordination. A well understood and supported transport plan is therefore essential.
On 23 October 2020, in line with section 25(1) of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020, I directed the West Midlands Combined Authority to prepare a transport plan for the 2022 Commonwealth Games.
Today I am pleased to inform the House that the West Midlands Combined Authority board has approved the final Games Transport Plan.
The transport plan has been produced in close collaboration with Birmingham City Council and the Birmingham 2022 Organising Committee. It sets out a strategic approach to planning and co-ordination of transport to support the games; covering the transportation of spectators, athletes and the games family, while at the same time ensuring that any disruption to transport users and residents is kept to a minimum.
The transport plan is also the result of consultation with key stakeholders, including local authorities, police forces, transport operators, and the Department for Transport, as well as wider public engagement.
The transport plan presents five principles that have guided decision making throughout the stages of strategic planning, and which underpin the objectives for transport during the games. These principles are:
Clean and green; a public transport games
Safe, secure, reliable and efficient transport
Minimising disruption
Long-term benefits
Access for all.
I am placing a copy of the Games Transport Plan in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS539]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America for the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information, laid before the House on 29 November 2021.
Relevant document: 14th Report of the International Agreements Committee (special attention drawn by the report)
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate. In doing so, I thank my colleagues on the International Agreements Committee—particularly my noble friend Lady Liddell and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, from whom we will hear shortly—together with our officials for their superlative efforts in turning round our report, which was published on Thursday, so that we could bring this agreement to the attention of the Committee and so provide the only opportunity for the Lords to consider this significant agreement prior to ratification.
The treaty in front of us may represent only a start. It is a legally binding framework for the exchange of sensitive information on nuclear propulsion between the three nations over a preparatory 18 months. However, there is no doubt that this three-way commitment providing for nuclear-propelled Australian submarines is of considerable strategic significance, with implications for our approach to the Indo-Pacific region and China. We look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, setting out of the context in which this treaty, and the subsequent co-operation on submarines et cetera, falls. This is particularly pertinent given that the announcement of the trilateral pact was somewhat unexpected and had not been trailed in earlier discussions.
I will leave it to others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to comment on the response AUKUS received in France. We know that the Chinese described it as “extremely irresponsible” and representing a “Cold War mentality”, whereas Japan gave it a warm welcome.
Australia is the second-largest arms importer in the world. We will no doubt be hoping to boost our sales there, which might mitigate some of the fears that our farmers have about the Australian free trade agreement. Can the Minister outline the economic benefits that the Government think will flow from the agreement and indicate whether she envisages any other benefits, such as helping our efforts to renew Trident through support for relevant industries?
However, our involvement is not simply about arms sales, and nor does it include any military role. Rather, as Chatham House opined, AUKUS is a wider political response to “China’s growing hard power”. That is why the International Agreements Committee wanted the political scene to be properly set out by the Government before the treaty is ratified. When she replies, can the Minister touch on the Government’s assessment of the agreement’s impact on international relations, particularly with France, China and the Pacific region, as well as its effect on the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing agreement between the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? Can she also clarify what engagement will take place with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I assume will be led by Australia?
I am deliberately leaving well alone the naval uses and potential of this initiative, given the expertise that we will shortly hear from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, whose intimate knowledge of the inside of a submarine is surpassed by few others, let alone his wider defence knowledge; from my noble friend Lord West of Spithead, whose very title is testimony to his special interest—no one who has sat in our Chamber during Oral Questions can ever have doubted that; and from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, who may be a landlubber, but who has similarly wide and deep defence expertise.
We welcome sight of this treaty, although there are shortcomings in what has been shared with Parliament, including, yet again, the failure to spell out how and when any amendments to it would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. For its part, our equivalent committee in the Australian Parliament has noted that any such amendments to the treaty would be subject to its usual treaty scrutiny processes. We ask for nothing less. Furthermore, given the importance of the wider agreement, and given that follow-on agreements will probably be necessary, such ongoing and future scrutiny will be vital.
That same Australian Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is clear, for its part, that:
“Any transfers of equipment, materials or technology that follow would be the subject of a subsequent agreement and further Committee scrutiny.”
Can the Minister therefore confirm that any amendments to this treaty and any follow-up treaties will be laid under CRaG? Furthermore, we do slightly wonder whether everything already agreed has been fully shared with us. So perhaps the Minister could indicate whether we do have all the underlying documents, or whether there are any separate MoUs which have not yet been disclosed to Parliament. Could she also confirm that all future agreements in relation to AUKUS, either by treaty or significant MoU, will be shared with Parliament? I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, as a member of the International Agreements Committee I am very pleased to have this opportunity to follow our Chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I very much look forward to this debate, which will include several expert contributions that will be of particular value to the House, not only now, in the process of scrutinising this agreement, but perhaps more particularly in setting the scene for the engagement between the three parties to this agreement and the agreements to follow.
If I may, I will reinforce the point that our Chair made. The committee’s report essentially welcomes the agreement; we simply make one point that seems to have been taken for granted, as she said, by the Australian treaties committee: that further agreements and amendments to this agreement will be subject to further scrutiny. It literally said: “any action will be subject to further scrutiny”. If that is the case for the Australian Parliament, clearly, it should also be the case for this Parliament, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to make that simple and straight- forward commitment.
There is intended to be considerable follow-up activity on the agreement, so the substance of it is not so great that we can debate many details now. It is intended to initiate a wider co-operation not only on nuclear-powered propulsion systems for submarines but on areas of cyberwarfare, AI, quantum technologies and undersea technologies generally. I hope that today, we will hear a bit more about what the scope of that collaboration may look like.
May I say to my noble friend that I thought the agreement immensely encouraging in several respects? First, at the simple, mundane, practical level, it is encouraging that Governments in this day and age were able to negotiate something of a strategic and significant character, for several months and with deep engagement, with nobody leaking it. That is fantastic. We arrived at 15 September, and everybody was surprised, including the French. It is to the Government’s credit that they were able to do that.
Secondly, there seems to have been a particular skill on the part of the British Government in being right at the heart of this strategic negotiation, yet the French Government blamed Washington and Canberra and seemed not to blame London to the same extent and did not withdraw their ambassadors. The UK strategic engagement was central. Unless I am very much mistaken, the report suggests that the initial conversations were between the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Navy, so in a sense, the initiation of this agreement may have rested in the hands of the British Government rather than necessarily with the Australian Government —but that is only what I have read in reports.
However it came about—this is the most important point on which to applaud the Government’s agreement—we often hear about an Indo-Pacific tilt and the necessity of taking realistic and tough measures to counter the longer-term risks associated with Chinese aggrandisement and, here, for once, we are actually seeing something happening that is concrete, substantial and potentially of great significance. Certainly, it is a step change in the Australian defence capability, as a former Australian Defence Minister said. It also seems that it has not only important defence implications but very strong and positive geopolitical implications.
In our committee, we considered questions relating to the arguments about the nuclear proliferation treaty. It is clear that this is not a breach of any of the treaty obligations on the part of any of the participants in the agreement; nor can one realistically—as some have attempted to do—suggest that it somehow opens the door to the transfer of nuclear-powered propulsion technology to other countries. Other countries, such as South Korea, may wish to acquire it, but it has taken several decades for the Americans to agree to any further sharing beyond Great Britain. The White House briefing on the day of the launch was perfectly clear that they saw this as a one-off and they would not regard it as offering any precedent for any other country to be able to ask for the same thing. So, to that extent, we felt sure that we saw no need to express any reservations in that territory.
I should declare an interest as the UK chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. It is interesting that, not only do we now have the Quad—which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, may wish to say a bit more about, including on the progress that has been made in mutual understanding and assistance—but shortly after this agreement the Japanese Government entered into a reciprocal assistance agreement with the Government of Australia, which is only their second such agreement. The Japanese Government have made it clear that they would view positively the prospect of a further agreement of a similar character with the United Kingdom.
I know it is probably not within my noble friend’s brief to respond on that point today, but if she were able to write to me about it, I would be very interested to read it, following the increase in mutual assistance with Japan—not only literally troops on the ground and aircraft deployed for training purposes in Japan, but the visit of the “Queen Elizabeth” and other vessels. There are a lot of possibilities for extending our UK/Japanese defence collaboration to the form of an agreement such as that entered into with Australia.
Finally, I wish to reinforce a particular point that our chair made about the industrial and economic benefits in the United Kingdom. It was reported shortly after this agreement was signed that the British Government entered into a contract for early design work on a new nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine for the Royal Navy with BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce. Can my noble friend say any more about that and how it might position the United Kingdom’s defence industry in relation to work on the Australian submarine fleet, in circumstances where it is reported that the American defence capability is fully occupied in meeting its own requirements?
In all those respects, this seems to me to be a very positive agreement. It is very useful for us at this stage to note some of the potential and to encourage the Government in directions in which they seem very willing and able to go.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I should at the outset make it clear that I welcome the agreement by the US and the UK to make naval nuclear propulsion information available to Australia, one of our oldest and most valuable allies. A step such as this, which will substantially enhance the deterrent capacity of an ally in a sensitive and strategically important region of the world where tensions and challenges are on the rise, makes good sense. When the dust has settled, one hopes that all western allies that have a stake in the security of Indo-Pacific region—including France, however much it was justifiably affronted by the way the announcement of this agreement was handled—will recognise that we all collectively have much to gain from Australia’s increased naval capability.
As to the announcement of the agreement, there, I am afraid, the positive tone changes. That was a travesty of diplomacy. In future years, I suspect this episode will be taught at diplomatic academies across the world as how quite unnecessarily to lose both friends and influence. Why did the Prime Minister think it was sensible to rub salt in French wounds by insulting President Macron with some ill-chosen Franglais, in sharp contrast to President Biden’s willingness to offer an apology and seek to put hard feeling behind us? Are we so pre-eminent in world affairs that we can hope to get away unscathed with that kind of performance? Perhaps the Minister can use the opportunity of replying to this debate to match President Biden’s example. I would greatly welcome it if she did.
Some important questions remain to be answered about the agreement, and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to them. Here are three. First, is this agreement in no sense a defence pact or treaty with objectives and obligations similar to those in the Atlantic alliance? I ask that because a great deal of the press comment has been extraordinarily wide of the mark, as I understand it. The words “pact”, “mutual defence treaty” and so on are thrown around, and it would be a great help if the Minister could correct that—if I am right in thinking that it needs correcting. I hope the answer is no, since I do not think that this is the moment to revive those Cold War relics SEATO and CENTO. To do so would risk opening up rifts in what we must hope will be the widest possible involvement of countries in the Indo-Pacific region, working together to deter any possible Chinese attempt to extend its sphere of influence. I doubt very much whether India, Japan, South Korea or even New Zealand would contemplate joining such a mutual defence organisation, and we surely do not want to slip into new a Cold War mentality when the solution of so many of the world’s problems, such as those relating to climate change, health, trade and nuclear non-proliferation, necessitate working with China.
Secondly, will Australia, a non-nuclear member state under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, be negotiating suitable safeguards with the International Atomic Energy Agency to ensure that there are no proliferation risks from this exchange of information? Will that be a condition of supply?
Thirdly, would it be preferable if any technology transfer to Australia—here I speak about something that, I imagine, might not take place for some time, while design and competition between us and the United States take places—takes the form of propulsion units that will not require replenishment during the life of the submarine in question? That would thus avoid the greatest risk of fissionable material, in the form of high enriched uranium, getting into the wrong hands. It would be very useful if the noble Baroness addressed those three questions. I hope her replies strengthen my welcome for this agreement.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the committee for the work they have done and for creating the opportunity to debate this issue and the agreement before us. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I welcome it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, it is particularly welcome as this is a new agreement that covers an area for which there has never been this opportunity before—namely, the Indo-Pacific waters. I hope it presages and prefaces more interplay between the parties involved.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I also express my regret at the lapse in diplomatic judgment that led to France being left out in the cold. I say this simply because I have never represented a part of the south; I have always represented parts of either the north or the east of England. But I am mindful that we are extremely dependent on France at the moment regarding the number of migrants who come to this country. Noble Lords must ask ourselves how prepared we would be, if the roles were reversed and this was happening to us, to police our waters and stop migrants coming over. I just leave my noble friend with that thought. I would be grateful for her views on the way the situation was handled with France and if things could have been done in a more diplomatic way. We did not need to offend them.
I echo the concern raised by the noble Baroness in introducing the report regarding paragraph 16 and amendments to the agreement being subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister served in the Scottish Parliament with some distinction and is only too aware of the interest the Scottish nation has in this form of nuclear deterrent. What procedure is envisaged to discuss and debate these amendments with the assemblies of the devolved nations, in particular the Scottish Parliament?
In introducing the report, the noble Baroness said that it was hoped that the agreement would run for 18 months. Can the Minister confirm that? The very useful note provided by the Library in preparation for today says that the agreement will stay in force until 31 December 2023, but it does not say when it will come into force or when all three partner countries will have completed their respective internal procedures to ratify international agreements. I fully accept that it is extremely important that we share the naval nuclear propulsion information that lies at the heart of the agreement, which is why I warmly welcome the agreement before us.
I hope that my noble friend and the Committee will permit me to raise one issue which is even more of a threat at the moment, and which we briefly debated two weeks ago when we discussed an international agreement similar to this one, albeit with Ukraine. I am delighted to say that my noble friend Lord Grimstone has written to us answering a number of questions that were raised then in relation to cyberattacks, which have been identified by the Government as being of great concern. The one causing particular concern was that on Ukraine, which took out a number of Ukrainian Government websites and was presumably committed by a hostile state, in this case Russia.
As is clearly stated on the government website, we have seen an increase in the number of such attacks in this country through 2021, and I welcome the National Cyber Strategy, which the Government published in December 2021. However, that would be even more helpful if it contained some specific advice on how a company might respond if it was in the midst of a cyberattack and on what government resources would be made available to address the increasing number of such cyberattacks on companies. I read with interest that for most of those that have taken place to date, against government bodies either in mainland Britain or in Northern Ireland, no ransom has been paid. It is a matter of record that the clothing company, FatFace, paid a ransom of £2 million to recover its systems. The cyberattack with which I was involved led to a ransom of more than £100,000 being paid. All I could find on cyberattacks was the following statement on the National Cyber Security Centre website:
“Law enforcement do not encourage, endorse, nor condone the payment of ransom demands. If you do pay the ransom … there is no guarantee that you will get access to your data or computer … your computer will still be infected … you will be paying criminal groups … you’re more likely to be targeted in the future.”
I do not believe that this advice goes far enough. If a company is in the midst of a cyberattack which has shut down its systems and if it is not given any help by the Government, the only option it has is to pay the ransom money. There is no doubt that the two cyberattacks that I referred to came from a third state, a hostile state, believed to be Russia. I would draw the conclusion that the moneys raised, the £2 million from FatFace and the more than £100,000 paid recently in bitcoins by the company in North Yorkshire, will go to fuel the troops on the Ukrainian and other borders.
Will the Minister comment on how we are going to meet such cyberattacks going forward?
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as the UK redefines its role in the world, it must remain globally competitive, dynamic and outward facing. The key foreign policy strategy for that is the integrated review which we launched on 16 March last year.
As president of the CBI, I know that business welcomed the importance placed on relations with key growth markets to boost business confidence, along with a balanced approach to China as outlined in the review. AUKUS is an example of this strategy in action; it is an acknowledgment that the key battlegrounds will not be in the industries of old but in industries of the future, including nuclear, and having this agreement shows that the UK is going to collaborate to ensure that we have the competitive advantage to offer the world.
Unless the West steps up and collaborates, it leaves China and others to fill the void. China accelerated its CPTPP accession plans and made formal announcements to that effect just days after the AUKUS pact announcement. That was not unrelated.
China is very competitive in some of the industries of the future, leading the world on AI and autonomous vehicles, but we in the UK also have significant strengths and services—also in AI—with innovation spinning out of our best of the best universities in the world, including on things like graphene. There is an important dynamic on standards and rules of the future across many of these technologies and industries, and the UK should be at the forefront of leading and convening those dialogues. We should be the key interlocutor bridging different views. We had the G7 summit last year, which we hosted and led, and we have the G20 in Indonesia next year. These are key moments, and these collaborations can really create a global leadership role for the UK promoting multilateralism and partnership, ideally rooted in human rights and the rule of law. These are the types of values we hold dear in our economy.
The integrated review of global Britain in a competitive age—looking at security, defence, development and foreign policy—was the first time that such a review was created and was a comprehensive articulation of our security and international policy, taking into account sovereignty, security, prosperity, democracy and a commitment to human rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and faith and equality. It is a far cry from the 2015 SDSR, and let us not even get started on the 2010 SDSR—I see red when I remember it—which decimated our Armed Forces and was the worst in our history. Thank God we have moved on from that.
This integrated review sets out a vision for global Britain: our openness as a source of prosperity; a more robust position on security and resilience; a renewed commitment to the UK as a force for good in the world; increased determination to seek multilateral solutions to challenges such as climate change. AUKUS is a multilateral solution as well, which stresses the importance of deepening our relationship with our allies and partners in the world. The integrated review has four overarching objectives. The first is sustaining strategic advantage through science and technology—AUKUS ticks that box. The second is shaping the open international order of the future—AUKUS ticks that box. The third is strengthening security and defence at home and overseas with allies and partners to help maximise the benefits of openness and protect our people from growing threats—AUKUS ticks that box. The fourth is building resilience at home and overseas—AUKUS ticks that box. The integrated review and AUKUS therefore go hand in hand.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her committee for all their work. The deal that the Australian, United States and UK Governments signed in September is a joint statement creating a trilateral agreement. This is of course on top of the existing Five Eyes, involving Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and the UK. People forget that the origins of the Five Eyes go back—if I am not mistaken—to 1941. It is a solid relationship that we have together. This time, with AUKUS, it is about the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines and the resulting co-operation. We also have, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned, the Quad agreement between Japan, Australia, the UK and India, which is also a very strong agreement and has a lot of potential. Also, just last week, we signed the start of the negotiations on the UK-India free trade agreement, which will be one of our most important free trade agreements going forward. The negotiations will, we hope, carry on throughout this year.
There are some points to note. AUKUS is the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement, and the Royal Australian Navy will be able to safeguard the peace and security in the region as a result. This will be in a scoping phase for 18 months, but have the Government taken into account the Australian elections coming up some time between March and May? Will this deal survive a change of government? We do not know if there will be a change, but have our Government considered the implications of this?
Before concluding, I just want to touch on the House of Commons debate on the Command Paper, which was also relevant to this. Of course, the Army will go down to 72,500 people by 2025. I find this really concerning. Our Armed Forces, including our Army—the boots on the ground—need to have a critical mass. We talk about the Army not filling Wembley Stadium; 72,500 is way below filling it. When my father, General Bilimoria, commanded the Central Command in India, it was made up of 350,000 troops, so this is a matter of concern.
This new partnership has huge implications and has been well received. The UK National Security Adviser, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, said that the submarine element of the partnership is
“perhaps the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past six decades.”
There is also the potential for lucrative defence and security opportunities for UK industry, not just in submarine-building but in other areas that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, spoke about, such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and quantum technology. One of the CBI’s largest members is BAE Systems, which is chaired by one of my predecessors as president of the CBI, Sir Roger Carr, and has as a board member Dame Carolyn Fairbairn, the former director-general of the CBI.
So this partnership could be very good news for companies like BAE Systems. However—this point is important—the tilt in the Indo-Pacific is very important. We must not forget what is on our doorsteps with Europe. What is happening in Ukraine, in front of our eyes, is crucial. This is not an either/or; it is an “and”—that is, both Europe on our doorstep and the Indo-Pacific. Of course, the Australian Prime Minister has said that one of the key drivers of the agreement is the growing security challenge in the Indo-Pacific; we will address it as well.
There is another point that the Government must take into account, and this does not involve the transfer of nuclear weapons to Australia. AUKUS does not contravene the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, but there is a concern because New Zealand has said that it will not allow these nuclear-powered submarines into its territorial waters. What will the effect on Five Eyes be? None, I hope, but it is something to be considered.
On 16 December—or 17 December, depending on whether you are in the UK or Australia—we signed the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I was privileged to play a part in helping with the agreement throughout, alongside the Australian Minister for Trade, Dan Tehan, and our Secretary of State for International Trade, Anne-Marie Trevelyan. It is the most comprehensive and modern free trade agreement in the world. The main part of it was negotiated in 365 days. It is duty-free and tariff-free. It covers goods, services, mobility, youth mobility, digital, SMEs, agriculture, innovation, climate change and the environment. The good news is, having signed it, the next step is accession to the CPTPP, and Dan Tehan is the vice-chairman of the accession committee. Hopefully, this year, we will join the CPTPP, which is made up of 11 countries and represents more than £110 billion of trade for us. That will be very good news.
We have the integrated review, AUKUS, the UK- Australia Free Trade Agreement and Five Eyes; and soon, we will have the CPTPP. Trade and security, hand in hand, will be intertwined, not as a thread between the UK and Australia but as a solid rope all the way through.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for tabling this Motion to take note of the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement. It was announced in a joint statement in September last year and immediately had strategic impact. Although China was not mentioned, the whole thrust of Australia’s decision to opt for nuclear vice conventional submarines was to counter the threats of China’s aggressive posture in the vast Indo- Pacific region.
China is, for example, building a military base on Vanuatu. Why is she doing that? She is building islands on reefs in the South China Sea and claiming ownership of the waters around it, contrary to international law; breaking agreements regarding Hong Kong; threatening Taiwan; and claiming the Japanese Senkaku Islands. One can add to this the impact of the belt and road initiative—China has, for example, now taken over the best deep-water port in Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean, which we used to call Trincomalee, because Sri Lanka was not paying the money it owed—and its treatment of the Uighur population; it is quite apparent that China has no respect for the world order established post World War II.
Individual nations have little impact on what China does. She does not really care what each one of them is doing separately but, when they join together, she pays much more notice. There is no doubt that the Quad, which has already been talked about—the alliance between Australia, India, Japan and the USA—was something China did not like. We have seen that from a lot of things that have been said. AUKUS, the next alliance to confront China, also had an impact and was followed very shortly afterwards by the Japan-Australia agreement. Unsurprisingly, China reacted very negatively to the announcement of AUKUS, which confirms in my mind that we are going down the right route and that it was a good thing to do.
As noble Lords are aware—a number of speakers have mentioned it—this is about much more than a geopolitical move. AUKUS potentially comes with very lucrative defence and security opportunities for UK industry and opportunities within the scientific world, not just in submarine build but in lots of the other areas mentioned: cyber, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and additional undersea capabilities.
Our American allies are taking this very seriously. Jim Miller, former Defense Under-Secretary, has been named to lead the US efforts on AUKUS. He reports directly to their national security adviser and has been tasked with designing an architecture for how the three countries will work more proactively on defence and share perspectives on the Indo-Pacific co-ordinating region. He will also co-ordinate, on a day-to-day basis, how defence, state diplomatic and other officials from all three countries will meet regularly to harmonise views and positions on the Indo-Pacific. Most importantly, the US has said that Miller will
“do whatever possible to provide the Royal Australian Navy with options to build nuclear submarines as rapidly as possible.”
Miller has 18 months to pull all that together. I ask the Minister: who in the UK is the point of contact for Mr Miller. Do we have a Mr Miller lookalike?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, the debate can now continue. I have agreed that if we have further votes, we will try not to take the full 10 minutes, if everyone has managed to vote electronically, so that we can proceed.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the United States has also established a US submarine advisory committee, which is advising the Australians on options. Can the Minister say whether we have anyone on that committee? What relationship does that advisory committee have with the US nuclear-powered submarine task force currently working with the UK to identify the best way for Australia to acquire a nuclear submarine fleet? I hope this is not a separate group doing separate work. We need to make sure this is all properly co-ordinated, otherwise we will find that we miss out on things. I am surprised that we have not established a post similar to Jim Miller’s post. Rather our national security adviser is pulling together all the strands from various departments such as the MoD, the FCDO, BEIS and others and is a very busy man. Surely we need to have someone who can focus full-time on this programme, or something will fall between the cracks and we will be outmanoeuvred by our great American friends, who are very good at doing business, and we will be caught out.
Picking the right design for the Royal Australian Navy’s nuclear-powered submarines is extraordinarily complex, and difficult choices will need to be made. There are two prime contenders: the Royal Navy’s Astute class and the US Navy’s Virginia-class Block V submarine or possibly the Astute successor or the Block VI Virginia-class which is going to replace the Block V. None of them will require refuelling. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, they will be provided straightaway with a core and a reactor that runs through their entire life.
Numerous issues will need to be considered, including fleet size, submarine service life, Australian defence self-reliance, Australian industry, content, design risks, size, crewing, payload delivery, sustainment of operations, training regimes, export controls and nuclear controls within Australia. It has been assessed that a critical mass of 10 Australian SSNs would be required to sustain sufficient certified personnel at sea and ashore and that it will be at least 15 years from now before there are enough qualified Australians to run even one nuclear submarine in a self-reliant manner. Provision of the boats will take even longer than that. This is highly complex and difficult to organise.
I believe that the Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement should be welcomed with acclaim. It will help global stability because it will make the Chinese think and it will, I hope, give great opportunities to UK defence firms and science.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the opportunity for this short debate. I reassure her that, although I am a landlubber, the importance of the nuclear enterprise transcends single service interests. Indeed, in common with most former defence chiefs, I maintain a close interest in the nation’s nuclear enterprise. This is not always easy since many of the Government’s formal publications and announcements on nuclear issues, such as last October’s annual update to Parliament, are, perhaps by design, somewhat opaque.
A consistent set of features of the nuclear enterprise is, however, clearly discernible. The enterprise is vital, expensive, fragile and, wholly understandably, beset with various risks. One area of that risk is the future propulsion system of our nuclear submarines, and one category of that fragility is the quality and future availability of suitably qualified nuclear personnel. The fragility is fully recognised, though it is, to be honest, far less obvious that it is being successfully ameliorated.
The recently announced AUKUS agreement is in many respects hugely welcome, as we have heard. It aligns the interests of three like-minded Governments in an increasingly important part of the world and against a commonly agreed threat. The genesis of agreement, however, is less obvious. It appears, anecdotally, to have been the opportunistic exploitation of a military-to-military inquiry about the challenges of adopting nuclear propulsion in a submarine enterprise. It certainly does not seem to be an initiative that spent years of cautious marinading in policy consideration. Rather, it was an opportunity to give substance to rhetoric. There may well be nothing wrong in that at all, but my concern is that a major foreign policy initiative that necessitates any dilution of the UK national effort, any diversion of our nuclear expertise or anything that has the potential to add fragility or risk to our own nuclear enterprise must be contemplated and embarked upon with extreme caution. I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that this risk is fully recognised and will be properly ameliorated.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, it seems a bit strange that we all recognise how important this agreement is—it is extremely important—but that this is the only opportunity, in this room today, to scrutinise it in detail. I support it, as indeed do all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, but there are parts of it that we really need to dig a little deeper into. I have some questions. I know the Minister is very helpful, but some of the issues raised by the International Agreements Committee are about the explanatory memoranda produced with these treaties, and we need to know the detail. We cannot have just a broad sweep, which is what has been happening. Some of the questions that I wish to ask look at the detail of the agreement.
I accept that we are all new to this process of examining trade deals but, if we look at the joint standing committee on trade in the Australian Parliament, there is a process that allows parliamentarians access to much greater detail than we have had—not just on this deal but on other deals. I would recommend to the Government that we work hard at this to get it right. We now have a process of 18 months as part of this agreement, and it is very important that we have a hard-headed look at some of the aspects in it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, spoke in some detail about the Five Eyes agreement. Were the Five Eyes nations informed in advance that this was going to happen? One reason why I ask that is the point that has already been made: that New Zealand has already stated that it will not allow nuclear-propelled vessels into its waters. If that has not been referred to them in advance, we have put them at a disadvantage, as we have Canada. Does this weaken the Five Eyes agreement? I hope that it does not because it is a very important agreement for our security.
One other area where I have not found any advice or information is about the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Where does that kick in? What about the whole area of making sure that we work with our allies across the board? Could we be enlightened on the wider context of policy—this has been said by others—towards the Indo-Pacific region and China? That is very much on our minds, given the advice that we were offered last week about the interest that China is taking in this Parliament.
I am sorry to pose such a long list of questions, but part of that is because of the paucity of advice in the Explanatory Memorandum. This is a large-scale defence deal put together in great secrecy and handled in a rather ham-fisted way—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, being a much more distinguished diplomat than me, calls it a travesty of diplomacy. The way in which it has been handled with France has been awful; France has been done out of a $90 billion contract for conventional submarines. No one seems to have taken into account that France has a considerable interest in the Pacific region. There are about 1.6 million French citizens in, for example, New Caledonia and French Polynesia, and the French already have a defence strategy based on the region. It seems bizarre not to have taken them into account in the run-up to the treaty. The Times very funnily pointed out that the way in which the treaty had been handled was like something out of a John Le Carré novel, which is a bit unfortunate if we are trying to position ourselves as being ready for the kind of complex agreements that we are talking about.
Australia has its own shipbuilding industry with strong links with the UK. Given the lack of information on how disagreements will be handled, as my noble friend Lady Hayter pointed out, can we assume that intellectual property is part of the deal? Where are the constraints on intellectual property? That will become quite important. As I said in the debate last week, I live close to some of the big shipyards that are involved in defence. If we look in detail at this agreement, it could mean that a lot of the shipbuilding that we do in the United Kingdom goes elsewhere. If it helps security, fair enough, but there are still big questions that need to be answered, and the answers are not in either the agreement or the memorandum.
Can any one of the partners walk away? It would be very helpful if the Minister could enlighten us about how any disagreements can be settled because there does not seem to be any dispute settlement mechanism, as stated in Article X. Similarly, there seems to be no mechanism for amendments to the treaty. Of great significance to this House, I would like to know the arrangements for continuing parliamentary scrutiny of this treaty and other treaties associated with it because we are talking about a mechanism that facilitates any further transfer of information and expertise.
Moving to a nuclear-powered fleet, rather than a diesel-powered one, in Australia cannot be put down to a desire to reduce carbon emissions. As we saw at COP 26, the present Government of Australia is pretty much in the hands of climate sceptics, so we cannot use that kind of argument.
The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Bilimoria, referred to the Quad and the role that India plays in it. Has it been informed of the thinking behind this treaty? Was it informed before the treaty was announced or is it trying to catch up, just like everybody else?
Some of these questions could have been answered in the Explanatory Memorandum but they are not. It is worrying that this debate is the only opportunity for scrutiny of the treaty. I encourage the Government to think again about how they handle it, look at the Australian example of the Joint Statutory Committee and see whether we can come to an arrangement that keeps us all on the one side when important treaties, such as this one, are going through.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, I agree with and support in principle the agreement we are debating. It will strengthen our strategic position in the Indo-Pacific and help to bolster our relationship with the Five Power Defence Arrangements, which is, in my view, necessary in the light of China’s increasing assertiveness in the region. It will also bring us closer to the Quad, which has been mentioned two or three times this afternoon, and is an alliance with which we should become more closely associated.
En passant, this initiative is extraordinarily ambitious for Australia. One has to wonder whether it has truly assessed the huge cost of nuclear ownership, even if the submarines are not built in Australia. I worry that we are going to invest a massive amount of time and capital that we can ill afford only to find somewhere down the line that Australia has deemed the project unaffordable. However, I hope this will become apparent —or not—in the early stages of the studies that are under way.
Notwithstanding my broad support, none the less, I have some reservations about where this agreement might take us. I note that some commentators have said:
“AUKUS does not over-extend Britain”
as
“There is no military commitment involved in the agreement.”
Well, that all depends on how you define “military commitment”. Clearly we will not be in some sort of Article 5-type situation, but I am quite sure that there will be a drain on our military resources in terms of people and equipment as this project ramps up and thereafter as the Australian submarines achieve operationality.
This presents me with a major concern. I realise that this agreement does not provide for the transfer of naval nuclear propulsion equipment. As the Explanatory Memorandum explains, following the conclusions of the 18-month scoping programme,
“a follow-on agreement would be put in place to support such transfers as needed to then deliver the submarine capability to Australia.”
Our submarine-building programme is not in a strong place, and the need to get Dreadnought operational as soon as possible could not be more pressing given the state of the ageing Vanguard class it is due to replace.
The Explanatory Memorandum implies that we are just talking about the transfer of equipment in due course, but from where and at what cost to our own tautly stretched supply lines? No mention is made of the exchange or loan of nuclear propulsion SQEPs—suitably qualified and experienced personnel, which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned —both uniformed and civilian. We are already in a parlous position in this area, but it is difficult to see how Australia, with no nuclear SQEPs, can manage without acquiring some of our people, which would be at significant detriment to ourselves. Australia may look to the United States but my understanding is that it, too, is stretched in its submarine-building programme from equipment, industrial and personnel aspects. I therefore agree very much with the thrust of the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, on this matter. Although the agreement we are debating is not crafted to cover my concerns, can the Minister say whether the Government will lay down some markers to cover the points I have mentioned before the ratification of this agreement?
On another point, can the Minister give an assurance that we are fireproof so far as the 1958 agreement is concerned? Some may remember the mess we got ourselves into in this area when we tried to help the Canadians move forward on their aspiration for a nuclear submarine force following their 1987 defence review, which set out their vision for a three-ocean navy. The Americans were mightily upset with our offer to the Canadians to provide them with some nuclear propulsion technology, and it took a considerable time before we were able to re-establish our previously good working relationship with the United States Navy.
Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum alludes to the 1958 agreement and implies that the agreement allows the United Kingdom to share nuclear naval propulsion information, but this is not covered in the agreement per se. Should we have a formal amendment to the 1958 agreement, or a codicil to it, to make sure that we are indeed fireproof?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I feel as though we might be in the middle of a game of parliamentary musical chairs and that at some point one of us making winding speeches is going to find that we are interrupted by the bell, so I am not sure whether I should aim to speak for a very long time, get to the bell and stop or should expect to be interrupted in the middle of my speech.
In opening this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out that we are talking about an agreement of considerable strategic significance. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, the treaty that we are scrutinising today is in some ways quite limited. It is very specific. I want to start with some general points and will make a few specific points about the agreement.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, pointed out, the context of the treaty is very important. In announcing AUKUS back in September, the Prime Minister said the
“‘AUKUS’ partnership will work to protect our people and support a peaceful and rules-based international order.”
We had a brief opportunity to consider the AUKUS announcement in September when we discussed a Statement, but a Statement repeat in the Lords almost by definition means very little time for debate— 40 minutes—and very little opportunity for those of us who contributed to that debate to stop and assess what our Government and the Governments of Australia and the United States were seeking to achieve. Everybody, with the partial exception of me speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, seemed to greet the agreement with acclaim. My slightly more sceptical voice was because I was a little concerned about whether Her Majesty’s Government had spoken to France. It quickly became clear that they had not. As we heard this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, this has created certain concerns. So while we support the AUKUS agreement and the agreement we are looking at today on the exchange of information on naval propulsion, can the Minister tell the Grand Committee what Her Majesty’s Government are doing on our wider diplomatic relations to ensure that as we move forward with our agreements with the United States and Australia, we are keeping our other NATO and Five Eyes allies on board? We cannot afford another diplomatic incident. I do not think the fact that the French did not withdraw their ambassador from London is a sign that we did a better job diplomatically than Australia and the United States. What are the Government doing to make sure that our diplomatic relationships are in good order?
Several noble Lords have expressed concern about parliamentary scrutiny and how far we are able to scrutinise this agreement and the wider aspects of AUKUS. While listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, I wondered whether the International Agreements Committee should be thinking about some sort of parliamentary visit to its Australian counterpart, but I think that might not be possible for all sorts of reasons. I wonder to what extent there is scope for the committees of this House to talk to opposite numbers in Australia and the United States about best practice and how far it can be imported to this House and the United Kingdom Parliament more generally. The Minister clearly cannot answer for a House of Lords committee, but she should be answering for the Government, so can she explain what the Government intend in terms of reporting to your Lordships’ House and the other place, both in terms of this treaty, which is a relatively limited treaty for the next 18 months, and for wider discussions on AUKUS moving forward? That is clearly of importance to the whole House.
In terms of the AUKUS provisions in general, there is a suggestion that it will strengthen the United Kingdom’s defence and international relations. That may well be the case, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, was keen to say how important it is because, in particular, it has given China a sense that the United Kingdom along with the US and Australia are willing to confront China. However, if that is the case, and part of the purpose of AUKUS is to take on China, to what extent does the United Kingdom have the resources to be able to do that? We have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that there are some questions about our capabilities. To what extent will this agreement be beneficial to the United Kingdom in a military and export sense and to what extent do we think it might be a pull on our defence budget? As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, implied, if we are working with Australia, and the main AUKUS deal was sold to Parliament as hugely important in terms of our defence exports, surely we do not stand to benefit if the Australians ultimately do not procure submarines.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The point I was making, as we were interrupted by the bell, concerns what happens if this agreement does not take us in the direction anticipated and work is undertaken, perhaps by the United Kingdom and UK businesses, but ultimately, we do not see any submarine sales on the order books.
I want to raise two final issues. One is strategic and the other relates to small points in the agreement. The strategic one is the extent to which the Government are still keeping an eye on our own region. A tilt to the Indo-Pacific might seem strategically important and is clearly significant in terms of concerns about China, but to what extent are we able to tilt to the Indo-Pacific and, at the same time, ensure our own continent is secure?
Turning to my two points on the treaty specifically, Article VI talks about not communicating any naval nuclear propulsion information to people of
“other nations, foreign or international entities, or individuals who are not nationals of the Parties.”
In light of the security guidance we were given last week and concerns about a Chinese national, who I assume is a dual national, could the Minister explain to the Committee whether “nationals” here means people with only a single nationality? What happens if a dual national has either Russian or Chinese nationality alongside British, American or Australian nationality?
My final point relates to Article VIII and intellectual property. Is there any concern that, by sharing information and the guarantees under intellectual property, British researchers could lose out in any way, or are the Government satisfied that that clause gives guarantees that are as sufficient and desirable for researchers as they are for the defence sector generally?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Hayter and her committee for the report and for calling this debate. The committee invites us to look not only at the agreement in front of us but at the broader area in which it fits. It is important to see the big picture.
I am new to this area of treaties, and I always like to see a piece of paper. The first piece of paper that one is likely to come across on AUKUS is Boris Johnson’s speech. I am not entirely comfortable with that as a document of record, so I went on Google, as one does, and addressed the White House website. It has an excellent document which puts the range and objectives of this package, or whatever we want to call it, in a joint leaders’ statement on AUKUS. I would be happier about the statement if it had three signatures at the bottom; nevertheless, it uses very inclusive language. I shall quote some parts of it. The statement begins:
“As leaders of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, guided by our enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order, we resolve to deepen diplomatic, security, and defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, including by working with partners, to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. As part of this effort, we are announcing the creation of an enhanced trilateral security partnership called ‘AUKUS’”.
To be clear on what it is to cover, the third paragraph states:
“As the first initiative under AUKUS, recognizing our common tradition as maritime democracies, we commit to a shared ambition to support Australia in acquiring nuclear-powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. Today, we embark on a trilateral effort of 18 months to seek an optimal pathway to deliver this capability.”
Recognising that the agreement goes much wider than submarines, a later paragraph states:
“Recognizing our deep defense ties, built over decades, today we also embark on further trilateral collaboration under AUKUS to enhance our joint capabilities and interoperability. These initial efforts will focus on cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and additional undersea capabilities.”
It is clear from this carefully worded joint leaders’ statement that this is a comprehensive and ambitious initiative.
The Labour Party welcomes the increased co-operation with our allies and supports the AUKUS agreement. Australia and America are two of our closest security partners, and sharing resources and intelligence with them makes Britain safer. Britain must look after our most important relationships, or we will see our influence and security quickly decline. China’s actions in the Indo-Pacific pose risks to UK interests and threaten a stable trading environment, democracy and human rights, and it is important that we deal with those risks.
However—there is always a “however”—it is also vital that the UK maintain a commercial relationship with China and that we work with it on defining global issues of the day, such as tackling climate change. It is also important that this arrangement does not see resources redirected from Europe to the Pacific and that it strengthens our NATO alliance and other strategic partnerships. Finally, this arrangement clearly brings potential economic opportunities for Britain.
My only problem with this grand vision—and this shows my lack of international diplomacy experience—concerns what this statement is. Is it a treaty? Is it an agreement? How will things change as a result of it? Will it develop into a document which has some enforceability?
In addressing this from a UK point of view, I support the concept and focus of the noble Lord, Lord West. As this pact, this agreement—whatever we want to call it—matures, it will need a high-quality individual with a high-quality team to make sure that it goes right. There are a lot of potential problems. One thing we need is a change in the tradition of the political side of our leadership and the Civil Service. We will need people in a stable relationship with this task because the very considerable industrial and manufacturing complexities—there are also people complexities; this point was rolled out by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce—will need to be looked at all the time.
We support the pact, but there is a lot to flesh out before it is meaningful. Frankly, what we have in front of us is a modest part of that picture. As far as I understand it, it is a confidentiality agreement driven by the necessities of US law. The International Agreements Committee has brought out some of question marks, which I hope the Minister will be able to help with. I was particularly seized by paragraph 13 of its report, which states that the agreement
“shall settle any disagreements arising in the implementation or interpretation of this Agreement through mutual consultations and negotiations without recourse to any dispute settlement mechanism”.
That sounds wonderful but you end up asking where its teeth are. How will it actually deliver?
The next paragraph, paragraph 14, talks about
“four automatic extensions of six months each”,
which sounds like 31 December 2025; I do not know why it does not say that, nor what automatic extensions are. This paragraph also states:
“Any Party may terminate the Agreement by giving six months’ written notice to the other Parties.”
So it is a pretty fragile situation. When you think about why this may happen, it depends on trust. I suspect that if you asked the French about trust, they would give you a pretty dire analysis of what they see as trust.
Paragraph 16 of the report has been referred to; it is where all these conversations centre. It talks about the Explanatory Memorandum but really it is talking about the thinking behind the document. It states:
“We reiterate our recommendation made in recent reports that the Government should review its quality assurance processes to ensure that all EMs address whether amendments will be subject to scrutiny under Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010”.
I would go further: we must have mechanisms to supervise this enormous concept—this trilateral relationship —with parliamentary scrutiny.
We support the agreement in front of us, but we must be much clearer about parliamentary involvement, and I thank my noble friend Lady Liddell for bringing this out. The question is: why? There are two reasons. First, the probability is that this will involve lots of money. The Australians have a somewhat patchy reputation when it comes to building submarines and manning them. There is a reasonable possibility—possibly even a probability—that these boats will end up being built in Britain. That sounds wonderful until you look at the record of building submarines in Britain, with pauses, delays, changes in the shape of the programme et cetera.
The second thing that one has to realise is that this is going to go wrong. Things of this complexity go wrong; life is like that. If something goes wrong, it does not mean that it is lost, it means that the “going wrong” process will have to be managed. That management once again comes back to the talent that we put into the process and the extent to which Parliament is informed, to which there is a degree of transparency, to work through what will be a 10, 15 or 20-year relationship.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her committee for their report and for calling this debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their genuinely interesting and very well-informed contributions.
Let me just reprise the salient features of the AUKUS information-sharing agreement. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who referred to it as being an agreement of strategic significance. My noble friend Lord Lansley made positive comments about the process and the agreement itself and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, offered a very insightful and reflective commentary. This agreement is based on existing information-sharing practices in place between the United Kingdom and the United States. It will remain in force for only a limited period, and it is necessary in order to enable this key piece of work on submarine nuclear propulsion to move forward.
It is a binding international agreement in law. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, raised the important question of what happens if there is a change of Government. None of us has the capacity to predict or control what properly elected Governments in other states do, but this is a binding international agreement. I think that everyone understands the significance and strategic importance of this agreement to Australia, and I therefore very much hope that the arrangement is secure. If there is a change of Administration in any of the three countries—I do not anticipate that happening in this country; let me make that clear—I would hope that the binding legal dimensions of this agreement would obtain.
In so far as the procedure within the United Kingdom is concerned, we laid the agreement before Parliament in November 2021 for scrutiny in the usual way, and I thank the committee for its role in that process. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was rather disparaging about the agreement. He thinks it is fragile. With respect, I disagree: I think it is robust and focused. There is very detailed work under the agreement now proceeding. He was unduly pessimistic in saying that he is certain it will go wrong. I disagree. I have every confidence, with the structures in place, that this is an important piece of work, not just for our international interests but also for our domestic interests. It is an exciting prospect, and I do not share his pessimism.
I thank the committee for its scrutiny of the agreement and for the report that it has produced. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked when we expect it to be ratified, and the answer is by the end of January. For future agreements, the Government would of course comply with any applicable requirements of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The committee drew specific attention to amendments and whether they would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Understandably, a number of your Lordships raised this issue and sought clarification. As I have said, the agreement is based on existing information-sharing practices in place between the United Kingdom and the United States, and it will remain in force only for a limited period, enabling the initial programme of work. In these circumstances, the Government consider it unlikely that it will need to be amended during its time in force.
The terms of a binding international agreement, including those on the method of consent to be bound—for example, ratification—are subject to negotiation on a case-by-case basis with international partners. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Smith, focused particularly on this point, as did my noble friend Lord Lansley. The nature of what happens in the course of the discharge of the functions under the agreement dictates, to some extent, how these matters are approached. Certainly, they would have to be approached with trilateral agreement, and we cannot anticipate what might arise that would need adjustment. We cannot anticipate whether they would raise, for example, issues of commercial confidentiality or national security. The same applies to the nature and form of any follow-on agreement, but I make clear to the Committee that the Government have previously indicated their intention that the majority of important treaty amendments be subject to ratification and submitted to Parliament for scrutiny in accordance with CRaG. I hope that provides an appropriate level of reassurance to Members of the Committee.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Is it reasonable to infer, from what my noble friend has said, that if a follow-on agreement is subject to examination by the treaties committee in the Australian Parliament, it will also be subject to scrutiny through CRaG in this Parliament?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I wish to reassure my noble friend and the Committee that the spirit and intention of the Government is that scrutiny is important; it is at the heart of what they wish to see Parliament do, and it would be exceptional if scrutiny were denied. I hope that reassures my noble friend to some extent.
Moving on to the substance of AUKUS itself, it is a security and defence partnership between three like-minded, democratic allies to enhance security and stability in the Indo-Pacific region and globally. AUKUS is not a new treaty, it is not a mutual defence agreement, and it does not replace nor cut across other alliances, such as NATO or Five Eyes; it complements them and supports their aims.
As your Lordships will be aware, the main effort under AUKUS is the delivery of a nuclear-powered submarine capability to Australia. In September last year, an 18-month programme of work commenced to understand how we can best achieve this goal. I want to be clear that Australia asked for our help in acquiring a nuclear-powered submarine; we are meeting the request of a close partner with whom we have a long history of co-operation, including on submarines. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, spoke with authority on our long-standing United Kingdom/Australia relationship.
Our work to deliver this capability for Australia reflects the unique level of trust and co-operation between our three countries, and we can rightly be proud of that. This will help Australia to fulfil its defence and security responsibilities and to promote stability and security in the region, which this Government strongly support. As your Lordships will be aware, we have built and operated a world-class nuclear-powered submarine capability for more than 60 years. We bring deep expertise and experience to this partnership, as indeed do our American allies. AUKUS showcases the UK’s competitive and innovative defence industry and our role as a global leader in science and technology.
I emphasise, because a number of your Lordships alluded to this, that the programme of work will be fully in line with our international obligations. Australia has impeccable non-proliferation credentials, and it does not, and will not, seek nuclear weapons. It is important to reiterate that the proposed submarines will use a nuclear reactor uniquely as a power source. All three partners take their obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty extremely seriously and have been in regular close contact with the International Atomic Energy Agency as this agreement moves forward into the next stage.
Let me try to deal with some specific points that arose during the debate. My noble friend Lord Lansley raised the Japan-Australia Reciprocal Access Agreement. We enjoy a close and growing bilateral security relationship with Japan. AUKUS does not replace or reduce the importance of any other strands of our relationship with Japan. Instead, through AUKUS, we intend to deepen, not limit, co-operation in the Indo-Pacific region. The Japan-Australia Reciprocal Access Agreement is for these Governments to comment on, but is a sign of their developing strategic partnership.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Liddell and Lady Smith, raised the transfer of intellectual property. The agreement provides protection for the originating parties under Article VIII. As part of the ongoing programme of work, we will further consider how to deal with the exchange of intellectual property.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh raised the important issue of international relations, not least with France, Europe and China. We fully recognise the French disappointment. We are keen to move forward and are keeping channels of communication open. As the Prime Minister said to President Macron, we are committed to the United Kingdom-France relationship and we believe in the powerful role we can play together.
France is an important partner to the United Kingdom. We have a long-standing security and defence relationship with France that is underpinned by the Lancaster House treaties and by us being close NATO allies. We continue to consult each other daily on international defence and security matters, and that defence relationship remains strong. As was recently illustrated, our close collaboration on Afghanistan and our military deployments in the Sahel to tackle terrorism indicate that we are working together and consulting each other, just as we are working together to tackle global challenges such as climate change.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, focused particularly on China. I make clear that AUKUS is not aimed at a specific country; it is about supporting our allies and promoting stability in the Indo-Pacific region. AUKUS will work to protect our people and support a peaceful and rules-based international order. It is about the long-standing and deepening defence and security relationship between the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter, Lady Liddell and Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, specifically raised Five Eyes. That remains a unique and highly valued partnership. We have been sharing intelligence to address global threats and support international security and stability for over 60 years. We noted that Prime Minister Ardern of New Zealand welcomed the increased engagement of the United Kingdom and United States in the region. We compare notes and work together as five like-minded countries on a range of issues and in a variety of formats. Of course, each of us also has its independent foreign policy and works with different partners and in different groupings, according to context and need.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about devolution. In this context, defence and foreign affairs are matters reserved for the Westminster Government, so there is no specific devolved locus on this matter. When the MoD receives inquiries from representatives of constituencies in the devolved nations or from the devolved Governments, we respond and always do our best to co-operate and be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, particularly raised the nuclear aspect to this and the responsibilities of the United Kingdom, United States and Australia. I give the reassurance that we want to reinforce the global non-proliferation architecture and set a precedent for the future that retains confidence in the fulfilment of our NPT obligations. We regularly update the International Atomic Energy Agency and are fully engaging with it throughout the 18-month feasibility study. We will continue to be transparent and consultative, especially on issues regarding nuclear materials, facilities and activities relevant to the IAEA.
The noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Bilimoria, were interested in the inherent character of this new security partnership. That is what it is. I think they were seeking clarification and reassurance. This is a partnership focused on joint capability development and technology sharing. It reflects the unique level of trust and co-operation between the UK, the United States and Australia. It is about nuclear propulsion, not nuclear weapons and, very specifically, it does not include any obligation to consider an attack upon one as an attack against all participating states. That is not the character of this agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord West, sought detail about specific representation on various groups within the UK, the United States and Australia. I do not have specific information to that level, but I shall investigate, and if I am able to share information with him, I shall do so.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My other question relates to the fact that the Americans have nominated a very high-ranking person to drive this programme. It seems that we are allowing our National Security Adviser, who is responsible for all sorts of things, to do it. As we know, because of the sheer complexity of this and the impact it might have on our CASD, our nuclear programme and all the other things, having one person to whom we can say, “Right, this is your job. You’re responsible to the National Security Adviser and the Prime Minister, and if it goes wrong, it’s your head that gets chopped off” is the sort of thing we need rather than leaving it quite so loose. Are we going to do that?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for expanding on that. As I said, I do not have specific information and I would not want to mislead him by giving him some general position that may be completely inadequate. I undertake to go back, inquire and share with the noble Lord whatever information it is possible for me to disclose.
The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Boyce, raised legitimate and understandable concerns about how all this impacts on our nuclear submarine-building programme and whether it puts any of it in jeopardy. In relation to Dreadnought, I want to make it clear that the programme remains on track to deliver to schedule and within the original budget as provided for in the strategic defence and security review in 2015. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the overall budget situation. I gently remind her that the defence budget settlement which we saw last year is one of the most generous that we have seen in generations. That has been recognised widely and within the defence community.
In relation to Astute submarines, which, again, the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Houghton and Lord Boyce, were interested in, my understanding is that they are making good progress and that they are all committed to be delivered by 2026.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, also raised the 1958 agreement regarding nuclear weapons. He also mentioned other historical agreements which focused on nuclear weapons. I remind the Committee that AUKUS is commencing a programme of work to identify ways to deliver a nuclear-powered but not armed submarine capability to the Royal Australian Navy. That is a gentle reminder that we are dealing with matters of nuclear propulsion under this agreement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, wished to understand how all this relates to the Five Eyes defence alliance. Let me reassure her that that is first and foremost a highly valued intelligence-sharing partnership. Over the years, it has grown beyond intelligence sharing to respond to changing threats and challenges. AUKUS is an enhanced trilateral security partnership with a specific remit. Both as individual Five Eyes nations and as a group, we will continue to work with other like-minded allies, forming the right alliances to better face specific common challenges.
The noble Baroness was also interested in how AUKUS contributes to the United Kingdom’s Indo-Pacific strategy—forgive me for sounding hoarse; as far as I am aware, I have nothing infectious, and I tested this morning before coming to mix with you all.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It would have been difficult for the noble Lord to corroborate it; I was doing it in the privacy of my bedroom.
AUKUS is a concrete demonstration of the commitment made by the UK in the integrated review to deepen co-operation, partnerships and engagement in the Indo-Pacific. We are committed to deepening relationships with countries in that region. By 2030, the region will represent more than 40% of global GDP, so the announcement is a clear demonstration of both our interest in and commitment to that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, “Well, this is all fine and well, and we understand what it means for the Indo-Pacific area, but what about everything else in defence?” I say to her that if we take in conjunction the integrated review and the recent defence Command Paper, not to mention the recent Future Soldier paper which was the subject of a Statement in the Chamber, we see in all of those, detailed information on how we meet threat, wherever that is coming from, whether it is directed at us within the UK or at our partners and allies. We have a clear plan as to how we think we should meet that, and it is a plan that will endure in the forthcoming decades.
This is an important agreement for Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, as it is for the wider issues of stability in the region. The noble Lord, Lord West, commented both shrewdly and authoritatively on those issues. The agreement certainly reflects the importance we attach to the area in terms of the integrated review—that was also recognised by my noble friend Lord Lansley.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I earlier listed the countries that make up the Quad and said India, Australia, Japan and—by mistake—the UK. Of course, it is the US; the noble Lord, Lord Lansley pointed that out to me.
I cannot resist a serendipitous opportunity. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked me why the UK is not a member of the Quad. With the integrated review and our tilt to the Indo-Pacific, perhaps there is an opportunity for the UK to join the Quad in the future.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We always keep a vigilant eye on wherever we can find friends and partners. As I have already indicated, we also find different ways of working with them.
AUKUS is not uncontested. As an emerging new partnership, it is open to being misunderstood. All three AUKUS partners are therefore committed to engaging positively and collaboratively with international partners on the regional and global benefits of AUKUS while pushing back on disinformation about arms races and nuclear proliferation.
In addition, we have committed trilaterally under the auspices of AUKUS to enhancing the development of joint capabilities and technology-sharing beyond the nuclear propulsion that we have discussed today. Our initial area of focus for this effort is cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum computing and additional undersea capabilities. We have agreed to broaden this into other areas as our partnership develops.
The UK will use this element of AUKUS as a platform to leverage its world-leading science and technology sector, working with trilateral partners to identify and exploit opportunities for us to develop new defence capabilities from which we can all benefit. We will foster deeper integration of security and defence-related science, technology, industrial bases and supply chains. In conclusion, this is a significant partnership and a positive development for the United Kingdom, as it is for Australia, the United States and the broader region.
Lord Boyce (CB)
Thank you for allowing me to intervene. Can I return to the Nassau agreement for a moment? I am aware that we are talking about not nuclear weapons but nuclear propulsion, but I quote the Explanatory Memorandum:
“The US-UK Agreement for Co-operation on the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes of 1958 … also prevents the UK and US from disclosing restricted naval nuclear propulsion information to other countries unless specifically authorised.”
We fell foul of that with the Canadians in 1987; that is what I am talking about. It is not about nuclear weapons, but nuclear propulsion, which the Explanatory Memorandum itself admits. As I say, the agreement does not mention this per se. I come back to the point of my original speech: should we have some sort of codicil or amendment to the 1958 agreement to make sure that we do not fall foul of it in this transfer of nuclear propulsion information to Australia?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord for that clarification; I apologise for misunderstanding his question. I shall need to look at that in detail and revert to him with such information as I am able to find.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her committee. I also thank your Lordships for a stimulating debate.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it has indeed been stimulating. I am only sorry that it had to take place in the Moses Room. We very much welcome that we at least have a trio here—we now have my noble friend Lord Stevenson, and before we had an ex-Secretary-General of NATO. We are honoured that you are here, but it is a shame that something of such great importance has not been debated in the Chamber, because this is a pretty fundamental piece of our future.
There has been a broad and wide welcome for the principle of this agreement, which my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe called—I do not know whether these were his words or he was quoting—“comprehensive and ambitious”. We should thank him for giving up his birthday to be with us today; I am sure we all wish him the very best for celebrating with us in this generous way.
This has been a significant debate. I am not going to try to go through all the points, as the Minister did. Basically, three things have been spoken of. One is the role of Parliament; the second is about the details of the deal; the third is the wider context. I think that the role of Parliament and the scrutiny of future agreements are significant. My noble friends Lady Liddell and Lord Tunnicliffe, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and other noble Lords raised this; there are some really important issues here.
When my noble friend Lord Stevenson—I am particularly glad that he has walked in—was doing the then Trade Bill, there were a lot of undertakings received from the Department for International Trade about how it would deal with future trade deals. He helped to put together what were called the “Grimstone rules” for that but there is a real question for the Minister, who is here on behalf of defence—we also have some treaties coming under the Foreign Office now—about whether her department will give the same undertakings that my noble friend was able to get out of the Department for International Trade. When I joined this committee, I am afraid that it was something of a surprise to me that we were dealing with not just trade but these very significant defence and foreign affairs agreements. I hope that that can be taken into account.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the report on working practices by the committee that I now chair, published when it was still in the capable hands of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. I hope that we will revert to that fairly soon because there are really important questions in it about amendments to agreements. I think that the Minister slightly elided over them in her answer because, of course, some amendments may simply say “Minister” instead of “Secretary of State” and we really would not want to come back for that. In our report, we give some criteria for when amendments to agreements should be brought back; I hope that the Minister will take this point back to her department to look at it. Perhaps we could have further discussions on it because this ongoing scrutiny of such an important area will be important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested that we should learn from Australia. I think she was suggesting that I should fly out there—she is nodding; I thought so—and have a discussion with them. However, take the Australian example and the example of our trade deals before we left the European Union: what the European Parliament used to do by way of scrutiny was clearly much more detailed, and it had more information.
In not giving quite the answer I wanted from her, the Minister again used the words “commercial confidentiality”, but when others of us were dealing with the then National Security and Investment Bill—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was there at the time—those issues were to be dealt with by the Business Committee in the House of Commons, not the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. At that stage, we asked, “How can that Business Committee in the Commons have sufficient security clearance to deal with these commercially sensitive things?” We were told, “Don’t worry, committees can do that”. If they can do it for that Bill, I must say, our committee should be able to do the scrutiny for this one. The excuse of commercial sensitivity should not be used to prevent us seeing things in such a way that we can then advise on taking out secret information and how the rest of Parliament will deal with it. I am sorry if I have gone on about this for a bit too long but the scrutiny of these significant agreements is important.
On the actual deal, both noble and gallant Lords raised some really important issues. Basically, they asked whether we have the spare capacity in terms of both personnel and expertise to be able to do that and still fulfil our own commitments here. They talked about that side of it, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, told us not to forget our region as well. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also suggested that.
I remind the Minister that my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe said that things can go wrong. He built Westminster Underground Station and ran the London Underground. He knows of which he speaks. Big projects can go wrong; the important thing, as he is always telling me, is not to worry about them going off track but what you do about it when they do. So ongoing scrutiny and thought are important. Further, from the committee’s point of view, the answer to my noble friend’s question about who will lead on this will be important when we take evidence. Will it be defence? Will it be trade? Will it be the Foreign Office? We will need to know with whom to engage; that person should be able to speak on behalf of the whole Government.
Lastly—I am sorry not to have covered all the points but I am sure that, when she has looked at Hansard, the Minister will write to all of us if there are any unanswered questions—the Minister did not answer the questions on the wider context, particularly on the implications for Five Eyes and whether it was consulted. She also did not say whether India was consulted, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, asked. New Zealand is key if it really is saying, “We won’t have those subs here”. It still remembers the “Rainbow Warrior” being blown up in Auckland by one of its own allies. We must remember the sensitivity of New Zealand; if it was not kept abreast of this—something it feels so sensitive about—that obviously has ongoing consequences.
I note the Minister slightly mumbled over the possibility of a change of Government in this country, but I have to say that some of us look forward to that. It should be noted that I am not speaking on behalf of the Labour Party. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who is, said that there is no need to worry because the Labour Party will continue with this if Labour is elected.
I was very reassured by what the Minister said about France. Perhaps she could advise the Prime Minister—it is still the same Prime Minister, unless he has resigned over the past hour or so—to use her choice of words rather than some of the ones he used with regard to France.
This has been a useful discussion, perhaps not on the detail of this first stage, but in saying to the Government, “We see where you’re going, we like the direction, and we like the assumption that you have made that it is important to help Australia in this theatre”. Australia is one of our oldest allies. We have been in many theatres of war alongside Australia, and therefore offering what we can to support it in that region is clearly key. However, there are hiccups that could happen here, so we look forward to a continuing debate on this.
House of Lords
Deaths of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, on 14 January. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
I also regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Myners, on 16 January. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Eating Disorders
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve support for people (1) with, and (2) at risk of, eating disorders.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a vice-chair of the APPG on Eating Disorders.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
We are working to ensure that people of all ages with an eating disorder, or who are at risk of developing one, have access to the right support in the right place and at the right time. We are delivering on the ambitious transformation plans outlined in the NHS Long Term Plan and children and young people’s mental health Green Paper and provided additional investment this year to address pressures arising during the pandemic.
Baroness Bull (CB)
Does the Minister agree that improving support for eating disorders depends on improving understanding of their causes, prevention and treatment? Eating disorders account for 9% of mental health conditions in the UK but receive only 1% of mental health research funding. This leads not only to major evidence gaps but to fewer researchers, less research and the ongoing stigmatisation of the illnesses as a niche concern. Will the Minister’s department consider working with the NIHR on a long-term eating disorder research strategy to break this underfunding cycle, as it has for other health challenges, so that more effective support can be targeted on their prevention and treatment?
Lord Kamall (Con)
First, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all the work she has done in this area, making sure that we are all aware of this issue and keeping it on the agenda. In answer to her specific question, the department has invested nearly £110 million in mental health research, including research on eating disorders through the NIHR, as she mentioned. This includes the Eating Disorders Genetics Initiative and a systemic review led by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre. UKRI has announced funding for a £3.8 million study on eating disorders to inform prevention and early prevention in young people. This research is being led by King’s College London and the University of Edinburgh.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the latest NHS data shows a continuing increase in the number of people being hospitalised for eating disorders, mainly in the 18 to 39 age group, yet there is still no adult waiting time standard for people with eating disorders. This is despite knowing that access to quality community care can reduce the number of hospitalisations and unnecessary deaths. When are this Government going to introduce an adult waiting time standard for people accessing treatment for serious eating disorders?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As noble Lords can imagine, because of the pandemic, sadly, waiting times have gone up, but we are making sure that we are doing as much as we can to address that. Longer term, we are focusing on prevention, not only cure. We are also making sure that we are able to understand the various forms of eating disorder better. It is very simple to lump them all together, but there are different elements and you can distinguish between them. Then we will, I hope, be able to tackle that as much as possible.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, given that many young people with eating disorders find it very difficult to seek help and identify themselves, what specific additional resources have been provided for schools to help and support young people with this actually life- threatening illness?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point about how we identify children and young people who are suffering from these disorders or may be a few steps away from it. We know that there are programmes from the Department for Education and our department to tackle mental health issues in schools, identifying pupils and encouraging them to come forward, to talk to a counsellor in the school, and making sure that there is signposting in the right place to ensure that we can tackle their issues.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that eating disorders do not always present in the same way. He will be aware that some fluctuate, moving from chronic to acute over a period and back again. When people seek treatment for eating disorders, at the moment those who can afford it are not even able to access treatment in the private sector. If they were able to, however, would they then be able to access NHS treatments at a later date, for example, should they not be able to afford to continue with private treatment?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a really important point. It is an issue that was raised over the weekend, in an individual case. I know that we are always advised as Ministers not to get involved in individual clinical decisions, but in this this case a child had not yet got a bed and the parents wanted to take them out for private treatment until a bed became available. They were told that if they went to use the private sector they would be put at the back of the list. I am trying to get more details on this but it seems a lack of common sense. I want to understand why it is happening, but I have not had an answer yet.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government doing with regard to working with industry, particularly the fashion industry? At the moment, there is great emphasis on size-zero models, which cannot really be helpful when linking it to the question that the noble Baroness asked previously. It is not a good image, or setting the right image for people—that is, for boys and girls.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The issue of poor body image that my noble friend raises is very important. The Government are addressing known risk factors through both universal and targeted interventions. At the top level, that means looking at the Better Health and Every Mind Matters content, which focuses on support for mental health and well-being. Poor body image and low self-esteem are topics addressed there. It is also about looking at what pupils expect and at the prevention concordat for better mental health programmes, as well as working as part of the anti-obesity strategy to make sure that we get the right balance. Sometimes when you focus on information on packets, for example, it can have unintended consequences for those with eating disorders. Every time we look at labelling, we have to make sure that we have addressed those unintended consequences on people with eating disorders, so that they do not react negatively to it and perhaps indulge in behaviour that we do not want to see them indulging in.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has warned that the hidden epidemic of eating disorders has surged during the pandemic, with many community services overstretched and unable to treat the number of people who need help. Will the Minister publish data about the number of people waiting for eating disorder treatment better to understand and meet the scale of the demand? Will he deliver a workforce plan to tackle staff shortages in eating disorder services so that it may be possible to treat everyone who desperately needs this help?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising the issue of the backlog as a result of the pandemic. We have seen eating disorder services continue to face increasing demand, especially as a result of lockdown and its mental health impact. The number of young people entering urgent treatment has increased by 73% between 2019-20 and 2021, and the numbers waiting for treatment have also increased from 561 to 2,083. To make sure that we meet the standard and get those waiting times down, we have invested an extra £79 million this financial year, and we are working with systems across the country to see how we can make sure that we address young people and adults who need access to this treatment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a very serious condition that 71% of the British people over the age of 30 are obese or overweight? The problem with this is that it interferes with the immune system, which makes them much more vulnerable to all kinds of diseases, not least infections. If we want to deal with the next pandemic now, we have to get people to reduce their weight so that obesity does not interfere with their immune systems.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The question from my noble friend highlights the difficulty of dealing with such a sensitive area. You have to be very careful how you address the issue of obesity. For example, it is quite right that we want to get the rates of obesity down, because it does lead to a number of other conditions that we have discussed many times here. One thing that you have to look at, however, is the unintended consequence of any laws. One possible unintended consequence is that some of the measures to tackle obesity, such as looking at food labelling, might affect people who have eating disorders. Every time we look at the obesity strategy, therefore, we make sure that we consult charities that look after people with eating disorders to ensure that we have the right balance. We will not always get it perfectly right, but we will try our best.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, anorexia nervosa is one of the most pervasive of mental health disorders. It can sometimes be successfully treated only in specialist in-patient units. What plans are there to grow the number of specialist in-patient beds? In 2019, the Government promised that people would not be sent to out-of-area beds after 2021, but I do not believe that that is currently the case.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that we had a strategy to tackle obesity, but some of it has been knocked back a bit by Covid and having to tackle the backlog. However, we are looking at ways to ensure that the strategy gets back on track as we emerge from lockdown and there is, we hope, less pressure on the NHS.
National Living Wage
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sentamu
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the recent rise in the rate of inflation, what plans they have to sustain the increase in the national living wage.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
In asking this Question, I declare my interests. I chair the Living Wage Commission and led a debate in your Lordships’ House on 5 May 2020, when 52 Members of the House asked the Government to take action on income inequality and sustainability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, on 1 April 2022, the Government will increase the national living wage by 6.6% to £9.50. Following this increase, the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage will have increased by around £5,000 since 2015. The Government are committed to further increasing the national living wage in line with their manifesto commitment to equal two-thirds of median earnings by 2024, and we are on track to achieve this ambitious target.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but given that it was in September 2016 that the Living Wage Commission published its findings, that the Government took six years to raise the minimum wage to the recommended living wage, and that national insurance contributions will increase in April, are the Government, in their levelling-up agenda, going to match their rhetoric on income inequality?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I pay tribute to the work that the noble and right reverend Lord does on these matters, and it is important that he raises them; we are grateful for that. As the noble and right reverend Lord is aware, we take advice from the Low Pay Commission—comprising business representatives, worker representatives and independent members—on the appropriate increases, taking into account all the various issues: what is affordable for business, rates of inflation, et cetera. I am proud of the record that we have in increasing the national minimum wage.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, families with children have been suffering some of the worst in-work poverty and hardship. As wages cannot and should not take account of family size, what are the Government doing to make good the cuts in financial support for children, including child benefit, since 2010?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, we are here discussing the national minimum wage. As the noble Baroness is aware, benefits, universal credit, et cetera, are a separate issue—it is important, but it is a separate issue. On increases in the national minimum wage, since it was introduced in 2016 it has given the lowest earners the fastest pay rise in almost 20 years, something this Government are very proud of.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, some 9,000 employers across the United Kingdom pay the real living wage as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation. From April it will be 40p more an hour than the Government’s national living wage. What steps are the Government taking to persuade more employers to pay the real living wage, which virtually everyone accepts is much closer to reality in assessing the cost of living, especially at a time of inflation?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, I completely agree with the noble Baroness that, where it is possible to do so, employers should pay the higher rates for the living wage that she referenced. We want to see as many employers as possible doing that, but when the Low Pay Commission makes recommendations—and it has representations from all sides of the industrial sectors—it takes into account business affordability. I am sure the noble Baroness would not want to see the rise in unemployment that might result from unrealistic increases in the minimum wage.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, of course, any increase in wages tends to get passed on to customers. Is my noble friend the Minister aware of studies that show that these increases are disproportionately felt by people on low incomes? If you have a higher wage cost which pushes up prices in a fast food joint, it is not generally investment bankers who are impacted. At a time of rising living costs, what assessment have the Government made of the inflationary impact of repeatedly raising the living wage faster than wages generally?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. I am disappointed by some of the responses from the Opposition Benches. As always with these matters, it is a question of getting the balance right. Of course, we all want to see the lowest paid in society paid more—nobody would want to see that more than I would and I am sure my noble friend feels the same way—but we have to bear in mind the importance of considering whether it is affordable for business. That is why we have the independent Low Pay Commission that makes recommendations on the maximum level of increase that can be afforded without undue inflationary impacts and is affordable for business.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
I remind noble Lords—before the Minister takes too much credit for it—that it was the Labour Government who introduced the national minimum wage and that it was introduced against universal hostility from the Tory Opposition. Given the doubling of energy prices expected in April, does the Minister believe that the rise in the minimum wage to £9.50 an hour will be sufficient for ordinary household budgets to cope?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Indeed, I am happy to pay credit to the Labour Government of the time for introducing the national minimum wage and I am happy to take credit for the biggest increases in the national minimum wage that we, as a Conservative Government and a Conservative-led Government, have implemented since we came to power. As I said, these are difficult issues. We all want to see it increasing; that is why we have the independent Low Pay Commission to provide independent advice to the Government on what is affordable for business. We are working towards the manifesto commitment to increase the level to two-thirds of national median pay.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to see this rise in the national living wage, but is the Minister aware that if one works a 35-hour week at £9.50 an hour, that makes a weekly total of £332.50? If it is the national living wage, has anybody in the Government actually tried living on it for a week?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know the noble Baroness feels passionately about this and, as I said in response to earlier questions, I think the whole House is united in wanting to see increases in the minimum wage and the living wage as much as possible. However, it benefits nobody if it drives people into unemployment and further poverty. We want to see increases in the national minimum wage, but we want to see them on a sustainable basis.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, listening to these questions, is my noble friend satisfied that the Bank of England is correct in assuming that inflation is going to be a transient phenomenon? Was it not a mistake that it continued with its programme of QE even when the economy was growing rapidly? If people push for wage increases, that is how inflation takes off, and it will be very difficult for the Bank of England to control it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend also makes an important point. Inflation has a pernicious impact on the economy and, of course, it impacts most on the lowest paid. I am sure the Bank of England wants to take all these factors into account. I will not stand here and give it advice on this matter, but it is important that we take account of inflation in calculating the minimum wage, and that is exactly what the Low Pay Commission does.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, to protect fixed incomes, people’s savings and to prevent poverty, what are the Government doing to put downward pressure on inflation? Perhaps the Minister could provide us with some of the detail.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The original Question was about the minimum wage. The points the noble Baroness raises are important but they are matters for the Treasury—I would be very happy to speak to Treasury officials and get her a proper answer on that.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us that it was a Labour Government who introduced the national minimum wage. He did not remind us that it was done in the teeth of Tory opposition, and neither did he remind us that the principal argument used by the Tories at the time was that any introduction of a national minimum wage would inevitably result in a huge increase in unemployment— 2 million, I think, was the figure most frequently quoted. Will he now acknowledge at least that whoever was doing the Tory forecasting at the time had not the faintest idea what they were talking about?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Obviously I was not in government at the time but, looking back at the debate, a lot of independent economists were concerned about the possible impact. As I indicated in previous answers, nobody wants to see rises in unemployment. At the end of the day, low pay is better than no pay at all. But I am delighted to say that with the increases in the national minimum wage—and our record on this is second to none—we have seen the national living wage outpace the rate of inflation by over 20 percentage points since we have been in power. That is a good thing: it has not resulted in a rise in unemployment, and I think that is something we should all welcome.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister takes credit for the increases the Government have introduced. Given the cost of energy and foodstuffs to low-income families, does he think the increase that he is taking credit for will compensate those families for the increases they now face?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We take credit because the Government accepted the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, which, as I have indicated, was set up to consider all these matters. But I agree with the noble Lord: it is going to be difficult—the cost of living is going to increase substantially, probably, over the next few months, with food and energy prices. It comes back to the points made by some of my noble friends earlier: it is important that we get a grip on inflation because that is something that affects the lowest paid the most.
Covid-19: Vaccinations for School Pupils
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on delivering vaccinations for Covid-19 to school pupils since the Christmas holidays.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
The Covid-19 vaccination programme continues rapidly, with nearly 52% of 12 to 15 year-olds vaccinated as of 15 January 2022. We vaccinated over 372,000 12 to 15 year-olds in England between 17 December 2021 and 15 January 2022—that is nearly 400,000 in a month, which included the Christmas break. Vaccinations for children aged 12 to 15 can be booked in out-of-school settings through the national booking service, alongside the ongoing school-based offer. We currently have 314 sites offering appointments that can be booked via the national booking service.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that very full response but the figures he has quoted are at odds with those issued just last week by the Department for Education on the vaccination of 12 to 17 year-olds. The number of pupils absent from school with a confirmed contraction of coronavirus was up by nearly 50% over the figure for December. It cannot be a coincidence that only 40% of 12 to 17 year- olds, in the DfE’s own figures, have been vaccinated. This shows, whether it is the Department of Health or the Department for Education, that the Government have really failed to get a grip on the measures necessary to keep children learning—whether it is the supply of testing kits or classroom ventilation. I ask the Minister: what urgent action will the Government take to increase the level of vaccination among school pupils?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I think the noble Lord is being slightly unfair in the sentiment of his question. We have to remember that, when it came to vaccinating children, there was a huge debate around, first, whether it was ethical to do so and, secondly, whether the vaccines used for adults were effective in children. We could not really do any of that until we had sufficient data. It would have been irresponsible just to have pushed ahead without the data. Once we got the data, we started the vaccination programme for 16 and 17 year-olds and then for 12 to 15 year-olds, and we are pushing through as much as possible. Parents can book for their children on a national booking service. We expect many more parents to do so.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has indicated her wish to speak virtually, and I think this is a convenient point for me to call her.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, many parents are still saying that they have not heard when their clinically extremely vulnerable five to 11 year-olds will get their vaccinations, despite the JCVI saying that they should. Last week’s update to the GP green book now includes severely CEV children as eligible for the third primary dose, which is progress. However, there is no news for CEV young children not classed as severe, so can the Minister please say what he will do to ensure that GPs will call all these children for their vaccinations as soon as possible?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Baroness says, the JCVI advised on 22 December that children aged five to 11 in a clinical risk group, or who are a household contact of someone who is immunosuppressed, should be vaccinated. GPs and hospital consultants are now urgently identifying the children eligible, and we expect rollout to have started by the end of this month, with children and parents starting to be called up for appointments by the NHS locally. The message here is that there is no need for parents to contact the NHS; the NHS will make contact with the parents or carers of those eligible. Just to further reassure parents, we will be using a paediatric Pfizer vaccine authorised by the MHRA for use in this age group.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, given that it is safest to administer the vaccinations in a school setting, and unlikely that this round of vaccinations is the last one, has the Minister given any consideration to expanding the specialist community health nurses, commonly known as school nurses? Their numbers have been decreasing over the last 10 years. They could play a role in the future administration of vaccines in school settings.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I recall well being sent to the school nurse—sometimes we have fond memories, and sometimes less fond memories, of being sent to the school nurse. The noble Baroness makes a really important point. I will make inquiries and get back to her.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister update the House on what actions the Government have taken to protect school pupils and teaching staff from the reckless behaviour and damaging misinformation being propagated by anti-vax protesters?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point, which I know a number of other noble Lords have also raised. In a free society, we have to get the balance right between freedom of speech and ensuring that people have a right to say even those things with which we may disagree fundamentally, while ensuring that misinformation is not spread. The department has now provided information and guidance to schools on how to handle any misinformation, and who to contact if there are protests which step beyond the line of acceptability and contravene the law. The police now have comprehensive power to deal with the activities, especially those which spread hate or deliberately raise tensions through violence or public disorder. I am sure many people will be aware of the attacks on vaccination centres in Truro in October and in north Wales and at the Bromley Civic Centre earlier this month. That was going way too far on freedom of speech, and we want to make sure that we deal with the people who take part in these acts.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the World Health Organization that the vaccination of children in the wealthy world should not be at the expense of the vaccination of health workers and vulnerable adults in the developing world? If so, what more can the UK do to ensure that the developing world has access to vaccines and the capacity to manufacture them?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I once again pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boateng, for raising this issue and for the number of times he has raised similar issues about the developing world over the years. Since I became a junior Minister of Health, I have been involved in many meetings with the G7 and G20, and in bilateral meetings with other Health Ministers. This item always comes up on the agenda and is something that the British Government have pushed. We are leading donors to the international COVAX programme and are working across the world, with other countries and with manufacturers, to make sure that we get the vaccines to those who really need them. While we here in this country complain about third and fourth doses, for example, there are still many people in many countries who have not even had their first vaccine. In the longer term, that is not right for anyone.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, would the Minister give us a little bit more of an insight into the general policy for vaccination of children at schools? Although we have problems here, we have a history of people resisting and giving bad information. Is there a coherent strategy that will come out for school-age vaccination that we can refer back to as a model for the future?
Lord Kamall (Con)
One of the important things we all have to learn, from what we have been through and are still going through, are lessons for the future—not only for future Covid vaccines there may need to be but for all vaccination programmes and, perhaps, future pandemics. One of the really important things about this is making sure we get the right information. We are working with schools to make sure teachers and parents have the right information and also know the risks. Many people will know that, over the weekend, 16 and 17-year-olds were called for their booster if there was a sufficient space since their last dose, and we are now looking at how we vaccinate 12 to 15 year- olds. We are looking in more detail at whether it is safe for five to 11-year-olds, but at the moment the advice is not there.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend has said, this country is behind some other countries in rolling out vaccinations to five to 11 year-olds. He will also be aware that the extent of Covid in that age group is a major source of infection for parents and, therefore, society as a whole. Have the Government taken account, or will they take account, of the wider social and economic benefits of vaccinating that age group and weigh them up alongside the medical evidence?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The JCVI will continue to look at the new data as it emerges and recommend whether we boost 12 to 15 year-olds. But when we look at the vaccination strategy, we look not only at the tackling of the specific coronavirus or variant but also at the wider implications. For example, many noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the unintended consequences for mental health issues of lockdown. Beyond that, we have to look at societal and social issues and the way people, businesses, charities, et cetera are affected in doing their work. We always make sure we take a balanced approach, looking at the science, the wider medical issues and the unintended consequences.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the House is united on the importance of children’s education continuing, but it is the lack of vaccinations not just among children but among the teaching workforce that may interrupt their education. Do the Government have any estimate of the proportion of the teaching workforce that has not yet been vaccinated or is off work for Covid-related reasons?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Viscount raises an important point. As we are expecting our children to be vaccinated, it is important that teachers are also vaccinated. It is one of the reasons we are looking at VCOD—vaccination as a condition of deployment—in the health service. In answer to the noble Viscount’s specific question, I am afraid I do not have the information with me, but I will try to speak to the Department for Education and write to him.
Sick Pay
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development What should an effective sick pay system look like?, published on 14 December 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
The CIPD report makes a number of interesting points on SSP, many of which had been raised previously by other stakeholders and continue to be assessed by officials. Last year, the Government made clear that the pandemic was not the right time to introduce changes to the rate of SSP or its eligibility criteria. However, as we learn to live with Covid-19, we are able to step back and take a broader look at the role of statutory sick pay. I can confirm to noble Lords and the House that this work is ongoing, but I am not able to give a timescale for when it will be completed.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her Answer, but the fact is that nobody can live on £96.35 per week—the rate of statutory sick pay—and the lower earnings limit excludes 2 million workers from receiving even this. Both features pose a public health risk by disincentivising those sick or who should be self-isolating from staying away from work. The report of the CIPD, a highly respected body representing human resource professionals, is formidable. It finds that 62% of British employers think that SSP is inadequate. In the light of that, will the Minister agree to look into increasing the rate of SSP and at the other recommendations? There are too many to summarise now, but they include removing the lower earnings limit, improving employer compliance and including the self-employed.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I understand exactly the sentiment the noble Lord raises his question with. I can confirm again that work is ongoing to look at the role of SSP and all the CIPD recommendations. As I said, I am not able to give a timeline for this, but I will go back to the department and stress the noble Lord’s keenness to do this work.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, since we cannot look at this long term, many look at it short term, and in particular at the plight of many businesses, especially small ones, which find it difficult to keep their heads above water in any case and then find that they have workers isolating for Covid-related reasons. Can any help at all be given to firms in this parlous position?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Throughout the pandemic the Government have demonstrated that they can respond proportionately to the changing path of the virus, in particular through supporting jobs and businesses, and we will continue to do that. As increasing numbers of Covid-19 cases means that more workers take time off and there is an impact on business, the Government are reintroducing the statutory sick pay rebate scheme. That will mean that small and medium-sized businesses can be reimbursed for the cost of SSP for Covid-related absences for up to two weeks per employee.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, statutory sick pay is around 27% of the minimum wage. Can the Minister please explain why it is set at such a low amount, and can she say whether it is tested on Ministers to see whether they can survive on it? At the very least, that would generate some sympathy for the poor.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Lord is very eloquent in the way he holds the Government to account. I cannot say that it has been tested on Ministers, but I will go back to the department to understand how that figure has been arrived at and then write to the noble Lord and place a copy in the Library.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that the Government are thinking about this, but they have been doing so for a very long time. They have consulted more than once on this but they simply say, yet again, as they did last year, that it is not the right time. If the pandemic taught us anything it is that if you are on low wages, in insecure work or self-employed, you cannot afford to get sick and you cannot afford to do the right thing. Rather than wait for the next pandemic, the next bout of flu or the next difficult infectious disease to hit our country, can we please do something to enable people to do the right thing? We are a rich country; surely people should not have to go to work when they are sick.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Baroness that people should not be forced to go to work when they are sick, especially with Covid, given the danger of it spreading. I know it probably will not go down very well, but I can confirm that this is in train, and I am dreadfully sorry that I cannot say when it will be done. When I go back and talk to the department about the keenness and urgency of Lord Hendy, I shall certainly add that to the shopping list.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, could the noble Baroness tell us her response to the postcode lottery of the test and trace support payment, revealed in the CIPD report, where 75% of Camden applicants received payments but only 23% did so in Liverpool and just 16% in Sandwell? Could she comment on whether she thinks people in hard-pressed poorer areas are being doubly disadvantaged by the Government’s scheme?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I can confirm to the noble Baroness that there is no intention on the Government’s part to penalise anybody for where they live. The noble Baroness has asked quite a detailed question and, if it is acceptable to her, I will go away and find out the answer and write to her with it.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, new analysis from the TUC today estimates that a quarter of a million private sector workers were self-isolating last month with no decent sick pay or with no pay at all. Will the Minister commit to meeting with some urgency with the TUC to move forward on the ideas already expressed from these Benches?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am always happy to meet people to learn more and find out exactly the points they are making. I want to find out exactly who in the department is best to do that, and I will come back to the noble Baroness—but a meeting will happen.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that the pandemic is not the right time to improve statutory sick pay. Given everything we have heard, when is the right time?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
While the pandemic was going on, with businesses under pressure, individuals sick and the NHS understandably struggling, we did not feel it was the right time. I think the noble Baroness is saying to me that the time has come, and that is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and anyone else who is really worked up about this. I can only go back to the department and do my best.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government say they are committed to levelling up. Given the fact that most high-paid workers will receive their salary when they are off sick but low-paid workers are left with £90-odd a week, is this not a prime example of where the Government could introduce something to level up in this area?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am sure the Government appreciate the point that the noble Lord makes. I cannot today give any commitment. I am very sorry, but, as I have said before on numerous occasions, I will go back to the department, where I am sure they will read Hansard with great interest and, I hope, act upon it.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, why not set a deadline for the completion of this important work? Would not that be a measure of the efficient and successful government that we are entitled to expect?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I really do not think there is any more I can say on the deadline. I cannot give a deadline today, but I will do as I have promised.
Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill
Monday 17th January 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Act 2022 View all Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 January 2022 - (14 Jan 2022)
Local Government (Disqualification) Bill
Monday 17th January 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022 View all Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 January 2022 - (14 Jan 2022)
Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 (Airspace Change Directions) (Determination of Turnover for Penalties) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 2, 4 and 15 November 2021 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 January
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 17th January 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 View all Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 72-VI(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (14 Jan 2022)
16:26 - Division on Amendment 114A. - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 190 - Amendment 114A agreed.
17:01 - Division on Amendment 114C - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 114C agreed.
19:08 - Division on Amendment 114F - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 114F agreed.
20:23 - Division on Amendment 115 - Ayes: 261 / Noes: 166 - Amendment 115 agreed.
20:37 - Division on Amendment 132 - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 132 agreed.
21:35 - Division on Amendment 133A - Ayes: 236 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 133A agreed.
22:35 - Division on Amendment 148 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 216 - Amendment 148 disagreed.
22:53 - Division on Amendment 150A (to Amendment 150) - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 160 - Amendment 150A (to Amendment 150) agreed.
23:07 - Division on Amendment 151 - Ayes: 154 / Noes: 208 - Amendment 151 disagreed.
23:20 - Division on Amendment 152 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 198 - Amendment 152 disagreed.
23:33 - Division on Amendment 154 - Ayes: 141 / Noes: 205 - Amendment 154 disagreed.
23:47 - Division on Amendment 155 - Ayes: 128 / Noes: 212 - Amendment 155 disagreed.
00:00 - Division on Amendment 159 - Ayes: 124 / Noes: 199 - Amendment 159 disagreed.
00:28 - Division on Amendment 160 - Ayes: 144 / Noes: 101 - Amendment 160 agreed.
“Code of practice relating to non-criminal hate incidents
(1) The Secretary of State may issue a code of practice about the processing by a relevant person of personal data relating to a hate incident.(2) In this section “hate incident” means an incident or alleged incident which involves or is alleged to involve an act by a person (“the alleged perpetrator”) which is perceived by a person other than the alleged perpetrator to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic.(3) The provision that may be made by a code of practice under this section includes, in particular, provision about—(a) whether and how personal data relating to a hate incident should be recorded;(b) the persons who are to process such personal data;(c) the circumstances in which a data subject should be notified of the processing of such personal data;(d) the retention of such personal data, including the period for which it should be retained and the circumstances in which and the procedures by which that period might be changed;(e) the consideration by a relevant person of requests by the data subject relating to such personal data.(4) But a code of practice under this section must not make provision about—(a) the processing of personal data for the purposes of a criminal investigation, or (b) the processing of personal data relating to the alleged perpetrator of a hate incident at any time after they have been charged with an offence relating to the hate incident.(5) A code of practice under this section may make different provision for different purposes.(6) A relevant person must have regard to the code of practice that is for the time being in force under this section in processing personal data relating to a hate incident.(7) In this section—“data subject” has the meaning given by section 3(5) of the Data Protection Act 2018;“personal data” has the meaning given by section 3(2) of that Act;“processing” has the meaning given by section 3(4) of that Act.(8) In this section “relevant person” means—(a) a member of a police force in England and Wales,(b) a special constable appointed under section 27 of the Police Act 1996,(c) a member of staff appointed by the chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales,(d) a person designated as a community support volunteer or a policing support volunteer under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002,(e) an employee of the Common Council of the City of London who is under the direction and control of a chief officer of police,(f) a constable of the British Transport Police Force,(g) a special constable of the British Transport Police Force appointed under section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003,(h) an employee of the British Transport Police Authority appointed under section 27 of that Act,(i) a person designated as a community support volunteer or a policing support volunteer under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 as applied by section 28 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, or(j) a National Crime Agency officer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confers power on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice about the processing by the police of personal data relating to a hate incident other than for the purposes of a criminal investigation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 109B standing in my name is on the topic of non-crime hate incidents. In my opening remarks, I will also speak to the related government Amendment 109F. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for tabling amendments in Committee that related to ensuring that guidance on the recording of non-crime hate incidents, and the retention of personal data in relation to these incidents, was subject to parliamentary oversight.
The Government understand the strength of feeling of many noble Lords on this matter, and I am grateful to all who expressed their views during the debate on this topic on 1 November. Having listened to the compelling arguments, we have tabled Amendments 109B and 109F, which draw strongly from my noble friend’s amendment in Committee. I am very confident that the government amendments reflect the spirit of his proposals in his original amendment and address the House’s concerns in relation to this matter.
I reiterate that the collection of non-crime hate incident data is a key legacy of the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and is intended to give the police the means to understand tensions within communities before they escalate into serious harm. This data pertains to incidents which are not crimes. It can include location data, to know where repeat incidents of apparent tension and hostility may occur. In this respect, the data is vital for helping the police to build intelligence to understand where they must target resources to prevent serious crimes which may later occur.
The importance of such intelligence has been illustrated where it could have prevented real harm. The tragic case of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter, subjected to persistent abuse and in which the police failed to draw the links to repeated incidents of harassment until she felt forced to take her own life and the life of her daughter, is one such example. Of course, non-crime hate incidents may also include the collection of personal data. Some of these records will include an accusation of hate crime which has been made against a person but was not proven.
To address concerns relating to the collection of this data, the government amendments will ensure that the police’s processing of personal data in non-crime hate incident records is subject to a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary. The code will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, with its first iteration being subject to the affirmative procedure, with the negative procedure applying thereafter.
The College of Policing is currently responsible for producing non-statutory hate crime operational guidance for the police to follow when processing data on hate crimes and non-crime hate incidents. The statutory code of practice, once in effect, will replace the relevant section of this guidance on non-crime hate incidents. The college’s guidance will remain in place until the new code enters into effect.
The code will apply only to incidents which the police have designated to be non-crime hate incidents. Where the police are carrying out investigations with a view to there being a prosecution, or where they assess that a prosecution is likely, the code will not apply. It is vital to ensure that the code will not inhibit the police’s abilities to gather evidence that is fundamental to the role of policing. My noble friend’s original amendment included a similar exception. The code will also not apply to data which contains no personal data at all; for instance, location data would not be in scope.
Amendment 109B provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue the code and prescribes some of the key provisions that will be addressed in it. The amendment provides that the code may cover whether personal data relating to a hate incident should be recorded; the persons who are to process such personal data; the circumstances in which a data subject should be notified of the processing of such personal data; the retention of such personal data, including the period for which it should be retained; the circumstances in which, and the procedures by which, that period might be changed; and the consideration by a relevant person of requests by the data subject relating to such personal data. This is not an exhaustive list and it might be expanded or amended during the formulation of the code of practice or in the future.
The precise content of the code of practice will be decided at a later stage. The Government will work closely with policing partners, including the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, when drafting the code to ensure that it meets operational requirements. Decisions relating to existing non-crime hate incident data will also be decided in due course as the process of drafting the new code begins.
We will also ensure that the content of the code fully reflects the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Harry Miller v College of Policing case that was handed down on 20 December. The court found that the recording of NCHIs is lawful provided there are robust safeguards in place so that the interference with freedom of expression is proportionate. This is a very important point. The court did not consider that the recording of NCHI data was of itself unlawful; rather, it concluded that extra safeguards were necessary to ensure the protection of rights. The approach that the Government are adopting is absolutely in line with that. I can assure the House that this judgment will be reflected in the code.
As I said at the beginning, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for bringing this important issue to the Government’s attention. I hope that he will see that the Government have taken these issues very seriously. The government amendments will address a significant number of the concerns raised by bringing parliamentary oversight to this process and enabling the production of a code of practice that will respect the operational importance of the police recording non-crime hate incidents to help keep vulnerable people and communities safe, while balancing this with the need to protect freedom of expression.
My noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Blencathra have various amendments in this group, including to government Amendment 109B. It would be helpful to hear from them and other noble Lords before I respond. For now, I beg to move.
Amendment 109C
Lord Moylan
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for being a listening Minister and for the hard work she has put into bringing forward this amendment. She has explained what government Amendment 109B does. Essentially, it brings the guidance under which non-crime hate incident records are made by the police under statutory guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State. That is very welcome, but I have some questions to ask about the amendment and some points to make that appeared in my original amendment but do not figure in Amendment 109B.
The first is my Amendment 109C, which would make it mandatory for the Secretary of State to issue this guidance. That was the sense of the Committee when we debated it: that the Secretary of State should do this, not that the Secretary of State should have the option of doing it. But in the very first line of proposed new subsection (1) “may” appears, which I think should be “must”.
I will make it clear at this point that it is not my intention to press any of my amendments to a Division or to seek the opinion of the House, but I would like to hear my noble friend’s explanation of why “may” is, in her view, an appropriate word here when the sense of the Committee was that it should be “must”. The anxiety is not that the current Secretary of State will fail to issue the code of practice because, quite clearly, having brought forward the amendment it would be very strange if she did not act. The anxiety is that a future Secretary of State could, using “may”, revert to the status quo if they wished because there would be no obligation on them to maintain the code of practice. I would like to hear some assurance from my noble friend, and possibly even a word that she might bring forward this modest change at Third Reading.
My Amendment 109E affirms the importance of freedom of expression, especially in the light of the recent Court of Appeal decision in the Miller case. In the interests of brevity, I will not comment on this amendment further but leave it to more qualified noble Lords who might wish to comment on it after me, because I know that we have a very heavy day.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and to have put my name to his amendments both in Committee and here.
Those of us who put our names to these amendments, discussing the matter before Committee, had a number of concerns: first, the lack of any parliamentary oversight over a system in which the police were creating hate records against the names of people who had committed, it was agreed, no crime; secondly, that these records were categorised as hate incidents purely according to the perception of the complainant and that no other evidence or real inquiry was required; thirdly, that these records were disclosable in some circumstances, for example to potential employers, with all the damage that could imply for the subject of the record; and fourthly, and perhaps most importantly for some of us, that the creation of such records in such large numbers—some 120,000 over four years—without any effective oversight, and flowing from entirely lawful speech, would surely have a chilling effect on the exercise of free speech and therefore on public debate generally.
This is surely one of the most egregious potential consequences of such a process if it is not properly controlled. The case of Harry Miller demonstrates that, but there are many others, including that of a social worker called Rachel Meade who, the Times reported only last week, was facing disciplinary action and the sack for Facebook posts expressing gender-critical views. I observe that these have clearly been stated by the Court of Appeal to be protected beliefs under the Equality Act—so this is not a problem that has gone away.
The Minister mentioned the Harry Miller Court of Appeal judgment. I will quote from it briefly. The court said that
“the recording of non-crime hate incidents is plainly an interference with freedom of expression and knowledge that such matters are being recorded and stored in a police database is likely to have a serious ‘chilling effect’ on public debate.”
The court went on:
“The concept of a chilling effect in the context of freedom of expression is an extremely important one. It often arises in discussions about what if any restrictions on journalistic activity are lawful; but … it is equally important when considering the rights of private citizens to express their views within the limits of the law, including and one might say in particular, on controversial matters of public interest.”
This is why Amendment 109E is before your Lordships’ House. It is to assert the primary importance of the Home Secretary’s code of conduct when it is drafted, stressing—and, indeed, insisting on—a proper respect for the fundamentals of free expression whenever the police are considering recording a non-crime hate incident. Those of us who support this amendment do so because we believe it is so important in the protection of public debate and free expression rights generally that your Lordships should insist that the principle is enshrined in terms in the legislation. The Minister may argue that this is taken as read and that this amendment is in some way otiose. I say in response that experience to date demonstrates the exact opposite.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 109D to remove the negative procedure for all subsequent revisions of this guidance. I shall do that in my capacity as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, but first I want to make some brief comments in a personal capacity on this whole, in my view, iniquitous concept of innocent people being put on a criminal records database.
As other noble Lords have said, it seems that there are 120,000 people who have not committed any crime, have not been found guilty by a court of any description and yet are held on a database with other people who have been convicted of terrorism, paedophilia, rape, murder, armed robbery and every crime on our statute book. Some may argue that it is not really a criminal record, but if an employer asks for an enhanced criminal record check, the police hand over the names of innocent people whom the police have tried and convicted. I am not convinced that their system of control is as accurate as they claim it is.
If someone complains that they have encountered a hate incident—and we see a growing mountain of these bogus claims—the police investigate. Even when no crime has been committed, the police may decide that the person should be convicted of having done a non-crime hate incident—no magistrate, no proper judge, no jury, just the police.
I will now return to the amendment in front of us in my capacity as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee —your Lordships will be relieved to know that I am being relieved of that position on Wednesday of this week when a new chair is appointed. I welcome the Home Office taking responsibility for these guidelines. If we are going to put innocent people on a criminal records list, it must be done under regulations which have proper parliamentary scrutiny every time—as these will have, at least the first time they are made.
When the Court of Appeal in the Miller case announced that the College of Policing—not a statutory body but a private limited company, as we discussed last week—had produced and implemented partly unlawful guidance, the comment from an assistant chief constable at the college was:
“We will listen to, reflect on, and review this judgment carefully and make any changes that are necessary.”
That is all right then. There is no need to bother 650 MPs or 800 Peers; this assistant chief constable will write our laws. Thank goodness the Home Office realised that it is completely wrong for the liberty and reputation of the individual to be subject to rules written by a private limited company. Thus, I partly welcome—no, largely welcome—the Home Office amendment before us today, but I am afraid it adopts the usual ploy that the Delegated Powers Committee sees in so many Bills, namely the first-time affirmative ploy. This means that the Bill says that the first set of regulations will be made by the affirmative procedure but subsequent revisions will inevitably be minor and technical. Therefore, we need not worry our pretty little parliamentary heads about them and the negative procedure will suffice.
We have seen no evidence to suggest that any subsequent revisions to this guidance will be minor or technical. Indeed, they could be substantial. Suppose, in a hypothetical instance, that the first set of regulations stipulates that these records for non-crime shall be retained for two years. A year later the Home Office issues a revised set with just one word changed: delete “two years” and substitute “10 years” or “25 years”.
The Minister may say—we get this a lot from all departments—that Ministers have no intention whatever of doing that and in the Delegated Powers Committee we always say that the intention of the current Minister is irrelevant and what the law permits them to do is the only thing that matters.
This business of recording non-crimes is such a contentious matter that we suggest that the affirmative procedure must be used on every occasion. The net result of that will be that any time the guidance is revised a Minister—usually a Lords Minister as the Commons will probably bounce it through on the nod—may have to do a 90-minute debate in your Lordships’ House. It is not a very heavy burden to impose on the Government.
The Court of Appeal said:
“The net for ‘non-crime hate speech’ is an exceptionally wide one which is designed to capture speech which is perceived to be motivated by hostility ... regardless of whether there is evidence that the speech is motivated by such hostility … There is nothing in the guidance about excluding irrational complaints, including those where there is no evidence of hostility and little, if anything, to address the chilling effect which this may have on the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression.”
I simply say that so long as these rules remain, Parliament must approve all regulations on this matter, whether it is the first set of regulations, the second, the 10th or the 50th iteration of them.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, this is a contentious issue. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, may recall from his time in a previous role a report from the probation service called From Murmur to Murder—the noble Lord is nodding—when those in the probation service decided that they would engage with racist clients to challenge their abhorrent views, because of where it might lead.
From stalking to domestic violence, to murder motivated by hatred, including terrorism, we know that non-crime activity can provide indications of individuals’ journeys towards serious violence, but the recording of such intelligence must be subject to a statutory code of practice. I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in insisting on the affirmative procedure for any changes once the original guidance is issued. We welcome the government amendments and thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for raising the issue.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I begin by saying how grateful I am to my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford for the time that she has given me, and others, since the debate in Committee on 1 November and for bringing forward these amendments. Having said that, I have some observations to make, in particular about freedom of expression.
Events since the debate in November have made the need for proper regulation even more pressing. Since that debate, as we have heard, the Court of Appeal in Miller has stressed the danger of the chilling effect of police intervention on individuals minded to speak on controversial public topics. The president of the Queen’s Bench Division, in her very powerful judgment, said that the revised guidance published by the College of Policing, which was then before the court, did not
“go very far, or not nearly far enough to address the chilling effect of perception-based recording more generally.”
She emphasised that
“additional safeguards should be put in place so that the incursion into freedom of expression is no more than strictly necessary.”
Finally, she said:
“Guidance should truly reflect what the police are expected to do and should not mislead by omission either the police who have to use it or the public.”
At much the same time as that judgment was being written, a similar matter came before the court in Strasbourg—the case of Dr Pal. It was decided against the United Kingdom on 30 November 2021—just two months ago. Dr Pal, a journalist, was arrested, detained and charged with hate speech in respect of a person called AB. Only when it came to the magistrates’ court did the CPS abandon the prosecution. Dr Pal then brought proceedings for wrongful arrest, or false imprisonment. The Strasbourg court observed that the arresting officer’s decision to arrest
“appears to have been based on the subjective viewpoint of AB”—
that is, the complainant himself —
“without any acknowledgement of the fact that the right to freedom of expression extends to information or ideas that defend, shock or disturb.”
The court said that
“there is no evidence that the criteria … relevant to the balancing of the rights to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life … were taken into account prior to the applicant’s arrest. In particular, no consideration appears to have been given to the subject matter … and whether they could be said to have contributed to a debate of general interest.”
In short, there have been two important decisions from very senior courts which have stressed the vital importance of paying proper regard to freedom expression and to the need for those in authority to understand and reflect that the right to freedom of expression extends to ideas that may shock or disturb others. There must be fresh guidance, it must reflect those observations, it must be clear and decisive—and it must be soon.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing her two amendments, which we welcome. It was fair of her to point out the legacy of the recording of non-crime hate incidents and the legacy of the Macpherson report on Stephen Lawrence’s murder. We welcome that the existing guidance will be turned into statutory guidance. I have one question for the Minister: what is the likely timetable for that statutory guidance to be available to be reviewed by Parliament?
On Amendment 114E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I have a genuine question, and this is not a party-political point: how would his amendment have an impact on domestic abuse cases? As I have said before to the House, I sit as a magistrate in both family court and the criminal court, and I deal with a lot of cases related to domestic abuse. While non-hate crime incidents are not recorded on the police national computer, we see information on call-outs and it is common to see information on text records between the parties, usually a man and a woman. Sometimes those text records go on for pages and are relentlessly abusive. How would that information be affected by his amendment?
Lord Moylan (Con)
Without having myself looked at the wording of the amendment, the original wording, which I think is preserved in the current amendment, would have excluded disclosure in relation to individuals but not in relation to groups. In the context of the original amendment, therefore, I think that point would have been covered. The noble Lord makes a very good point, and if I were pressing the amendment or the Government were intending to take it forward in any way, of course it would need to be reviewed to ensure that his point was properly addressed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for setting out their amendments. I shall respond to them in turn. Amendment 109C seeks to impose a duty on the Home Secretary to issue a code of practice, while our amendment provides her with the power to do so. My noble friend Lord Moylan has pressed me on this issue. I assure the House that we certainly will issue such a code of practice; indeed, Home Office officials will shortly begin the process of drafting the aforementioned code. The permissible language in Amendment 109C is a common drafting approach but, as I have said, it is our firm intention to prepare and issue a code relating to non-crime hate incidents. As I said earlier, I can assure the House that decisions relating to existing non-crime hate incident data will also be made in due course as the process of drafting the new code begins.
My noble friend asked me if the College of Policing would pause the recording of NCHIs, as they are called, while the guidance was being formulated. The current non-statutory guidance on NCHIs will remain in place until the new code of practice enters into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about the timing of the amendment and when it would come into force. The reason why we have not issued a timescale is that the code will require careful drafting to ensure that it both meets the needs of the police and protects the public. Furthermore, as noble Lords will know, the Court of Appeal has only recently handed down its judgment in the Miller case and the code will have to account for that ruling. We do not wish to impose unduly restrictive timeframes on the process of drafting and publishing a code that will fully align with these objectives.
My noble friend has suggested, previously and again today, that a unit of some description could be set up to provide advice to police forces on whether specific incidents should be investigated by the police force as non-crime hate incidents. That suggestion requires further consideration, and I will try to give it my full consideration in due course.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra raised concerns that the amendments provide that the first iteration of the code is subject to the affirmative procedure, with the negative procedure applying thereafter. This point has been raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which he chairs so ably; I am sorry that he will be stepping down. We take the committee’s views very seriously. I will set out why we have adopted this approach.
As I have already indicated, in framing the code, we need to ensure that we have given effect to the ruling by the Court of Appeal in the Miller case. By ensuring that the first iteration is subject to the affirmative procedure, we are enabling both Houses expressly to approve the code, thus ensuring that this House can confirm that it is content that the code reflects that judgment.
It is appropriate that further iterations of the code are then subject to the negative procedure. We do not think there will be any further major rulings on the topic of non-crime hate incidents. Any further changes will thus simply reflect the routine need periodically to review such guidance. It would be disproportionate to require the affirmative procedure for every dot and comma change in further future iterations; indeed, the fundamental premise of the code will already have been expressly agreed by Parliament. We therefore do not believe that the affirmative procedure for future iterations would be an effective or necessary use of parliamentary time. I also confirm to my noble friend that we will respond to the DPRRC shortly.
Amendment 109E seeks to incorporate a specific reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression within the list of matters that may be addressed in the code. When discharging her functions, including preparing this new code of practice, the Home Secretary must already act in compatibility with convention rights; a number of noble Lords rightly asked about this. That includes Article 10, which ensures a right to freedom of expression. It is therefore not necessary to include a reference to the importance of the right to freedom of expression, because this is already a given under the Human Rights Act. None the less, I assure noble Lords that the code will address issues around freedom of expression. Indeed, in my opening remarks, I noted that we will ensure that the content of the code fully reflects the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Miller case.
Finally, Amendment 114E would prohibit the disclosure of non-crime hate incident personal data on an enhanced criminal record certificate. I cannot support such a blanket prohibition. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, illustrated one of the reasons why. First, non-crime hate incidents are simply one form of police intelligence that sit alongside many others—missing persons data, evidence of anti-social behaviour, unproven allegations of sexual assault and perhaps domestic abuse. They exist in line with the police’s common-law powers to prevent crime and keep the Queen’s peace. There are rightfully circumstances in which police non-conviction information of various kinds will be considered for disclosure in enhanced checks which are used in relation to roles involving close working with vulnerable adults or children. Maintaining this regime is essential for safeguarding purposes.
Secondly, the rules surrounding disclosure of this type of data are already governed by the statutory disclosure guidance produced by the Home Office. The third edition of this guidance came into force on 16 November last year. Non-crime hate incident intelligence is not an exceptional form of police intelligence; it is simply a type of non-crime incident data collected by the police to prevent crime. That is why it is covered in the same statutory guidance. The statutory disclosure guidance has been tested by the courts and assists chief officers of police in making fair, proportionate and consistent decisions in determining when local police information should be included in enhanced criminal record certificates. Singling out this category of police data for non-disclosure would be inconsistent with the principles set out in the statutory guidance and, as such, unnecessary and disproportionate.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, since the guidance was published before the Court of Appeal decision, the guidance on disclosure should at least be reviewed in the light of the court decision and the reference to “chilling effect”, to ensure that it is fully compatible? Since that was so much part of the debate in the Court of Appeal—not simply recording but also disclosure—would it not make sense to review it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend has jumped the gun on what I was going to say. We are confident that the statutory disclosure guidance, the latest version of which was published on 16 November, sets out clearly the criteria and principles which chief officers must have regard to in making decisions to disclose non-conviction information.
The safeguards in the statutory disclosure guidance are very robust. Should a chief officer consider that information ought to be disclosed in line with the guidance, the applicant is invited to make representations. Should the decision to disclose be confirmed following any representations given, that information will be included on the certificate that is sent to the applicant only. Importantly, the applicant also has a right to appeal that disclosure through the independent monitor, who considers cases where an individual believes that the information disclosed within an enhanced criminal records certificate is either not relevant to the workforce they are applying for or that it ought not to be disclosed.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
A question was asked earlier about what will happen to people who already have their information—what can we do about that? It is important that drafting takes time; in Committee I spoke about the problem of the drafting of these guidelines and said I wanted good drafting. But I was a bit concerned, as the Minister said that free speech is already protected by the Human Rights Act, but that does not console me because free speech is under attack. We have heard of many instances of where non-crime hate incidents are being used to chill free speech and this—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness that she should not be speaking if she did not speak before the Minister.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I did not understand that, and I apologise. The guidelines are reputation destroying and they need to be reviewed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
On Report, questions and interventions are generally for points of elucidation and the Back-Bencher will have spoken before the Minister. That aside, in terms of what happens to historic cases, I think that will be determined upon the updating of the guidance. I will write to noble Lords as I think it is an important point as there may be many examples of it. I will write to the noble Baroness and put a copy in the Library because it is an important point of clarification.
Getting back to what I was saying about the safeguards, it is important that they balance the rights of job applicants with those of the vulnerable people they might have contact with. This goes back again to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Alongside the existence of this strict statutory disclosure guidance, I can reassure noble Lords further. As I mentioned in the previous debate, DBS records suggest that, in any event, it is rare for non-crime police information of any sort to appear on an enhanced criminal records certificate supplied to a potential employer. This type of information featured in only 0.1% of the 3.9 million enhanced checks issued by the DBS between April 2019 and March 2020.
My noble friend has also, helpfully, raised with me before today whether the government amendment may encompass disclosure within its remit by referring to the processing of data. While the Home Secretary’s code will set out the rules for those who process NCHI data, there is no obligation for the code to address every conceivable act of processing. We have been clear that the Government’s intention is to not include disclosure within the code of practice; as such, the issue of disclosure will not be covered or referenced in any way in the code of practice.
It is imperative that we do not set an unhelpful precedent by legislating in such a way as to undermine the police’s ability to build intelligence on possible offending and risk to life more broadly. I stress again the often vital role that this data plays in helping to safeguard the vulnerable. It is not there to enforce correct opinions—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—nor is it there to serve a purpose unconnected with policing; rather, it is part of the police’s function to prevent crime.
In conclusion, again, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for raising these important issues. I hope that he can see that the Government have taken him very seriously; the government amendments, together with the assurances that I have given in response to Amendments 109C and 109E, will, I think, address the concerns raised, by bringing parliamentary oversight to this process while protecting fundamental police functions that are already subject to strong safeguards. I hope, therefore, that he will see fit not to press his amendment—he has indicated that he will not—and that he will support the government amendments as drafted. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, and for her reassurances, and I look forward to seeing the letter that she is going to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Further provision about a code of practice under section (Code of practice relating to non-criminal hate incidents)
(1) The Secretary of State may not issue a code of practice under section (Code of practice relating to non-criminal hate incidents) unless a draft of the code has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise and reissue a code of practice under section (Code of practice relating to non-criminal hate incidents).(3) Before reissuing a code of practice the Secretary of State must lay a draft of the code as proposed to be reissued before Parliament.(4) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the code of practice laid under subsection (3)—(a) the code is not to be reissued, and(b) the Secretary of State may prepare another code.(5) If no such resolution is passed within the 40-day period, the Secretary of State may reissue the code of practice.(6) In this section “the 40-day period” means—(a) the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament, or (b) if the draft is not laid before each House on the same day, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the days on which it is laid before Parliament.(7) In calculating the 40-day period no account is to be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than 4 days.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about the Parliamentary procedure applying to a code of practice issued by the Secretary of State under the new Clause in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 55 and dealing with codes of practice relating to non-criminal hate incidents.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Increase in penalty for offences related to game etc
(1) Section 1 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 (taking or destroying game or rabbits by night or entering land for that purpose) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (4).(2) The existing text becomes subsection (1).(3) In that subsection—(a) after “conviction” insert “to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks,”, and(b) for “not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale” substitute “or to both”.(4) After that subsection insert—“(2) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (1) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”(5) Section 30 of the Game Act 1831 (trespass in daytime in search of game etc) is amended in accordance with subsections (6) to (8).(6) The existing text becomes subsection (1).(7) In that subsection—(a) for the words from “conviction”, in the first place it occurs, to “seem meet”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “summary conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both”, and(b) for “each of the two offences” substitute “the offence”.(8) After that subsection insert—“(2) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (1) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”(9) In section 4A of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 (forfeiture of vehicles), in subsection (1), omit “as one of five or more persons liable under that section”.(10) The amendments made by this section have effect only in relation to offences committed on or after the day on which this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the penalty for committing an offence under section 1 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 (taking or destroying game or rabbits by night or entering land for that purpose) or under section 30 of the Game Act 1831 (trespass in daytime in search of game etc).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for bringing these important matters to the attention of the House. I declare an interest here, as I am a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which is a member of the hare-coursing coalition.
In Committee, many noble Lords emphasised the need for early action to crack down further on illegal hare coursing. We have heard eloquent testimony to the cruelty involved and the harm and distress which this activity can cause to rural communities. As we have made clear, the Government are determined to take action. That is why we are taking an early opportunity to act by tabling these government amendments, which, I trust, following on from the debate in Committee, will be widely welcomed. They address most of the issues raised by the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, go further by introducing additional measures besides. It may be helpful to the House if I briefly outline them.
The purpose of our amendments is to broaden the circumstances in which the police can investigate and bring charges for activity related to hare coursing and to increase the powers of the courts for dealing with this activity on conviction. They do this by increasing the severity of the penalties for the relevant offences under the game Acts; introducing new criminal offences relating to trespassing on land with the intention of searching for or pursuing a hare with a dog; and giving the courts new powers to make orders on conviction in relation to the reimbursement of the costs of kennelling seized and detained dogs and the disqualification of offenders from owning or keeping a dog.
Let me set out the effect of the government amendments in a little more detail. First, Amendment 109G will increase the maximum penalties for committing an offence under Section 1 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 or under Section 30 of the Game Act 1831, and will remove the current difference in the maximum penalty that can apply, based on the number of people involved in committing the offence. These are offences most often used to prosecute hare-coursing-related activity, and it is therefore important that the courts should have available to them sentences appropriate to the severity of the harms which can be caused by such activity. In all cases, therefore, the maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine and/or—for the first time—a custodial sentence of up to six months’ imprisonment.
Connected to this, we will also amend Section 4A of the Game Laws (Amendment) Act 1960 to give the court powers to order the forfeiture of a vehicle used in cases where fewer than five people are involved in committing an offence. That is important because of the essential role of vehicles in hare-coursing-related activity.
Turning now from existing to new law, Amendment 109H creates new offences relating to trespassing on land: specifically, trespass with the intention of using a dog to search for or to pursue a hare; facilitating or encouraging the use of a dog to search for or to pursue a hare; or enabling another person to observe the use of a dog to search for or to pursue a hare.
Amendment 109J provides for a further new offence of “being equipped” to commit one of these new trespass- related offences that I have just described. It will therefore be an offence for a person to have an article with them, when not at a dwelling, with the intention that it will be used in the course of, or in connection with, the commission by any person of the new trespass-related offence. These new offences will be punishable by an unlimited fine and/or up to six months’ imprisonment. The purpose of this new “being equipped” offence is to provide a basis for bringing charges in circumstances where someone possesses articles that are associated with hare-coursing and there is clear intention to engage in that activity but there is no element of trespass, because, for example, they are on the public highway. Together, these new offences are designed to increase the circumstances in which hare-coursing-related activity can be investigated and prosecuted. They have been developed in consultation with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and welcomed by them as a useful supplement to the legislation currently available.
I turn next to measures relating to the dogs used in hare-coursing. Amendments 109KA, 109L, 109M, 109N, 109PA and 109R strengthen the powers of the courts to make orders in relation to those convicted of certain hare-coursing-related offences. Dogs are a key element in hare-coursing-related activity, and these orders play an important part in addressing the availability of dogs for such activity.
First, Amendment 109KA provides for the court to order the recovery of kennelling costs incurred where a dog has been lawfully seized and detained in connection with certain hare-coursing-related offences. Kennelling costs can be very high. By providing for their reimbursement, we are seeking to reduce obstacles to the lawful seizure and detention of dogs used in connection with hare-coursing-related activity by the police. Such a recovery order can be made by the court whether or not it deals with the offender in any other way, such as through a fine or custodial sentence.
Secondly, Amendments 109L, 109M, 109N, 109PA and 109R provide new powers for the court relating to owning and keeping a dog. The court will be able to make a disqualification order on conviction, for such period of time as it thinks fit, preventing an offender owning and/or keeping a dog where they have been convicted of certain hare-coursing-related offences involving dogs. The amendments relating to dog disqualification orders contain provisions that aim to ensure their fair and effective operation. These include requirements and powers relating to the disposal of dogs, to termination of the orders and to safeguarding the rights of owners who are not the offender.
As many have noted, dogs are central to hare-coursing-related activity. The introduction of orders relating to dog disqualification therefore goes to the heart of the problem by making it possible to remove from convicted offenders access to a means of further offending. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel content that the government amendments substantially deliver his ambitions in relation to hare-coursing and that, on this basis, he and other noble Lords would be content to support the government amendments. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. It is a great delight to stand in the House and congratulate the Government on tabling these amendments to address this very serious rural problem of hare-coursing, which has affected so many landowners and farmers across these islands. In particular, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who really listened to the debate, when people from every part of the Chamber spoke. I know that he has taken that back to others. I am hugely grateful to him for doing that.
I know that this is something that the Government were keen to do and that the consultations with Defra and others were ongoing during the passage of the Bill, so I am grateful that we will not see the delay we thought we would face and that we can offer protection to rural communities and, indeed, hares. I will not say much about the actual amendments—they have been laid out already before us—but I note that the changes the Government are bringing forward are the result of a long-running campaign. I pay tribute to organisations such as the NFU, the CLA and others, which have continually raised this issue and campaigned for a change in the law.
I also pay tribute to our rural police forces and our rural police and crime commissioners. I have been speaking to those in my area who work in my diocese, and this has been a real issue for them. It has been very helpful that they have provided input and feedback on the sort of legislative changes that would be most useful to assist them to be more assiduous in combating hare-coursing. I hope these amendments will go a long way to assist the police to do this.
Of course, there will be some other problems beyond the legislative changes, such as with local police resources and their ability to arrive on time and in sufficient numbers to deal with it. That being said, this is a victory for rural communities, rural police forces, hares and, I believe, Her Majesty’s Government; I strongly welcome it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I commend the government amendments, and congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his successful campaigning and all those behind it. It is great that we are seeing an awareness of the huge issues around wildlife crime, but this is very much a piecemeal approach, addressing one small element of wildlife crime, as important as it is. As the right reverend Prelate said, this is about the welfare of hares, as well as what is happening to people living in the countryside.
I ask the Minister—if he cannot respond now, I would appreciate a response by letter—whether the Government are considering doing something about the welfare of hares, particularly those being caught in spring and snare traps. There is a particular issue around Fenn traps approached by tunnels. There is guidance that says they should be restricted in size to the target species, but there is no legal provision on that. I am afraid there is some very disturbing documentation of hares, and pieces of hares, being found in such traps, and in Perdix traps. Think about what happens to an animal trapped by a paw and left to die, possibly for days, in terror and pain; I hope that that is something the Government are thinking about dealing with.
Briefly, on the wider issue of wildlife crime, I point any noble Lords interested in this to the Wildlife and Countryside Link’s annual report—there have been four of them now—on wildlife crime. It is the only summary available on the scale of the problem. As pointed out by that organisation, which is a coalition of 64 groups around the country, there is currently no recording of wildlife crime as a special category by the Home Office. That group is campaigning for that to happen. I hope the Minister might think about taking action on that.
Finally, we have a very solid law against the persecution of raptors, but we have to think about the use and application of that law, given that 60 hen harriers have been killed illegally or disappeared under suspicious circumstances on and around grouse moors since 2018.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his success in persuading the Government to change the rather difficult attitude they had in Committee towards his amendment. I also congratulate my noble friend on the Front Bench on his work in getting these amendments on the Order Paper. Amendment 109H refers to hares, but if somebody is accused of searching for or pursuing a hare and defends himself by saying, “Actually, it was a rabbit I was after”, what action can be taken? Does the word “etc” in the title of the new clause,
“pursue hares with dogs, etc”
cover the case of hares, squirrels or any other excuse that somebody might have?
I also follow the right reverend Prelate in congratulating and paying tribute to our police forces, who have a very difficult time. They will be at the sharp end of seizing and detaining dogs. Can my noble friend assure me that those who go in to seize and detain dogs will be given adequate protection? The people they are dealing with are some very nasty criminals, where high-money stakes are being played for, and in many cases they will stop at virtually nothing in order to get the dogs back, so the protection of those who go in to do that work is very important.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome these amendments, although, considering that the Government’s Action Plan for Animal Welfare, published early last year, said that the Government would bring in legislation to crack down on the illegal practice of hare coursing, it was a little disappointing that this was not included in the Bill from the very start. We too offer our congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on his sterling work in bringing forward amendments and continuing to press the Government on this issue. Also, as he and others have done, we praise organisations such as the NFU and CLA for their campaigning over many years on this issue. Also, the police: alongside the other issues noble Lords have spoken about, can the Minister confirm that the police will have the resources they need, not just financial but with numbers of wildlife officers, which is a problem? But, as I say, we welcome these amendments; it is good that our brown hare populations and our rural communities can now be better protected from this really barbaric practice.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their warm words, and in particular the right reverend Prelate for his—they are much appreciated. I also join in the general congratulations from around the House on the operations and the work of police forces, in particular—although it is always invidious to single anybody out—Lincolnshire police, who have been leading on Operation Galileo. In answer to the specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, I cannot comment on police staffing, but I am sure that rural police forces will warmly welcome these amendments and take the appropriate measures.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Caithness, the decision to prosecute is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. In line with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, prosecutors considering whether to prosecute for any offence must consider whether the evidence can be used and is reliable and must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
In the circumstances my noble friend outlines, and depending on the available evidence, if the CPS is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of conviction for the offence of trespassing on land with the intention of using a dog to search for or pursue a hare, it could still make a decision to prosecute for an offence under Section 30 of the Game Act 1831 or Section 1 of the Night Poaching Act 1828. These are not specific to hares but apply to any game and, in most circumstances, rabbits. Through these amendments these offences would carry the same penalties as the new trespass offence.
My noble friend’s second question was about who will keep the dogs under the offences outlined in Amendment 109. Again, it will be the court to decide, in making an order under Amendment 109M, who should keep the dogs. We would expect this usually to be the police or an animal welfare organisation. They do work closely together on such matters. The welfare of the dogs is obviously paramount. The police have made it clear that it will be a priority to ensure that dogs remain secure and protected at all times.
I cannot, I am afraid, answer the specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about traps. I am sure she is not particularly surprised about that. But I do warmly welcome her contribution to this wildlife-related debate.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc
(1) A person commits an offence if they trespass on land with the intention of—(a) using a dog to search for or to pursue a hare,(b) facilitating or encouraging the use of a dog to search for or to pursue a hare, or (c) enabling another person to observe the use of a dog to search for or to pursue a hare.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the trespass mentioned in that subsection.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both.(4) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (3) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence of trespassing on land with the intention of using a dog to search for or to pursue a hare or with the intention of facilitating, encouraging or enabling another person to observe the use of a dog to search for or to pursue a hare.
“Being equipped for searching for or pursuing hares with dogs etc
(1) A person commits an offence if they have an article with them in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it will be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under section (Trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc) (trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc).(2) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1), proof that the person had with them any article made or adapted for use in committing an offence under section (Trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc) is evidence that the person had it with them with the intention that it would be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under that section.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both.(4) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (3) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.(5) In this section—“article” includes a vehicle and, except in subsection (2), an animal;“dwelling” means—(a) a building or structure which is used as a dwelling, or(b) a part of a building or structure, if the part is used as a dwelling,and includes any yard, garden, garage or outhouse belonging to and used with a dwelling.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence where a person has an article with them in a place other than a dwelling with the intention that it will be used in the course of or in connection with the commission by any person of an offence under the new Clause in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 55 and relating to trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Recovery order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs
(1) This section applies where—(a) a person is convicted of an offence within subsection (5) which was committed on or after the day on which this section comes into force,(b) a dog was used in or was present at the commission of the offence, and(c) the dog was lawfully seized and detained in connection with the offence.(2) The court may make an order (a “recovery order”) requiring the offender to pay all the expenses incurred by reason of the dog’s seizure and detention.(3) Any sum required to be paid under subsection (2) is to be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were a fine imposed on conviction.(4) Where a recovery order is available for an offence, the court may make such an order whether or not it deals with the offender in any other way for the offence.(5) The following offences are within this subsection—(a) an offence under section 1 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 (taking or destroying game or rabbits by night or entering land for that purpose);(b) an offence under section 30 of the Game Act 1831 (trespass in daytime in search of game etc);(c) an offence under section (Trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc) (trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc);(d) an offence under section (Being equipped for searching for or pursuing hares with dogs etc) (being equipped for searching for or pursuing hares with dogs etc).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a court to order an offender to pay for the costs of seizing and detaining a dog where the dog has been lawfully seized and detained in connection with certain offences involving dogs.
“Disqualification order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs
(1) This section applies where—(a) a person is convicted of an offence within subsection (9) which was committed on or after the day on which this section comes into force, and(b) a dog was used in or was present at the commission of the offence.(2) The court may make an order (a “disqualification order”) disqualifying the offender, for such period as the court thinks fit, from—(a) owning dogs,(b) keeping dogs, or(c) both.(3) The disqualification order may specify a period during which the offender may not make an application under section (Termination of disqualification order) to terminate the order.(4) The court may, where it appears to the court that the offender owns or keeps a dog, suspend the operation of the disqualification order for such period as it thinks necessary for enabling alternative arrangements to be made in respect of the dog. (5) Where a court makes a disqualification order, it must—(a) give its reasons for making the order in open court, and(b) cause them to be entered in the register of its proceedings.(6) A person who breaches a disqualification order commits an offence.(7) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.(8) Where a disqualification order is available for an offence, the court may make such an order whether or not it deals with the offender in any other way for the offence.(9) The following offences are within this subsection—(a) an offence under section 1 of the Night Poaching Act 1828 (taking or destroying game or rabbits by night or entering land for that purpose);(b) an offence under section 30 of the Game Act 1831 (trespass in daytime in search of game etc);(c) an offence under section (Trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc) (trespass with intent to search for or to pursue hares with dogs etc);(d) an offence under section (Being equipped for searching for or pursuing hares with dogs etc) (being equipped for searching for or pursuing hares with dogs etc).(10) In section 171 of the Sentencing Code (offences relating to animals), after subsection (2) insert—“(3) See section (Disqualification order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (disqualification order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs) for orders relating to disqualification in the case of offences involving dogs under that Act, the Night Poaching Act 1828 and the Game Act 1831.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a court to make a disqualification order preventing an offender from owning or keeping a dog where the offender is convicted of certain offences involving dogs.
“Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order
(1) Where, on a court making a disqualification order, it appears to the court that the person to whom the order applies owns or keeps a dog contrary to the order, the court may order that the dog be taken into possession.(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section (Disqualification order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs) (6) by reason of owning or keeping a dog in breach of a disqualification order, the court by which the person is convicted may order that all dogs owned or kept in breach of the order be taken into possession.(3) An order under subsection (1) or (2), so far as relating to any dog owned by the person to whom the disqualification order applies, must make provision for disposal of the dog.(4) Any dog taken into possession in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) or (2) that is not owned by the person subject to the disqualification order is to be dealt with in such manner as an appropriate court may order.(5) But an order under subsection (4) may not provide for the dog to be—(a) destroyed, or(b) disposed of for the purposes of vivisection.(6) A court may not make an order for disposal of the dog under subsection (4) unless— (a) it has given the owner of the dog an opportunity to be heard, or(b) it is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to communicate with the owner.(7) Where a court makes an order under subsection (4) for the disposal of the dog, the owner of the dog may appeal against the order to the Crown Court.(8) In this section—“appropriate court” means—(a) the magistrates’ court which made the order under subsection (1) or (2), or(b) another magistrates’ court acting for the same local justice area as that court;“disqualification order” has the same meaning as in section (Disqualification order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs).(9) In this section references to disposing of a dog do not include—(a) destroying it, or(b) disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a court to make an order for a dog to be taken into possession where a person owns or keeps the dog in contravention of a disqualification order made under the new Clause in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 55 and relating to disqualification orders on conviction for certain offences involving dogs.
“Termination of disqualification order
(1) A person who is subject to a disqualification order may apply to an appropriate court for the order to be terminated.(2) No application under subsection (1) may be made—(a) before the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which the disqualification order was made,(b) where a previous application under that subsection has been made in relation to the same order, before the end of the period of one year beginning with the date on which the previous application was determined, or(c) before the end of any period specified under section (Disqualification order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs) (3), or subsection (5), in relation to the order.(3) On an application under subsection (1), the court may—(a) terminate the disqualification order,(b) vary the order so as to make it less onerous, or(c) refuse the application.(4) When determining an application under subsection (1), the court is to have regard to—(a) the character of the applicant,(b) the applicant’s conduct since the disqualification order was made, and(c) any other relevant circumstances.(5) Where the court refuses an application under subsection (1) or varies a disqualification order on such an application, it may specify a period during which the applicant may not make a further application under that subsection in relation to the order concerned.(6) The court may order an applicant to pay all or part of the costs of an application.(7) In this section—“appropriate court” means—(a) the magistrates’ court which made the disqualification order, or (b) another magistrates’ court acting for the same local justice area as that court;“disqualification order” has the same meaning as in section (Disqualification order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision in relation to the termination or variation of a disqualification order made under the new Clause in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 55 and relating to disqualification orders on conviction for certain offences involving dogs.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Section (Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order): supplementary
(1) The court by which an order under section (Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order) is made may—(a) appoint a person to carry out, or arrange for the carrying out of, the order;(b) require any person who has possession of a dog to which the order applies to deliver it up to enable the order to be carried out;(c) give directions with respect to the carrying out of the order;(d) confer additional powers (including power to enter premises where a dog to which the order applies is being kept) for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying out of the order;(e) order the person who committed the offence in relation to which the order was made, or another person, to reimburse the expenses of carrying out the order.(2) A person who fails to comply with a requirement imposed under subsection (1)(b) commits an offence.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.(4) Directions under subsection (1)(c) may—(a) specify the manner in which a dog is to be disposed of, or(b) delegate the decision about the manner in which a dog is to be disposed of to a person appointed under subsection (1)(a).(5) In determining how to exercise its powers under section (Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order) and this section the court is to have regard (amongst other things) to—(a) the desirability of protecting the value of any dog to which the order under section (Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order) applies, and(b) the desirability of avoiding increasing any expenses which a person may be ordered to reimburse.(6) In determining how to exercise a power delegated under subsection (4)(b), a person is to have regard, amongst other things, to the things mentioned in subsection (5)(a) and (b).(7) If the owner of a dog ordered to be disposed of under section (Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order) is subject to a liability by virtue of subsection (1)(e), any amount to which the owner is entitled as a result of sale of the dog may be reduced by an amount equal to that liability.(8) Any sum ordered to be paid under subsection (1)(e) is to be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were a fine imposed on conviction.(9) In this section references to disposing of a dog do not include—(a) destroying it, or(b) disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment contains supplementary provisions in relation to a court making an order under the new clause in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 55 and relating to seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification orders.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Disqualification orders: appeals
(1) Nothing may be done under an order under section (Disqualification order on conviction for certain offences involving dogs) or (Seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification order) with respect to a dog unless—(a) the period for giving notice of appeal against the order has expired,(b) the period for giving notice of appeal against the conviction on which the order was made has expired, and(c) if the order or conviction is the subject of an appeal, the appeal has been determined or withdrawn.(2) Where the effect of an order is suspended under subsection (1)—(a) no requirement imposed or directions given in connection with the order have effect, but(b) the court may give directions about how any dog to which the order applies is to be dealt with during the suspension.(3) Directions under subsection (2)(b) may, in particular—(a) authorise the dog to be taken into possession;(b) authorise the dog to be cared for either on the premises where it was being kept when it was taken into possession or at some other place;(c) appoint a person to carry out, or arrange for the carrying out of, the directions;(d) require any person who has possession of the dog to deliver it up for the purposes of the directions;(e) confer additional powers (including power to enter premises where the dog is being kept) for the purpose of, or in connection with, the carrying out of the directions;(f) provide for the recovery of any expenses in relation to the removal or care of the dog which are incurred in carrying out the directions.(4) A person who fails to comply with a requirement imposed under subsection (3)(d) commits an offence.(5) A person guilty an offence under subsection (4) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (6) Any sum directed to be paid under subsection (3)(f) is to be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were a fine imposed on conviction.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision in connection with appeals in relation to orders made under the new clauses in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 55 and relating to disqualification orders on conviction for certain offences involving dogs and seizure and disposal of dogs in connection with disqualification orders.
“Urgent review of offences under section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a review into the prevalence of, and the response of the criminal justice system to, the offence of administering a substance with intent under section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed.(2) A review under this section must consider—(a) incidence rates and rates of reporting by victims;(b) charging and prosecution rates for the offence;(c) the adequacy of sentencing guidelines for the offence;(d) the adequacy of police investigations into reports of the offence;(e) reoffending rates, and rates of offenders who commit one or more other sexual offences following a charge or sentence for administering a substance with intent;(f) the impact of the offence on victims.(3) A report on the findings of the review under this section, and any associated recommendations, must be published within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.(4) Where a report is published under subsection (3) a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House of Parliament on the contents of the report and associated recommendations.(5) Within three months of a report being published under subsection (3) a Minister of the Crown must make a statement to each House of Parliament on action that has been taken in response to recommendations made.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment was debated on Wednesday, so I intend to speak very briefly to it. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the Government to set up a review of drinks spiking and needle spiking in pubs and clubs. In her response, the Minister said that the Home Secretary has asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to review the scale of needle spiking. My amendment is very modest; all it does is require the Government to go one step further and set up a review of this practice, about which there is much public concern. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Rosser
“Accountability of public authorities: duties on police workforce
(1) Members of the police workforce have a duty at all times to act within their powers—(a) in the public interest, and(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.(2) Members of the police workforce have a duty to assist court proceedings, official inquiries and investigations—(a) relating to their own activities, or(b) where their acts or omissions are or may be relevant.(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), members of the police workforce must—(a) act with proper expedition,(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,(c) act without favour to their own position,(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), members of the police workforce must have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation, but are not limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation.(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) are subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security.(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) are enforceable—(a) by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or(b) by the court or inquiry of its own motion, or(c) where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would establish a duty of candour on members of the police workforce.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 114C would place a statutory duty of candour on members of the police workforce. It would create a duty on law enforcement to act at all times in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness, and to assist in court proceedings, official inquiries and investigations where the activities of members of the police workforce, including omissions, may be relevant. The issue was discussed at some length in Committee and I certainly do not intend to repeat all that was said then.
In his 2017 report on the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families, Bishop James Jones proposed a duty of candour to address
“the unacceptable behaviour of police officers—serving or retired—who fail to cooperate fully with investigations into alleged criminal offences or misconduct.”
In June 2021, the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which I believe took eight years to report, found:
“There was not insignificant obstruction to the Panel’s work … the Metropolitan Police did not approach the Panel’s scrutiny with candour, in an open, honest and transparent way”.
The panel recommended
“the creation of a statutory duty of candour, to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve”.
The chair of the panel, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said in this House that
“the creation of the duty of candour in matters such as this is vital for the integrity and effectiveness of policing”.—[Official Report, 22/6/21; col. 134.]
Last June, the Government told us in this House that they were still considering the duty of candour in response to Bishop James Jones’s report four years earlier. We now have before us a flagship home affairs and justice Bill from this Government, which prioritises new offences against those who protest but is silent on the failures of justice highlighted in the Bishop Jones report and by the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel and the resulting call, both in the report and by the panel, for the statutory duty of candour provided for in this amendment. It is time for action and a decision, and an end to this seemingly never-ending continuing government consideration of this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I have added my name to this amendment for four reasons. First, the need is clear: we need complete protection of victims and the public interest, and to make certain that recalcitrant are no longer able to delay. Secondly, the duty of candour is clear: there is no doubt about what it entails. Thirdly, the remedies provided in the proposed new clause are extensive and proportionate. Finally, there can be no reason for delay. Why does it need consultation? It does not. The proposed new clause and the need are clear; we should pass this amendment.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for tabling this amendment.
Briefly, a duty of candour would bring about a change of mindset and culture by requiring openness and transparency about what has happened in investigations. It would lead to a more efficient deployment of resources, which would have a beneficial impact on the public purse. It could very much help to contradict allegations of police corruption and will grow confidence in the leadership of the police service because there would be a statutory obligation of openness and transparency, and therefore an assumption there would be compliance with the law rather than a suspicion of cover-up or, even worse, corruption. The amendment is framed to protect all necessary matters but to enable a different positive approach to the delivery of policing. I support the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I welcome that the opposition is united in support of this amendment.
The police have failed to own up to many of their mistakes. I personally have experienced police evasion, police spying and police deceit. It beggars belief that there is no duty of candour on our police force already. It actually imposes their own idea of what the law says and this is completely wrong, so I very much support this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as a former police officer, I must tell the House that leaving the failure to abide by such a duty of candour to the police misconduct process, as the Government are asking us to do, is inadequate, as the decision on whether to investigate or take misconduct proceedings will be left in the hands of the police themselves.
If it is in the interest of the police that something is covered up, they will not investigate and they will not take action against the officers responsible. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, has just explained, her experience of the inquiry into the Daniel Morgan murder demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt the need for this amendment, and we support it.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I have not thought an awful lot about this, but the principle, which seems unarguable, is that police officers should have a duty of candour. They are not the only ones who should; many other groups might want to adopt a similar approach, but so far as the police service is concerned, which is what this amendment is about, it is rather unarguable. How it works ought to be clearly thought through, which I guess is why the Government are consulting on it. The only question I had, which I have just discussed briefly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is how this would work with the criminal disclosure process and how that would impact on any ongoing prosecution or, obviously, any separate public inquiry. However, that is a matter of implementation rather than of principle. In general terms, I see no reason why it should not be implemented for the police; perhaps others may consider it too.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, one of the challenges we faced was that the police were investigating the police—they were marking their own homework. Although Kent Police did a fantastic job, nevertheless there were areas where they could not quite press hard enough. They were very good in what they did, but it was not adequate, and therefore we proposed in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry that, whenever there is an incident, it should be investigated by an independent body.
This amendment would enhance that on the whole question of duty of candour. Again, during that inquiry we were given all the papers. There was no hidden stuff, so for that I must again congratulate the Met. However, this amendment is vital in order to support independent police inquiries, whenever there are areas of great concern. I hope nobody sees this as either intrusive or doubting that most of our police forces really want to do the best for their communities and places. Nevertheless, a duty of candour would impose a very good way of saying what concerns some people about the police, so I support the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, for affording us this further opportunity to debate the case for a statutory duty of candour. They have rightly highlighted the importance of the police’s openness and transparency, which is a very serious matter. It is at the heart of public confidence in policing and ensures that the police are held to the highest standards; this is crucial to maintaining that confidence.
As I did in Committee, I start by highlighting the extensive work that has already been done and is ongoing to improve integrity and openness in policing. Back in February 2020, we introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for serving police officers as part of wider integrity reforms. This duty forms part of the standards of professional behaviour set out in Schedule 2 to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 and, in so doing, has the force of law. It is worth quoting in full the relevant paragraph:
“Police officers have a responsibility to give appropriate cooperation during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings, participating openly and professionally in line with the expectations of a police officer when identified as a witness.”
A failure to co-operate in this way constitutes a breach of the statutory standards of professional behaviour, by which all officers must abide, and could therefore result in a formal disciplinary sanction. I put it to the House at this point that this duty to co-operate puts a greater onus on officers than the duty of candour provided for in this amendment, as they could ultimately be dismissed for a breach.
The duty to co-operate has been introduced since the issues that were highlighted in the Bishop James Jones report concerning the bereaved Hillsborough families’ experiences, and the issues relating to the work of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, which were later highlighted in its report. We are keen that this duty becomes fully embedded within the police workforce. The recently announced inquiry, chaired by the right honourable Dame Elish Angiolini QC, will provide a further test of this duty.
In addition to the standards of professional behaviour, the College of Policing’s code of ethics delivers a set of policing principles and ensures that ethics are at the centre of all policing decisions. The college is currently reviewing the code and intends to further promote a policing culture of openness and accountability. The Government are confident that the work of the college will ensure that candour is directly addressed through this review.
Noble Lords will be aware that a response to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel and Bishop James Jones report concerning the bereaved Hillsborough families’ experiences will provide a government view on a wider duty of candour for all public authorities. Before the Government respond to these reports, it is clearly imperative that the Hillsborough families are given the opportunity to share their views. We hope that this happens as soon as is practicable.
Bishop James’s report also encouraged public bodies to sign the proposed charter for bereaved families. This has now been signed by the NPCC, on behalf of police forces, so that the perspective of the bereaved families is never lost. The charter commits forces to acting with candour, and in an open, honest, and transparent way, when facing public scrutiny, for example through public inquiries.
Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the decision on disciplinary action is not just for forces. Of course, the IOPC can also call it in.
In conclusion, we believe that the existing legislation requiring officers to co-operate already amounts to a duty of candour, and this is complemented by the further commitments that policing has made to transparency and openness. That being the case—
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
The Minister has described a duty of co-operation, which is not the same as the duty described by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others, in the amendment. It is not fair to explain that they are the same and that a duty of co-operation goes further than a duty of candour. They are two different duties and the obligation to comply with charters and standards is very different from the obligation to comply with the statutory duty.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was making the point that, in some ways, the duty of co-operation goes further because of the sanctions afforded to it, though I know that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, for whom I have the greatest respect, disagrees with me.
Regarding an officer resigning or retiring, if he or she is found to have committed gross misconduct, the chair of proceedings can decide that they would have been dismissed if they had not already left the force, so leaving the force is no longer a way out, since this automatically places the officer on the College of Policing’s barred list, preventing them from working in policing again.
I know that the noble Baroness does not agree, but I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment, although I am not sure that he will.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for adding their names to the amendment. I also thank the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government, for the Government’s response.
The fact that we are now four years on from Bishop James Jones’s report and the Government are still considering their response to the call for a duty of candour simply indicates what a relatively low priority this issue must be for the Government. The Government said in Committee, and indeed the Minister repeated it today, that:
“The Government have already made significant changes to ensure that officers can be disciplined if they mislead the public, and we are committed to properly consider and respond to the recommendations for a duty of candour, as highlighted in Bishop James Jones’s report.”—[Official Report, 3/11/21; col. 1255.]
In the light of what the Government have just had to say, which appears to be that they think that the steps they have taken are more significant than a duty of candour, there must surely now be a real likelihood that the Government will eventually decide against a statutory duty of candour, deciding that internal disciplinary codes and practices are sufficient, when, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and others have said, they clearly are not. We now have a statutory duty of candour in the National Health Service.
I conclude by quoting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in Committee, on 3 November 2021, which can be read in Hansard:
“The statutory duty of candour is vital not just to affect the culture of the police and enhance public confidence in policing but to give confidence to those police officers who face enormous internal pressures from their colleagues not to be candid. They need support; they need a statutory regime they can point to in order to justify to their colleagues what is required.”—[Official Report, 3/11/21; col. 1253.]
I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“Training on stalking
The Secretary of State must seek to ensure that every professional in the criminal justice system, including staff of the Crown Prosecution Service, probation officers, police officers, and other relevant public officials involved in any investigation or legal proceedings involving stalking, has attended and completed relevant specialist training.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to promote the early identification of stalking, and better investigation and prosecution of the crime, by requiring the Government to implement the adoption of specialised stalking training for relevant public officials which is currently not mandated.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I start by thanking several noble Baronesses who, for many years, have been trying to persuade Her Majesty’s Government to address stalking and understand it rather better than we have done hitherto. In no particular order, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall, Lady Brinton—who we will be hearing from in a minute—and Lady Newlove, and pay tribute to them for their persistence.
This is a simple and brief amendment, designed to ensure that the many agencies and individuals that encounter different forms of stalking know better what it is they are dealing with. There are two key messages that we need to take on board. The first is that stalking is carried out in England and Wales on an industrial scale. There were 1.5 million victims of stalking in 2019-20 in England and Wales. Only 0.1% of those instances resulted in a conviction. Around 77% of that 1.5 million experienced an average of over 100 stalking incidents before they actually plucked up the courage to report it to the police. For those noble Lords of a mathematical bent, 77% of 1.5 million is not a million miles away from 1 million, and if you multiply that by 100, you start to get some sense of the scale of what we are talking about. It is staggering.
The second point that it would be helpful to take on board is the complexity of stalking. Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists have developed the “stalking risk profile”, the authoritative tool used to understand and codify the different types of stalking. It outlines five different stalker types, and I shall briefly take noble Lords through them and explain why as I do it.
The five types are broken down by the prevalence of each in a clinical setting. What is relevant for today’s amendment is not the first and predominant stalker type, known as the rejected stalker, which has the highest prevalence of violence and will pursue the victim, often a former partner, for either reconciliation or revenge. The rejected stalker type is responsible for 54% of stalking incidents—by a strange coincidence, almost exactly the estimated amount of stalking incidents that are domestic-abuse related.
How about the other 46%? Before I go on to that, I pay tribute to the Government, the NPCC and College of Policing for the new national framework for delivery for policing violence against women and girls announced by Maggie Blyth last month. It is genuinely a very positive leap forward for dealing with stalking, primarily domestic stalking. However, even domestic abuse stalking is complex. Alongside the framework, as you can see on the College of Policing website, is a document called the “framework toolkit”, which breaks down by type of incident all the different types of stalking and harassment that are likely to take place; it then subdivides them into the myriad different laws and types of guidance that the police should consider when trying to work out what type of stalking incident this is. I am a lay man and I know a certain amount about it, but my observation would be that, in many cases, one would require a PhD in criminology to follow the decision tree of all the ways in which one might respond to an incident, and how best to deal with it.
What about the other four stalker types? We have the resentful stalker, which is about 15% of that 1.5 million. They often have a deliberate intent to cause fear or distress to a victim in response to perceived mistreatment. Legal sanctions often exacerbate their behaviour, and they frequently require psychiatric treatment. I would venture to guess that the resentful stalker is in many cases responsible for the shameful incidents that we hear about, whereby leading politicians, particularly female politicians in this country, from the other end of the Palace of Westminster, receive frequently hateful and disturbing threats to themselves and their safety, as well as that of their families and staff. Some 15% of stalkers are doing that.
The next category is the intimacy-seeking stalker. This is somebody who is quite frequently mentally unstable and wants to have an intimate relationship with the person they are stalking. You may recall one or two quite well-known women, usually, in the public eye, perhaps well-known journalists—in one instance, somebody who not infrequently appears on “Newsnight”, who has had the experience of being stalked by somebody in this category since they met briefly many years ago at university. I suspect that that individual has received not just 100 instances of stalking by this individual— I imagine it probably goes into the thousands.
The next category is the wonderfully named incompetent stalker, which represents about 11% of the 1.5 million. This individual tries to forge a relationship with the victim in socially inappropriate ways. Again, frequently, psychiatric help is required to try to make them understand what it is that they are doing.
In the fifth and last category is the predatory stalker. They stalk victims for sexual gratification, often in preparation for an assault, and sex offender treatment may be required. I suspect that in that category goes a certain rather infamous gentleman who until recently was in the police force but is now a guest at Her Majesty’s pleasure for a very long time indeed.
So how can the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office help those charged with protecting these 1.5 million victims, particularly the substantial number—46%—who are not being targeted by the rejected, domestic abuse-type stalker? The new framework makes a good start, but it does not make use of some of the very effective initiatives that are out there, such as MASIP, which I discussed briefly with the Minister this morning, or Lifeline, a specialist training course for individuals who have to look at stalking developed by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. It is extraordinarily effective, and dovetails very effectively into Domestic Abuse Matters, which is the predominant domestic abuse training that police and other agencies are receiving.
I do not expect the Minister to stand up at the end of this and say, “Lord Russell and all the rest of you, you’re completely right, we’ve totally taken it on board and we’re going to do exactly what you ask”. I would be rather alarmed if she did. But what I would ask her and her colleagues and advisers to do is to carefully consider this problem—the scale and the sheer complexity of stalking, particularly non-domestic abuse stalking—because it not going to go away.
The reaction of the Government and statutory agencies to the incidence of violence against women and girls over the last three or four years strongly reminds me of the fable about the frog who was burned alive sitting in water that was gradually heating up, as incident after incident, story after story, heats up in this case the political temperature, until the politician in the bath suddenly finds that they are soon going to be in need of medical help, because they have allowed this situation to develop. Stalking has similar characteristics; it is not going to go away.
Many people in public life, especially the lady politicians we were referring to earlier, know exactly what it feels like to be stalked. Based on the law of averages, I would be astonished if some of the Ministers dealing with this, their advisers and extended teams, have not themselves personally experienced stalking in some form or another. Stalking is not selective when it chooses its victims.
This amendment is designed to strongly suggest to Her Majesty’s Government that, in order to avoid the equivalent of a dreadful Sarah Everard moment that is very specifically related to stalking, they should voluntarily choose to act proactively and put in place an effective and comprehensive approach to enable the sheer complexity and scale of stalking to be understood better—and they should do that now. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his comprehensive introduction to this amendment and his explanation of the different types of stalking.
When Gracie Spinks was stalked and then murdered in June by a non-partner, her case was made infinitely worse by the behaviour of the police both before and after she died. In February, she had reported the worrying behaviour of Michael Sellers to her local police. Despite his behaviour escalating, she had no support from them. There are also issues about the behaviour of officers after her murder, and five have now been issued with IOPC disciplinary notices.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am proud to have added my name to this amendment, which I believe is vital. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his kind words but, most importantly, for giving the stalking facts and figures, which are truly startling. The scale is huge and the complexity daunting, and he gave a brilliant and well-informed exposé of the problem.
It is true, as noble Lords have said, that great progress has been made in the last 10 years since stalking was first recognised as an offence. I am grateful to the Minister for her work and to noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber who have pursued this issue. I must also mention the indefatigable work and campaigning of Laura Richards, our mutual friend John Clough, the families of victims, and courageous survivors. My work at Oxford, for which I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register, brings me into contact daily with staff and students who suffer from the insidious crime of non-domestic violence-related stalking. They live in constant fear alongside the 1.5 million other victims.
Among the progress that has been made, I am of course delighted that there is now a national strategy for the policing of violence against women and girls but, as has been said, that does not cover the vast number of people who are being stalked where the stalking does not relate to domestic violence. However, it is brilliant that violence against women and girls must now be a strategic priority for all police forces and that they will be assisted by a new local duty to tackle it as part of any work in partnership with other parts of the criminal justice system and all parts of the policing landscape. I celebrate that at last there is a truly national approach that should lead to the identification of the most dangerous and serial perpetrators of violence, more focused investigations, an increase in prosecutions and a reduction in the murder of women, serious harm and repeat victimisation.
Of course, there is a “but”, hence the amendment. We desperately need a strategy for all categories of stalking, and I endorse the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. When are we going to have a more global strategy in relation to stalking?
Strategies are crucial and welcome but, like legislation, they have to be implemented in order to have their desired, much-needed effect. That requires systematic specialist training. As noble Lords will be only too aware, my long-standing concern has been about stalking in all its forms, not just that which involves domestic stalking. Training must be provided relating to all forms of stalking. There must be a national approach so that no matter where a victim seeks help and reports an incident, and wherever a perpetrator is apprehended, those who answer the phone and take whatever steps are necessary to support the victim and investigate a case must have similar experience.
As we know from the excellent inspections by HMICFRS, reports by experts and the evidence of survivors and the friends and families of victims, to date that has not been the case. These women, and sometimes men, have been utterly failed by the piecemeal approach to training. It is no exaggeration to say that countless women, such as Hollie Gazzard, would be still alive if there had been appropriate training, if their calls had been responded to in the proper manner and if the people answering the calls had understood what stalking was. Helen Pearson called the police 144 times over five years. If they had understood that she was a victim and was not wasting the police’s time, her situation could have been properly dealt with.
My strong preference would be to have a regulation in the Bill to provide for mandatory training, but I know from long experience that that would not be accepted by the Government. I first spoke about this in moving an amendment in February 2012, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, when we secured agreement to create the offence of stalking. I have been told on countless occasions since then that the appropriate place for training requirements is in guidance—but guidance has ensured that only a few police forces have taken the need for training seriously and most have not, and women have been murdered and others have had their own lives and those of their families destroyed. Over the years it has been cruelly apparent that guidance is not enough.
With the ever-increasing focus on and understanding of the extent of the appalling violence against women and girls, including stalking, and with the appointment of Maggie Blyth to spearhead the policing strategy, I hope that the need for quality nationwide training will be understood and that it will be implemented. However, I would like an assurance from the Minister that the Secretary of State really will seek to ensure that the training takes place and, vitally, that there will be the necessary funding to enable it. I would also be grateful if she could explain what mechanism is or will be in place for that to be monitored, and how we as a Parliament can hold the Government to account on this vital issue.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the tireless work over many years of all three noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Stalking remains widely misunderstood by many in the criminal justice system—specifically, how serious and complex it can be and how widespread it is, as noble Lords have explained. The amendment aims to remedy that situation, and we support it.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for tabling this amendment. I praise the tireless work of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Brinton, in this area. I am delighted to put my name to the amendment because of the work of Laura Richards, who has also worked tirelessly. Even though she is not in the UK, she still works tirelessly on podcasts, which I suggest that everyone listens to; they are brilliant in the stories that they cover, but it is very sad to hear the journeys that some women go through.
I will not add much more to what my colleagues have said. Stalking, on its own, is horrific. I really welcome what we now have on domestic abuse stalking and I thank the Minister for the conversations we have had. However, it scares me that this piece of legislation has been left to wander in the fields again. I feel we have taken 10 steps forward and 50 back. Listening to victims of this horrendous crime in my former role as Victims’ Commissioner—victims I am still listening to—I know that the problem with stalking is that you cannot see it. If you had a scab on your hand and we could see it, we could then do something tangible. Stalking is horrific and coercive, both mentally and physically.
When we look at amending and putting this legislation into place, the default is that we must train better. Now we are asking that we have a standard of training for non-domestic abuse stalking. I believe that every word from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Royall, adds to the quality of what this training should be. Unfortunately, if a stalking victim phones up, it will not be the first time; they will be at the end of their tether. In society and under Governments past and present, we have waited until somebody is murdered brutally—taken. That should not be the case, as the horse has already bolted.
I ask the Government to look at this again: please put this national strategy for non-domestic abuse stalking right next to domestic abuse stalking. Then it will not be piecemeal and all these agencies will fully get what happens to victims of stalking.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the first Bill I can remember that dealt with this subject did so under the name of “harassment”. That was before 1997. This whole evil has grown extraordinarily since then. I am not aware of any real analysis of the reason for that exponential growth, but it is certainly important that the people who have to deal with it understand what is involved. Unless and until that is developed fully, the problem will probably continue to increase.
In the list of people in this amendment, I do not see mention of the judiciary. Does the noble Lord, Lord Russell, have it in mind? Obviously, judges have to understand lots of different things that come before them and the judicial training system has been developed very much over a number of years. It is very effective. If it is intended to include the judiciary, it would be very advisable to say that, because the judicial training system would take account of that and, no doubt, as he said, look for the resources required to do it properly.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I add our strong support for this amendment. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton, along with many others, for their tireless efforts and leadership on this issue and their informative and inspirational words this afternoon.
The crucial point is that stalking is an offence that escalates. Victims and their families are being let down to an extent by the failure to recognise the seriousness of this crime—although, to be fair, that is improving—and the failure to manage serial and dangerous offenders. This Chamber has supported stronger action to tackle stalking perpetrators and protect victims in multiple pieces of legislation over the past few years, yet we find ourselves having to raise it again.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, pointed out, the amendment is a fairly moderate ask. Having said that, it is exceptionally important; it will make a huge difference to ensure that those interacting with stalking victims and investigating these offences have specialist training. The Minister should accept it and the Government should go even further in tackling this vile, criminal behaviour, on which the whole Chamber is united.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I join others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and his ongoing determination on this subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, must also be commended as she not only educated me on the whole subject, way back when, but has shown that same tenacity—ditto the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who regularly shares her story with us. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in commending John Clough and others for their untiring campaigning on this. I have met John Clough; he is a truly wonderful man.
I totally get the sentiment of what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, are saying. He and I spoke earlier; we reflected on the journey we have come on, since I got into your Lordships’ House almost 10 years ago, in terms of the perception and awareness of and attitudes towards domestic violence, domestic abuse and stalking. While domestic abuse was certainly on the radar, there was a clunking attitude towards dealing with it; stalking is one step behind it, but to say we have gone backwards is just not the case—we have made great progress. However, I acknowledge—I think he sees this—that we have further to go, particularly in training on stalking and domestic abuse. It is a most dreadful crime; the impact on victims can be so dreadful.
I talked at length in Committee about the many actions to address stalking that we are taking through the tackling violence against women and girls strategy. I will not go through them all again, but the Government are totally committed to protecting and supporting the victims of stalking. We are determined to do everything we can to stop perpetrators at the earliest opportunity. On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the VAWG strategy does not deal with male victims, I say that it makes it clear that, while the term “violence against women and girls” is used throughout the document, it refers to all victims of the relevant offences, including stalking. I am glad he raised that, as it allows me to clarify it.
The noble Lord also brought up the point that stalking is not only an awful crime but a very complex and multifaceted one. We talked about that earlier as well—the resentful stalker who may go after politicians, the intimacy-seeking stalker, the incompetent stalker and the predatory stalker. They come in all forms. As he said, many are not former partners of their victims, including so-called intimacy seekers and predatory stalkers. Within each category, there is a wide range of different types of stalking behaviour. Therefore, the Government totally acknowledge that the police need to be well informed about the many characteristics of stalking and the stalker to effectively investigate stalking cases. He can rest assured—I know he does—that it is a priority for the Government. I empathise with the aim of this amendment, but it is important to acknowledge the progress that is being made in the work we are doing.
It is vital that the police are provided with the correct materials and training to deal with stalking cases appropriately. That is why, in 2019, the College of Policing released a set of new advice products on stalking for police first responders, call handlers and investigators. These make clear, for example—I say this in response to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern—the key differences between stalking and harassment. A range of advice and guidance products has been published by the College of Policing for forces to deliver locally to help responders to investigate stalking effectively, understand risks and respond appropriately to stalking cases. I know that training is also available to the police from providers in the charitable and private sectors. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and I talked earlier about the work of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which runs the National Stalking Helpline and has been piloting a new training course for police called “Stalking Matters”.
Within Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, all new probation staff and prison offender managers are required to complete mandatory domestic abuse awareness online learning, which includes a specific module on stalking. The module has recently been updated and rewritten, based on current research, by subject matter and academic experts within HM Prison and Probation Service. A process map has been developed to set out a consistent approach to working with stalking in the probation service, which provides links to relevant support and guidance documents, as well as learning that staff can complete. Furthermore, the stalking practitioner guidance is being finalised; this aims to raise awareness of the nature of, and various risks associated with, stalking. It will also direct practitioners to the support that is available within HM Prison and Probation Service when working with perpetrators of stalking.
When we had an opportunity to speak earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and I talked about the complexity involved; while the report from Maggie Blyth was excellent, there is complexity in practitioner understanding. I will take that away and we can perhaps discuss it further; there is no point having these things if they are not readily and easily understandable.
I now come to training within the CPS. E-learning modules are available to prosecutors; these cover the stalking and harassment offences, with emphasis on building a strong case, working closely with the police and engaging with victims throughout the legal process. Alongside the online course, elements of stalking and harassment are also covered in tutor-led mandatory training on proactive disclosure and hate crime. This training supports the Crown Prosecution Service’s legal guidance on stalking and harassment and restraining orders, the joint stalking and harassment protocol, and the associated checklist that must be used by police and prosecutors to ensure that they are taking the correct action in stalking cases.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, talked about police resources. She will know that we have a substantial police settlement for 2022-23 but her underlying point, I think, is that we have to put it to good use, and that the Government’s priorities need to be reflected in the work that the police do. She and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, also talked about the importance of data, the monitoring of ongoing work and Parliament’s duty to hold the Government to account on the policies that they make.
Of course, the police, the CPS and the probation service are operationally independent of government. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I discussed earlier the issue of mandating what training they should receive, especially, as I have just set out, when there is so much good work happening already. There is always more to do, but I do not think that the mandating of training is the best way of doing this, given the good work that is going on. There is also a very real risk that, if we were to legislate for one crime type, it might then suggest to law enforcement agencies that it should be prioritised over others. I know that that is not what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness seek. Appropriate training for criminal justice system professionals on tackling stalking is vital, but so too is training on tackling domestic abuse, sexual offences and other crime types. We do not regard these as less important; neither, I know, do the noble Lord or the noble Baroness.
In acknowledging and empathising with the sentiment behind the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, I assure him that the training provided to professionals working with the criminal justice system on stalking is robust and helps to address issues such as early identification of stalking cases—but I also acknowledge that there is more work to be done. I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment in the knowledge that I have addressed his concerns as far as I can, and acknowledging the work that has been done. I know that we will come back to these matters at a future occasion.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for what she said. As usual, she has been thorough and comprehensive. She said what I would have expected her to say, and I thank her for that. I understand that there is a certain point beyond which she is unable to go; I will come back to that in a minute.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for reminding us—and me—that stalking affects a very large number of men, as well as women. It is easy to forget that, as there has been so much focus on violence against women and girls. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, reminded us that we are at about our 10-year anniversary of trying to get Her Majesty’s Government to focus on this and acknowledge that it will not go away. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, it ain’t getting better, it is getting worse, and we do not completely understand why this is so badly the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was able to remind us from his own experience that guidance is not enough, in and of itself. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, reminded us of the role of champions such as Laura Richards, and others, who have been speaking up very effectively for the many victims—giving them a voice, trying to make us understand how they feel and what they have gone through. As she said, stalking is insidious. I suspect that, by the law of averages, we all probably know somebody who has been stalked, albeit that it is probably not a subject that we would readily raise around the dinner table. I suspect that, if we spoke to such people who we know—if they were prepared to open up about what their experience was like—and listened to them and watched the look in their eyes as they spoke about it, it would be pretty wrenching; that is the reality of it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made a very good point about the judiciary, with which I absolutely agree; the judiciary needs training just as much as the rest of us. However, for the judiciary to be able to exercise its duties properly, it is incredibly important that among all the different bodies charged with identifying when a case of stalking is serious enough to become the subject of a prosecution, the way that this is pursued and the case is put together, by people who know what they are doing, is as watertight as it is humanly possible to be. However well intended and well trained, if a judge is faced with a prosecution case that, frankly, is not watertight, then, however strongly he or she may feel that an injustice is being done, if the case being put forward is inadequate, the law must follow its duty, possibly deciding not in favour of the victim—and it would not be the victim’s fault. That is the essence of what we are trying to avoid; it is going on and it will continue to go on until we really grasp it.
I will not detain your Lordships. I had hoped that we would do this in 30 minutes, but we will do it in under 45 minutes. I thank the Minister again for what she said, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. There is a huge focus on the inputs in many of these interactions from the Front Bench: there is a long list of money for this, an initiative for that, this service having this and that service having that. To come back to the issue of data, in the future I would like to hear less about inputs and more about outputs. We need the evidence that these input are actually working and making a difference. I know we will come back to this subject, but I genuinely believe that, until and unless all the different bodies dealing with these distraught victims, who come to the police perhaps after 100 instances of insidious stalking, are equipped with the knowledge and experience they need to really grab hold of it and give victims some justice, it will continue to haunt us and, indeed, stalk us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Newlove
“Offences motivated by hostility towards the sex or gender of the victim
(1) In this section—“relevant crime” means a reported crime in which—(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex, or(b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex; “sex” has the same meaning as in section 11 of the Equality Act 2010 (sex).(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations requiring the chief officer of police of any police force to provide information relating to—(a) the number of relevant crimes reported to the police force, and(b) the number of those crimes which, in the opinion of the chief officer of police, would be subject to subsection (4).(3) A court considering the seriousness of an offence arising from a relevant crime not included in subsection (4) must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by hostility or prejudice towards sex or gender as an aggravating factor when determining a sentence.(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to—(a) an offence under the law of England and Wales which is for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, other than the offence specified in paragraph 14 of that Schedule (fraudulent evasion of excise duty),(b) an offence under the law of England and Wales which is for the time being specified in Part 6 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, or(c) an offence under the law of England and Wales which is defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 as “domestic abuse”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require police forces to record data on crimes motivated by hostility towards the victim’s sex or gender, as well as requiring courts to take into account this hostility as an aggravating factor when deciding the seriousness of cases which are not sexual or domestic offences.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, one of the themes that has come up again and again when we debate this Bill has been the need to do more to protect women and girls from the violence they face on an all too frequent basis. I start by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Bertin and others across the House who have already made some tangible improvements to the Bill to ensure it does more to tackle violence against women and girls. Today, I hope we can provide a platform to underpin this work by recognising the cause of much of this violence: the hatred, abuse and entitlement, the misogyny—for that is what it is—that some hold in their hearts towards women. If we want to restore confidence for women that the police and the criminal justice system want to keep them safe from those who would do them harm, we need to start by naming it and then doing something about it.
In January 2021, UN Women UK showed in a poll of 1,000 UK women that although 80% of women of all ages said that they had experienced sexual harassment in public places, 96% of respondents did not report these incidents and 45% said that was because it would not change anything. Too often when it comes to violence against women, society demands the perfect victim before we act. We question women. We talk of self-defence lessons and, most recently, flagging down buses if they are worried. We ask, “What were you wearing? Had you been drinking? Where were you going?” We make the violence and abuse they experienced about them and whether they have provoked, or what they did to keep themselves safe.
Amendment 114F seeks to flip the script and ask what the police and the criminal justice system can do to catch those who put women at risk—to stop making women responsible and to hold those who commit these crimes accountable. It would do this by building on years of policing good practice. It is perverse that, despite 3 million crimes being committed against women in just three years, our legal and policing systems do not routinely recognise what we all know is blindingly obvious: the deep-rooted hostility towards women that motivates many of these crimes. As a society we have rightly taken steps to acknowledge the severity of racist or homophobic crimes, but have not yet acted on crimes driven by hatred of women.
Those who have listened to previous debates on this matter will know of the work started in Nottingham to address this issue, driven by the former police chief constable, Sue Fish, and rolled out to other police forces in England and Wales, including North Yorkshire, and Avon and Somerset. By recording when crimes are motivated by misogyny and training officers to recognise and record it, they have seen a substantial increase in the confidence of women to come forward and report crimes—not catcalling, although we know that shouting abuse in the street is a criminal offence, but rapes, sexual assault and harassment. This is the case not just in Nottingham. Women’s Aid reports that police forces that are now recording misogyny have not seen an influx in reporting of wolf-whistling, but instead receive a growing number of reports of serious crimes—a sign of the challenge we face and the value in recognising misogyny as a problem.
My amendment is in two parts. The first should be uncontroversial, as it simply seeks to guarantee what the Government have already promised: that all police forces will collect and report data on crimes motivated by hostility towards the sex or gender of the victim. This means that crimes motivated by misandry could also be recorded, but the evidence from those areas taking this approach is that between 80% and 90% of the victims are women.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has, in its new violence against women and girls framework, recognised the need to target resources on high-risk spaces. It has also supported this approach and included sex or gender in hate crime reporting. It knows that data is a central part of the fight against any kind of crime. Without it, police forces are left stumbling in the dark with no way of knowing where or how to best deploy their resources to keep people safe. Noble Lords will remember that, during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Minister promised that this would happen by autumn 2021, yet here we are in 2022, albeit in January, still waiting for it to happen. With a quarter of all forces already doing this, the three-quarters of women in England and Wales who live in the other areas have a right to expect better. Putting this in the Bill will ensure that we get it right.
The second part of the amendment would use this information in our criminal justice system by allowing courts to consider whether misogyny—or misandry for that matter—was an aggravating factor when an offence was committed. Hate crime legislation protects people targeted because of their identity. We use it to send a powerful message that attacking someone simply because you do not like the colour of their skin or their sexuality is not acceptable and to give higher sentences accordingly. Yet hate crime law recognises that someone can be a victim of more than one type of hate crime, except if the part of their identity being targeted is their being a woman. Muslim women may be victims of hate crime because they are Muslim and because they are women. Some 42% of black and ethnic minority women aged between 14 and 21 report experiencing unwanted attention at least once a month. Many women and girls with intellectual disabilities also experience abuse for the dual reasons of their disability and their sex or gender. Including sex or gender in the list of characteristics protected, as this amendment would do, would close that loophole and mean that victims of these crimes would not have to fit a tick box to be seen.
Finally, the amendment would also ensure that this approach does not lead to lower sentences for offences involving serious sexual violence or domestic abuse. Building on the work done by my noble friend Lady Bertin and the clear definitions provided of serious offences involving violence against women and girls in this legislation, Amendment 114F specifically disapplies the sentencing provisions from serious sexual and domestic offences. For the avoidance of doubt, that is not because these crimes cannot be motivated by misogyny. We carve out certain offences from other hate crime laws around religion and racial hatred to ensure that sentences are not inadvertently reduced; rather, they are enhanced when tariffs are applied in court.
This carve-out also answers the concern the Law Commission set out: that in recognising how misogyny drives crime in our criminal justice system, there is no hierarchy of offences. I know that some of my colleagues around the Chamber will want to ask why we are using the phrase “sex or gender”. This is because our focus is on the perpetrator, not the victim. Currently, the Crown Prosecution Service says that a hate crime is
“any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice”.
Perception matters in hate crimes. Whether someone is born a woman or becomes one, if they are targeted for being a woman, being able to record that motivation will help tackle the cause and find those responsible for the harm. Excluding some women from this could give perpetrators a free pass. It risks valuable information about offending patterns being missed, and potentially gives perpetrators a chance further to demean a victim by claiming that they cannot experience misogyny because they are trans.
For too long, violence against women and girls has been consigned to the “too difficult” box and gone unaddressed. The police have started to recognise that this must change, led by the formidable work of Maggie Blyth, Sue Fish and others across the country. Now we must do the same. This amendment is our chance to show the same intent to tackle violence against women and girls wherever it occurs, rather than to continue to defer action; to learn from what works; and to ensure that the law is on the side of women, rather than on that of those who seek to abuse and harass them. It is time for deeds, not words. I beg to move.
Amendment 114G (to Amendment 114F)
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 114G amends my noble friend Lady Newlove’s amendment and removes “or gender” from subsection (3) of her proposed new clause. When my noble friend tabled a different misogyny amendment in Committee, she constructed it using the formula “sex or gender”, and I argued against that formulation.
My noble friend’s new clause is headed “Offences motivated by hostility towards the sex or gender of the victim”, but the text of the clause is puzzling. Subsection (1) defines “relevant crime”, for the purposes of the new clause, in terms of
“hostility or prejudice based on sex”—
not on sex or gender. Of course, because it is the perception, that would also cover the perception of trans people. Sex has a definition, which picks up on that of the Equality Act 2010. When we get to subsection (2), which is about the recording of relevant crimes, that, too, because it makes no reference to gender, would clearly apply only to relevant crimes expressed in terms of sex, as set out in subsection (1).
Those of us who received the briefing this afternoon from the honourable Stella Creasy MP will have noted that it claims that this amendment refers throughout to sex and gender, but it quite clearly does not. Subsection (1), which governs subsection (2), refers only to prejudice or hostility based on sex. The problem is when we get to subsection (3), which is where my amendment bites. It states:
“A court considering the seriousness of an offence arising from a relevant crime”—
remember that a relevant crime is expressed in terms of hostility or prejudice based on sex—
“must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by hostility or prejudice towards sex or gender as an aggravating factor”.
I really do not understand how that is supposed to work, and I do not think that “or gender” can fit with the definition of “relevant crime”, as it has been defined wholly in relation to sex in subsection (1).
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the original amendment, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and to oppose the amendment to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which she moved just now. I hope she will forgive me for saying that her introduction of her amendment displayed a great deal of confusion, which is being much magnified in debate, about the differences, in so far as they exist, between the words “sex” and “gender”.
Gender is causing no confusion in the law, but I would urge the noble Baroness and others to take the trouble to have a look at the first legal textbook written on this subject, called A Practical Guide to Transsexual Law; it is authored by Robin White of Old Square Chambers in London, who is a trans woman herself and extremely expert in cases arising from trans issues, and her colleague in the same chambers, Nicola Newbegin. If noble Lords are suspicious about a lawyer in your Lordships’ number recommending the reading of a legal textbook, I reassure them that it is not because I want to make them go to sleep while doing their reading before they go to bed at night; it is actually one of the most fascinating textbooks written in recent years—and it has the virtue of being short as well.
The issues described in that book, which have interested me since I introduced the first transsexual rights Bill in the other place when I was a Member there, have evolved greatly over the years. I would say to those who are suspicious or uncomfortable about these issues that young people—people born after 1995, to date at random—they do not understand the problem. To them, trans people are included among their friends, and it is “just a thing, not an issue”, to quote one of my own daughters on the subject. It is becoming increasingly common for young people to move in circles where trans men and women, and, for that matter, gender diverse men and women, are absolutely standard parts of the community.
The Equality Act, which has been in existence for a considerable time, says that you must not be discriminated against because of your gender reassignment as a transsexual and that you may prefer the description “transgender person” or “trans male” or “female”. There is much more I could read out to your Lordships that illustrates that the law has been in place and has been well understood for a long time.
Let us just consider what the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, is trying to achieve in subsection (3) of her proposed new clause. I need to confess a sort of interest at this point, in that I am married to a circuit judge who tries criminal cases only. So perhaps I have a little bit more evidence in my mind—she certainly does not agree with everything I say, by any means— on how judges behave not just from my own practice but from a lot of discussion about these issues. The amendment provides:
“A court considering the seriousness of an offence … must treat the fact that the offence is aggravated by hostility or prejudice towards sex or gender as an aggravating factor when determining a sentence.”
Can one seriously suggest that a circuit judge, or a magistrate for that matter, does not understand what that means? If the judge understands what that means, surely it is as just as any other aggravating factor.
Let us look at it down the other end of the telescope. Five or six young women go out for a night out, and during the course of that night out an offence takes place in which there is hostility or prejudice towards the one of them who is a trans woman. Would it really be right for the other five to have an aggravated sentence brought upon the offender, if the hostility was towards them as women on the grounds of sex, but not that trans woman, if the hostility was shown to them on the grounds of gender? It is a nonsensical suggestion, and what is in the noble Baroness’s proposed new subsection (3) is just common sense—the sort of common sense that judges apply in the courts every day. So I would urge your Lordships to take the view that the use of the phrase “sex or gender” in this amendment is just good 2022 common sense and, if one is minded to support the amendment, one should support it in its original form.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I want to take a slightly different view of this. We support misogyny being treated as a hate crime and, personally, I do not understand the arguments of the Law Commission in relation to domestic violence and sexual offences. The same objections could be made to existing hate crimes such as homophobia, but they exist alongside these serious offences without difficulty. I wonder whether proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment is necessary.
May I suggest an alternative way out of the gender debate? I wonder whether, in line with the Law Commission’s report on hate crime in relation to other aspects of hate crime, the words in brackets—“or perceived sex”—should be added to the word “sex” at the end of new subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) proposed by the amendment. I am thinking of the following hypothetical example. A man who shouts demeaning and derogatory terms for a woman, indicating a hatred of women, and who without provocation attacks a stranger in the street, indicating that the attack is motivated by a hatred of women, should be charged with the aggravated misogyny offence, whether the assailant is mistaken in identifying the victim as a woman or not. It should not matter whether the victim is a woman or not; it is the motivation of the attacker that is important. If that motivation is hatred of women, it should be an aggravating factor.
However, despite my concerns about the wording of the amendment, we have waited long enough for this important and necessary change in the law. Any defect in the wording of the amendment can be addressed in the other place, and if the noble Baroness divides the House, we will support her.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I raised my opposition to a version of this amendment previously. For once, I was planning to keep out of the gender identity argument—although I agree with both the speech and the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—but I feel I must make some response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who said that the concept of gender is causing no problems in the law or among judges. I am delighted about that, but let me tell you that the concept of gender is causing a huge number of problems for many women.
The judge advises that we need to talk to young people who include trans people among their friends. I point out that I have trans people among my friends and spend a huge amount of time talking to young people. There is not just one view on this; there are lots of views. One of the problems we have to recognise is that open debate about gender and trans issues is often chilled, for fear of accusations of hate or bigotry—and, ironically, most of the misogynistic abuse that I and other women have received in recent months and years has been on this issue of being gender-critical.
I will now go back to what I was going to say. My opposition to this amendment is based on a key concern: the need to avoid fuelling a narrative of fear that posits the idea that terrible and unimaginably horrific, but rare, instances of sexual violence and murder are part of a continuum of widespread misogynistic attitudes. This can too easily align everything from online trolling and catcalling to rape and domestic abuse under the label of misogyny—hatred of women.
There is limited time because we have very major things to discuss, so I will focus my remarks. I appreciate that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, explicitly distinguishes between sexual violence crimes and other forms of crime that may be motivated by misogynistic intent, and that it is not an attempt to create any new criminal offences, being more concerned with the police recording and reporting of the number of crimes motivated by hostility towards sex and, sometimes, gender. This, we are told, is crucial to identifying patterns of behaviour and targeting police resources, so that we can build a national picture of violence against women and girls. However, hate crime legislation generally, as echoed in this amendment, in fact means that the data collected is based almost entirely on subjective perceptions and will not allow an accurate picture to emerge.
The amendment talks of a reported crime in which
“(a) the victim or any other person perceived the alleged offender, at the time of or immediately before or after the offence, to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on sex, or (b) the victim or any other person perceived the crime to be motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex”.
So this amendment would not help us understand data as fact but more how victims—or any other third parties—subjectively see either the motivation of the alleged offenders or the crime. To compound the issue, there is no legal or formal definition of “hostility”, so the CPS suggests that we use the everyday understanding of the word, which includes ill will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike. This can lead only to the possibility of an ever- widening set of crimes being badged as misogynistic, with the only evidence being subjective.
The practical outcomes could be severe and serious, as the amendment would alter sentencing. This means, essentially, that, if someone thinks or feels that someone else is being hateful towards them, and the hostility in carrying out the crime is based on sex and explains their offence, that is enough for that person to be locked up in prison for longer. There is also a more insidious punishment: this amendment might mean that more and more behaviour—we know that we mean especially that of men and boys—is deemed to be misogynistic, destroying the reputation of those people once they are labelled as bigots who hate women, according to this categorisation, without necessarily being branded as such in reality.
According to the campaign literature sent out ahead of this discussion, this label of hostility via sex can be used to imply far more than hostility. However minor the original crime, if it is labelled as sex-based hostility we are told that it is an almost inevitable slippery slope and that this is the kind of person who will carry out, if they are not stopped, the most heinous crimes, such as rape, sexual violence and murder. Meanwhile, HOPE not Hate sent round a missive saying that this kind of sex-hostility is a slip road to far-right extremism.
Finally, the Fawcett Society claims that this amendment will give women protection from crime and help ensure the safety of women and girls. I say that it will not: if anything, it could distract the police from the practical, difficult but essential work of on-the-ground patrolling of streets, painstaking investigations, and so on, and the courage to see through those investigations and prosecutions. It might take valuable resources for the police away from policing if they are tangled up in the reporting and monitoring of staff and data which I do not think, as I have shown, is reliable. Consider one of the most gross examples of the abuse of women and girls: the grooming gangs that operated in parts of the north-west of England. Those women and girls would not have been helped one iota had those crimes been called misogynistic. The shameful neglect in the investigation and prosecution of that incident was surely not about whether it was seen as being driven by hostility to sex. This amendment avoids the real problem, is tokenistic and will not help women at all.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and will speak very briefly, not least because I have the privilege of being one of the Deputy Speakers of this House. I would just remind noble Lords that we are at Report, and at Report we are not meant to give either Second Reading or Committee speeches—it is a discourtesy to the House to be discursive. That is all that needs to be said on that.
Some noble Lords may be familiar with a newspaper that is normally far too left-wing for me, the Daily Telegraph. There is an article in today’s paper by a gentleman called Charles Hymas, which says—and I have no reason to believe it is not true, since I understand that there are fairly close links between the aforementioned organ and the party in government—that there are quite a few quite senior Back-Benchers in another place who are very keen to use this amendment, assuming your Lordships pass it, to enable them to have a proper discussion in another place about this issue and to decide then, as our elected representatives, whether this case has sufficient merit to be put into law and in what manner and form that should happen. I suggest that they are rather better qualified to do that than we are.
Having said that, my Lords, I will support this amendment. I think we should send it back to another place for them to have another look. The other place is also a better place to have what can be an extremely contorted and overimaginative debate about gender and the relative merits of sex and gender.
As others have said, I am not sure that generationally we are the best-equipped assembly to opine on these subjects. That does not mean that we are not able to have a point of view, and I am aware that some noble Lords and noble Baronesses have a very strong point of view. I simply point out that, however strongly they may feel, there are a great many others of a younger generation, and down the other end, who feel differently. I support this amendment, because I think your Lordships should give the other place a chance to decide for itself.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord does not think I am being discourteous to the House by making a short intervention in this important debate. We have to be very careful about legal definitions of sex and gender. Primarily, the definitions are not legal but are in fact biological, as I have said in this Chamber before. That is a problem. That is one of the reasons why I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just said. For example, we have to understand that there are situations in which there might well be problems with—whatever you call it—misogyny or hate. Take a transgender woman who was originally assigned as a male and still has the genes of a male, and possibly some of the hormonal function of a male, who competes in a sporting event. That is a difficult issue that has not yet been properly dealt with. Clearly, it is quite likely that from time to time those sorts of situations will cause considerable anger, hostility and all sorts of effects that might be an offence under the Bill. We at least need to record that and decide how we deal with it.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment, and I want to deal with one or two things that have come up in this discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that the evidence base is very thin. The evidence base of women receiving threatening and abusive behaviour and sometimes assault, accompanied by expressions that make it very clear that it is directed at them as women, is substantial. I have just been receiving evidence for a working party in Scotland, and over this past year it has been shocking to see the extent to which this is a serious problem for girls and women. It should not be underestimated, and of course it is accelerated by social media, which is encouraging the kind of verbal assault that is so disgusting and disgraceful that it is hard to imagine women and girls having to deal with it in their daily lives. It really is endemic, so I do not think that what we are trying to do here can be minimised.
As for suggesting that we introduce a complicated debate about the comparatively very few women who are trans women and might be included in this, that seems just extraordinary to me. It is a diversion from the fact that women, who make up more than 50% of the population and are not a minority, are experiencing this on a daily basis. Let us get real about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has pointedly made something part of her amendment. She says that the focus of this is on the perpetrator. How does it come about that an aggravation is used? It is because there is evidence, in addition to the evidence of a regular crime, that it has been motivated by antagonism and hatred towards women.
Of course, misogyny is wider than simple, old-fashioned hating. It is about a sense of entitlement, usually by young men, towards women and their bodies. The ways in which women have to experience verbal nastiness of a high level undermine their self-confidence and self-expression, so this is really damaging in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, says it is a nonsense to suggest that this leads on to more grievous crime. I am afraid that it is not a nonsense, because we know that it normalises certain kinds of behaviours that then go undetected by the police.
I really want us to think seriously about how we stop this happening. When women say this has to stop, what is the answer? A misogynistic aggravation is not the answer; it will not solve all the problems, but it is a starting point to let women know that misogyny is taken seriously by the legislature. That is why I support this amendment to the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, acutely aware of the time, I will be extremely brief. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and to agree with everything she just said.
I pick up a really important point from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. So many people have been campaigning on this issue for so long, with the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, being such a powerful champion, and many other Members of your Lordships’ House as well. But I think we are looking tonight at two different kinds of amendments and two different structural issues. It is really important that we make it clear to those outside this Chamber that, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, if we support Amendment 114F —I strongly support it—that will create the chance to have a debate in the other place. I want to make it clear to people that this is different from other amendments that will be considered later this evening.
My simple message to campaigners is that if Amendment 114F passes, as I hope it will, this is an opportunity for you to really make your voice heard in the other place. Write to your MP; make this a place where this debate is finally settled. I made a contribution in Committee, and back in March I made a contribution on the same issue on the then Domestic Abuse Bill. We really need to make progress, and this is an opportunity for this House and for people out there to get into this debate.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief, since I supported an amendment in November attempting to achieve a similar outcome. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on her tenacity in pursuing this issue. This amendment simply builds on best practice already established in policing, where forces need to recognise the causes of violence against women. It attempts to fill a gap in our hate crime legislation, where sex and gender are the only protected characteristics not recognised, and to send a clear message that women’s safety matters. I simply reinforce those points and all those that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made. I support her amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I was not going to intervene in this debate, but I will do so briefly. First, I will not stand behind anyone else in a queue of people showing respect and admiration to my noble friend Lady Newlove, so it pains me when I find myself on the opposite side of an argument to her. That said, I agree with so much that she said in the way she described the crimes and assaults that many women experience. I also agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said.
I do not want to get involved in any kind of discussion about the difference between sex and gender. The point that I want to put on the record, not least because of what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, is that there is not a consensus among women that misogyny should be introduced as a hate crime. I would be very concerned if that were to happen, not because I am in any way not concerned about the violence, the hatred and some of the discrimination that women face but because I do not want us to cultivate a society in which women are universally seen as victims and all men as aggressors. That is a risk and a potential consequence of us pursuing this course. I put that on record and look forward to the way in which my noble friend the Minister responds to this debate.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I too shall make a very brief intervention, in agreement with my noble friend Lady Stowell. I have some concerns that this is not the way to solve the problem of violence against women. I absolutely accept that misogyny does exist, I think women have good cause to be aggrieved about the increasing challenges we all face and the idea of misogyny as a hate crime certainly sounds attractive, but at a time when I have never known women angrier and more afraid, I think we have to ask whether this is really the right legislation to deal with our grievances. From my experience, women want better conviction rates for rape, better protection against domestic abuse and violence, and to be able to go for runs outside without fear of attack or even murder. With an average of two women murdered every week, that is what they want the police to focus on.
The Law Commission report says
“while we consider that there is a serious problem of crime that is connected to misogyny”—
I accept that too—
“we have concluded that the particular model of hate crime laws is unlikely to prove an effective response to misogynistic offending, and may prove more harmful than helpful, both to victims of violence against women and girls, and also to efforts to tackle hate crime more broadly. We suggest that reforms in other areas are more likely to result in tangible positive results.”
I agree, and I think there is a danger: we need to be careful what we wish for. There is every possibility that this kind of crime will get bogged down by bureaucracy and endless debate, none of which will improve the lives of women at all. The law of intended consequences may well be part of this. I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that surely the example he gave is not correct, because transgender identity is already a protected characteristic. I was confused by that.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, I will not take up too much of the House’s time. I am a Covid baby—I have learned the culture of this House via screens—so I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I get the protocol incorrect, but I consider you all my noble friends. I am really struck by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and support it wholeheartedly because I have seen the benefit of hate crime legislation and the benefit of aggravated offences on the grounds of sexuality, disability and race. It is illogical to me that that is not extended to women when it exists for every other protected characteristic.
On a personal note, this issue of sex and gender is something that I have been researching for a very long time. I am the former CEO of Stonewall—since 2019 I have been free—but I have been thinking about these issues since 1998, when, as a student at St Hilda’s College, Oxford, we were debating whether transwomen should be allowed in that women-only college. So, I am slightly a 1980s baby, but have thought about these issues for a very long time.
I am often thought to be trans. I am not, but I am often thought to be. I do not have my tie on this evening because it is going to be a long night—and if, unlike the gentlemen, I have the option to drop it, I will—but when a woman has been told for most of her adult life to accessorise, she does get attracted to the tie racks in Liberty as an option for those accessories. I experience discrimination on the grounds of my gender, sometimes on the basis of my sex—because I am a woman and perceived to be a woman—but often on the grounds of my gender, my gender identity and my gender presentation. These things are complicated; they do not lend themselves to pithy statements.
I have huge sympathy with those who have very different views from mine on trans issues and I think there is probably more that we can talk about together than what divides us. We have become caricatures of ourselves by the medium of social media and I have a huge amount of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, and the work she has done around women in politics, but I know we disagree on this. I hope we can find ways to come together, but I think this amendment referring to sex and gender is wholly beneficial to women. I hope to support it, hope to see it taken back to the other place, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his support.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we strongly support the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. We strongly support the amendment because, as my noble friend Lady Kennedy pointed out, misogyny sits behind much harassment and intimidating behaviour that, unfortunately, many women experience as a reality every day in our communities. It fuels behaviour that, far too often, escalates into serious offences. We have to repeat, again and again, that violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum.
I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was alluding to and am proud of my own local police in Nottinghamshire, who have been leaders in this area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, pointed out. It was the first force, in 2016, to record misogyny as a hate crime. I can tell the Chamber that it made a very real difference in Nottinghamshire when the chief constable, Sue Fish, stood up and said she was going to make it a priority for her officers. It spoke to her officers in terms of how they dealt with it, but it also spoke to the women and girls, and indeed the men of Nottinghamshire, about the priority that was going to be given. It made a very real difference and continues to do so. Sue Fish should be congratulated on being the leader that she was and is.
This campaign to recognise misogyny as an aggravating factor in the same way that we recognise hostility against a person due to disability, race or other characteristics has been running for years. Now is the time for all of us to show some leadership, to close the gap in our law and to state clearly that we do not accept the status quo and that things must change. There is much support for this change and the Government should take this opportunity, an opportunity that exists for us now and that we should take.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I was quite pleased to hear noble Lords saying that your Lordships’ House should curtail debate this evening: I have never experienced it in all my time as a Minister.
I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Newlove and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Ponsonby, for this amendment. It speaks to their continued commitment to tackling violence against women and girls and I know they have campaigned tirelessly on this issue. Given their sincerity and their deep and obvious desire to do what is best in this sphere, I am saddened that I am not going to give them much comfort on this amendment, and I shall explain why.
As noble Lords may be aware, last month the Law Commission published its final report, Hate Crime Laws. It is a weighty tome—some 545 pages—and, as always with the Law Commission, it is a thoughtful and well-argued document that warrants very close reading. On behalf of the Government, I thank the Law Commission for the thorough and intelligent way in which it approached the task that it was given. I assure noble Lords that the Government will give all the recommendations, of which there are 34, very detailed consideration. As is customary, a full government response will be published in due course; it will address each of the recommendations and I do not want to pre-empt that process.
However, ahead of that I should just draw noble Lords’ attention to what the Law Commission said on the specific issue which Amendment 114F addresses; namely, adding sex and gender to hate crime laws or, in common parlance, “making misogyny a hate crime”. In its report, the Law Commission was unequivocal that the course of action represented by this amendment would not be appropriate, as it would potentially prove detrimental to women and girls. Indeed, it noted that to add these characteristics to the hate crime legislative framework
“may prove more harmful than helpful”
and would be
“the wrong solution to a very real problem.”
I add that transgender identity is already covered in hate crime laws.
In coming to the conclusion it did, the Law Commission applied its usual rigour, dedicating almost three years of thought and careful deliberation to its work. It did so by examining, in exhaustive fashion, whether any legal models would be appropriate to making misogyny a hate crime. It did so on the premise that
“violence against women and girls is extremely prevalent and harmful”,
as noble Lords have said—eliminating all doubt, if there was any, that it did not in good faith stretch every sinew to find an appropriate solution through the hate crime framework. Finally, it did so while listening to and acknowledging the voices of many practitioners who are dedicated to tackling violence against women and girls before making its recommendations, independent of government or political considerations. In this regard, there are few greater examples of what might be called evidence-based policy-making.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this debate, whether you agree or not I think it has been—
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I believe I should deal with my amendment to my noble friend’s amendment before she gets into winding up. Much as I would love to wind up the whole debate, I will confine my remarks to my amendment, which simply sought to remove “or gender”. I think that is the smaller issue that we are dealing with today. The bigger issue is whether this is an appropriate addition to our hate crime framework in law. I will leave my noble friend to wind up on that, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I will get it right this time—I have only been here 12 years.
I thank everybody who has participated in this amendment. I just want to say that this amendment has no bearing on the definitions of sex and gender. It creates no new criminal offences at all. As with religion, which is certainly not biological, targeted hostility would aggravate an existing and proven offence and with the courts deciding that aggravation has been proven as a fact, the courts are capable of dealing with it. I thank the Minister but, unfortunately, I still wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Coaker
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rosser; it is also in the names of my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I will be reasonably brief on this group of amendments, because, unlike the ones we are to reach later today, we have had prior debates on, and scrutiny of, some of these provisions.
The group covers the existing protest provisions in the Bill, but this amendment focuses on one particular priority issue, namely, the imposition on public processions conditions related to noise. Indeed, the clause targets protests for being too noisy. It provides a trigger for imposing conditions on public assemblies, public processions and one-person protests if a protest is too noisy. Many noble Lords in this Chamber will know that many people would have fallen foul of the conditions in this proposed new legislation had it indeed been the law at the time. I certainly have been on numerous demonstrations, as have many noble Lords behind me —and, I am sure, some in front of me—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Whatever: they will have been on various demonstrations. Whether they were on behalf of the Countryside Alliance or not, the principle would have been the same and noise would have been a part of them. Has democracy collapsed in the face of noisy protests over the last couple of centuries? It has not. At some of the protests that I have been on—and, I am sure, at those that many noble Lords have been on—the noise has been phenomenal. It has been part of the object of them. Never have any Government of any colour sought to ban protests on the basis of noise or to put conditions on the basis of noise.
Protests are noisy—whether it is local families protesting the closure of a leisure centre or a march in front of this Parliament, protests make noise. The more well attended a protest is, the more popular support an issue has, in general, the noisier it will be. These clauses do not restrict protests for being violent or out of control or for causing damage; these are peaceful protests, but they can be restricted because somebody, in someone’s mind, is too noisy. The clause provides that a protest can trigger these conditions if the noise generated might cause
“serious unease, alarm or distress”.
It is an exceptionally low and vague threshold, as many noble Lords pointed out in Committee.
The Government have sought to do something about that. They have recognised it and thought, “This is a bit of a problem; they are quite right about some of the vagueness of this and about some of the definitions”, so the Government have brought forward a series of amendments, which are in this group. Without reading this to noble Lords—because they can read it for themselves—we can look at proposed new subsection (2ZC) in government Amendment 116, I will just leave this open and hanging in the air. If that clarifies what “noisy” means in the context of a protest, when it talks about people connected to organisations in the vicinity,
“not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period of time, to carry on”
their activities, the courts are going to have a field day. That is the clarification; that is the way in which the Government seek to do something about it. Even the Government recognise that vagueness is a problem. They are trying to do something about vagueness with a clarification that is equally vague, but which allows them to say that they have tried to address the problems raised in Committee.
Of course, the Government always have to balance protests with the rights of people to go about their lawful business. Balance is always important, but the right to protest in this country has never, ever had to have a condition placed upon it that is about noise. It never has. The noise generated at protests that I have been on has been immense, but never have the Government turned round or panicked and said that they needed to impose conditions on that in some way in order to do something about the protests. These are very serious amendments that we have put forward. These are very serious debates that will take place from now on, on the existing clauses and then on the new clauses. They involve the fundamental right of people to protest. Making noise is a fundamental part of the freedom to protest properly in a democracy.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I also put my name to Amendments 115 and 123, because I am still concerned about the Minister’s assurance in Committee on Clauses 56 and 57 that the threshold for the police to impose these conditions on noise would be very high. However, the threshold in Clause 56(3) that the noise caused by protesters could cause reasonably firm people to suffer serious unease seems subjective, and a low threshold. I fear that it will put the police in an invidious position.
I refer the House to the JCHR report recommendations on these clauses. It says:
“Using multiple terms that are open to wide interpretation, such as ‘intensity’ and ‘serious unease’, leaves an excessive degree of judgment in the hands of a police officer … It will also give rise to uncertainty for those organising and participating in demonstrations and fails to provide convincing safeguards against arbitrary or discriminatory use of these powers.”
I urge your Lordships to support Amendments 115 and 123.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Government on this matter. It rather caught me by surprise that I was going to but, having studied the amendments with some care, I am on their side. As regards Amendment 116, these provisions are a serious improvement on what went before. I am bound to say that I was very uneasy with what went before but Amendment 116 addresses some of the concerns. I have two drafting points to make, which could be addressed in the House of Commons if the Government were so minded.
First, I absolutely agree with those who worry about the word “significant”. “Significant” is pretty trivial; it is not “substantial” or “serious” and, speaking for myself, I rather hope that the Government substitute “substantial” or “serious” when the Bill gets to the House of Commons.
My second point concerns proposed new subsection (2ZC). Here, I do not think that the Government have gone far enough, because what is being contemplated in that provision as it stands—I am sorry, I simply do not agree with the noble Lord who spoke from the Opposition Benches on this—is a total inability to carry on the work in the vicinity of the noise. But we should also address circumstances where there is a considerable inconvenience to ordinary citizens, which takes me to my fundamental point: of course demonstrators have the right to demonstrate, but ordinary citizens also have rights to go about their ordinary business, to work, to enjoy reasonable tranquillity and to expect others to respect that. It seems that the law has gone too far in favour of a demonstration, and that is very unfortunate. On the whole, I therefore support the Government in this matter.
It is true that if I was drafting this thing, I would have done it slightly differently. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about unease. What does unease mean? The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, makes the same point and I agree. I also agree on the concept of not being able to carry on proper business. That is slightly doubtful to my way of thinking as well. However, on the whole, although I came initially to think these things had gone too far, I now think that the Government are broadly speaking right in trying to bring about a better balance between the rights of demonstrators and ordinary citizens.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Could I just mention to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that these are ordinary people who protest? These are people who quite often just do not agree with the Government. I support a lot of protests that happen at the moment; there are sometimes protests that I do not support, but I support those people’s right to protest. On noise, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. How do the Government seriously think that protest is going to happen without noise? That is a fundamental part of it, whether it is drums, chanting or singing, or just talking through a megaphone. These provisions really are so oppressive. I have attached my name to Amendments 122, 133 and 147. These clauses should be deleted from the Bill. They are repressive and plain nasty, and they really have to go.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, particularly those related to striking out Clauses 56, 57, 58 and 62. Briefly, in my view the Bill represents the biggest threat to the right to dissent and non-violent protest in my lifetime. It is deeply reactionary. It is an authoritarian attack on the fundamental liberties of our citizens.
If enacted in past generations, it would have throttled the suffragettes and blocked their ability to rattle Parliament’s cage to secure votes for women. It would have prevented antifascists stopping Mosley’s bullying, anti-Semitic blackshirts at Cable Street in the East End of London in 1936. It would have thwarted anti-apartheid protests that I led, in 1969 and 1970, which successfully stopped all white South African sports tours—a success which Nelson Mandela, then on Robben Island, hailed as a vital stepping stone in the ultimate defeat of apartheid. It would have prevented the Anti-Nazi League protests that stopped a resurgent and anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and fascist National Front in its tracks between 1977 and 1980, and in the early 1990s, similarly, the BNP. If Boris Johnson and Priti Patel want to be on the wrong side of history, the Bill is certainly the way to do it. I hope that this House will resist them.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, if one is going to make a change of this kind, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, says, has not happened before, one has to have a very good reason for it. The Government have produced no good reason for it. What they have said is that there are many protests which are very difficult and awkward. There are protests which have embarrassed me considerably as chairman of the Climate Change Committee, because I have had to explain that they are right about what they are protesting against but should not be doing it in the way they are, so I think it reasonable for me to say that these amendments go far too far. We are a democratic society and if I cannot go outside here and make a noise to point out that I think a whole range of things that the Government —or any Government—are doing are unacceptable, then my human rights are very seriously impugned.
When I came into this House, I said that there were three things I wanted to talk about: the environment, Europe and human rights. I want to be able to go on protesting about the ludicrous policies on Europe. I want to go on protesting about some of the things which have not been done, and ought to be done, about the environment. I want to congratulate the Government on many of the things they have done on the environment and climate change, but I need also to have the opportunity of making it clear when one believes that what they have done is wrong. Dissent and protest are essential parts of democracy. These provisions go too far.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I have a number of problems with this part of the Bill that are to do with form and content. The fact that these amendments were brought in at the stage they were seems an abuse of parliamentary scrutiny. Some of the debates we are having could have been sorted out had they been addressed in the normal way. That fits into a pattern of intimations about breaking the rule of law and the authoritarian complexion of the way in which some things are being done in, through or around Parliament. That is my problem with form.
On content, it seems that we would have to remove the statues of Gandhi and Mandela from Parliament Square were these provisions to go through. You cannot laud people later as being great and prophetic actors by exercising the right to dissent, at the same time as clamping down on that in the building over the road. We have heard a lot in recent debates about freedom, particularly in relation to Covid, freedom passes and things like that, but we cannot just pick and choose which freedoms are convenient to us in a democracy.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that the dry run for Cable Street was actually the week before, in Holbeck Moor in Leeds. It would have been ruled out as well. There is a significant point to make about the word “significant”, which was mentioned earlier. How is it that in legislation we are able to use words that are so incapable of definition? If something is significant, it is “significant of” something. It is not just significant; that is meaningless as a definition. That is like when people write that something is incredible, which, if it was, would have no credibility; they actually mean the opposite. You can get away with it in ordinary parlance but not in legislation.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am fully in support of the amendment, of course, to which I have put my name. I have served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have condemned this provision and said that it should not be part of the Bill because it is a breach of fundamental human rights. I have been on quite a lot of demos, and I would probably run foul of this legislation if it went through unamended. I cannot think of any demo that I have been on where we did not try to make noise, because that is part of what being on a demo means. I wonder whether the people who drafted the wording have ever been on a demo themselves—I do not believe it. Those of us who have been on demos know that the noise is encouraging; it tells spectators, who often join in support anyway, what we are about and what we seek to do. This is an absurd idea.
I think of the span of history—my noble friend Lord Hain contributed to this discussion—and there are so many important changes that started with noisy demos. How did some of those changes happen? Without noisy demos, a lot of changes do not happen. One looks at the suffragettes and all sorts of important demos; this is the nature of our democracy, and this Government are trying to trample all over it.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support very much what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said on this provision. There are a lot of good things in the Bill, but this is certainly not one of them. People watching this—the public—will think that somehow the Government have lost common sense. The idea that anyone can go on a demonstration and not make noise shows such a lack of common sense that I really do not understand how anyone could possibly have put this forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned all sorts of demonstrations and historical events that have been helped by noise. Every Saturday, the Zimbabwean diaspora turn up outside the Zimbabwean embassy, sing very loudly and play their drums and music in a loud way. Who is going to decide whether that is bringing unease to people? It certainly brings unease to Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe, I hope. This is something on which I am sure the Minister is sitting there and thinking, “Why on earth are we doing this?” I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will not press these ridiculous amendments.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I wish to associate myself strongly with the splendid speech made by my noble friend Lord Deben, who was absolutely right. I hope that I would have been one of those protesting at the time of the Great Reform Bill—I do not know, but I hope that I would have been—but I was in those great crowds from the Countryside Alliance, and I took part in those peaceful demonstrations. Like my noble friend, I have found some of the demonstrations of recent years wholly unacceptable, because they really have interfered with ordinary, decent people going about their business. Sticking yourself to the roof of a train or a road seems something that we should deal with—but not noise.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was right when she talked about Zimbabwe. Do we wish to see regimes like that continue to repress their people? Is not it right that those living in this country should have a right to make life a little uncomfortable for those who live in the Zimbabwean high commission? It is just silly to put this in. A Bill that is injected with a dose of stupidity is not a very good Bill.
There is so much that I support in the Bill, but the Government have got it wrong here—this is not sensible, and nor is it practical. Are they really going to try to ensure that every demonstration not composed of deaf mutes has everybody arrested? Really, how stupid can you get? I beg of my noble friend who will reply to this debate to take this one away. There are many good things in the Bill, but this is not one of them.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
The city of Bristol is a city of activists and protesters, and it has been so for a very long time, particularly at the time of the Great Reform Bill. Many protests nowadays focus on College Green, in the shadow of the cathedral; as a result, I am well aware of the passion and commitment of Bristol activists, and the very real hurt and trauma when protests are mishandled.
Often protests can be annoying, and often they are disruptive—but that is the point. Public spaces, like College Green in Bristol and Parliament Square, are places which are felt to belong to the public, and which have been places where decision-makers like us are confronted by people’s concerns.
Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (CB)
Let us be honest here about some of the underlying drivers of the Government’s policy. People in this country generally did not like the fact that Insulate Britain was obstructing ambulances on major roads, or that Extinction Rebellion was in one case—which affected me directly—stopping people from getting on the Tube. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, remarked, in both those cases, the protesters were pretty self-defeating. There is one part of the Government’s provisions that we will debate later that deals with major infrastructure, which I think would deal with both those issues.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I think suggested that he feels there is a bit too much protest in this country, but he rightly drew attention to the word “unease”, and the difficulty of defining it. It is just as difficult to define the word “inconvenience” or the word “noise”, and several of the other words still present in the Bill. That is why we absolutely cannot support it, because it is completely wrong to put forward powers of this magnitude with language that is fundamentally not just unclear but not possible to resolve—as the government amendments show that it is not possible to resolve.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, I fear that I am not going to make myself hugely popular by putting a note of dissent into this debate. I know that, given what has been said, noble Lords will do me the courtesy of listening for a moment or two.
Many good arguments have been made in the course of this debate and previously against some provisions in the Bill. Where I think that this House can do itself a disservice is in invoking the legacy of the suffragettes, Nelson Mandela and pro-democracy campaigners in repressive regimes. Is there not a fundamental difference between our liberal democracy—there have been some heinous attacks on individuals and institutions, and we speak of its strength when it is attacked—and those protestors who felt that they had to take disruptive means because they did not have the agency that we have the privilege to be able to have in this country: the right to decide our fate in the ballot and through peaceful process?
I am going to listen carefully to what the Minister says. Certainly, if the characterisation of these measures that have been put forward just now, and in previous iterations of this debate, were true, in that it is effectively sweeping away the right to peaceful protest and to make your voice heard through demonstrating, as a child of protesters myself and someone who has been on many protests—as have many noble Lords in this Chamber—I would, of course, oppose it too. But I have not yet heard a sufficient case that the measures that have been put forward would do that level of damage to the right to protest; rather, they are designed to protect the primacy of our democracy. We can agree or disagree that some of them go too far, but I have real problems with the way much of this has been framed through the discussion of the Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Walney. Noble Lords will recall—if they were present in Committee—that, in supporting the Bill, I did none the less raise some mild questions about noise. It is a shame the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is not here, because I thought he was very compelling in the arguments he made, as a former police chief, as to why these measures around noise were manageable and relevant.
I will listen very closely to what my noble friend the Minister says on this, but I feel pleased that the Government have come forward with the clarifications that they have. I would add—to build on what the noble Lord, Lord Walney, said—that when I think about the Bill and the reason why I support the measures within it in principle, I start from the summer of 2019. I did mention this before, at an earlier stage of the passage of this Bill. This was a point at which there were new forms of protest and demonstration through the summer, and a lot of people who, unlike noble Lords, do not go on protests, were rather concerned about the way that things such as blocking Waterloo Bridge and bringing Oxford Circus to a complete standstill—and this went on for days—were supported by Members of Parliament and very senior high-profile people.
That kind of behaviour was so alien to the way in which people in this country normally protest. It was very alarming to people and we have to remember that we cannot argue in favour of that aspect of our democracy in terms of protest, without also reminding ourselves that some people who were alarmed at the support for that kind of behaviour also looked at Parliament in real concern when we did not respect democracy in the years before that in the way that we ignored the change that some people wanted to make by using the ballot box. I do think we have to see this in the bigger picture.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, we are at Report stage—although it would be very easy to misrecognise it as Second Reading. I have been supporting the Government this afternoon—but not at this stage and probably not for most of the rest of the debate.
The fact is that this amendment—and most that follow—to my mind, we must support. I entirely accept that it is nonsensical to suggest that by Clause 56, and most of those that follow, the Government is intent on repression. They are not trying consciously to suppress our hallowed rights of protest, of demonstration and of assembly. That is not the position. But I suggest strongly that that is the public perception—that is what the public believe—and understandably so, because it is such an overreaction to anything that has happened.
I too excoriate Insulate Britain: they behaved outrageously and undemocratically, so flatly contrary to the rule of law and wider interests, that we must amend to ensure that they are arrestable and imprisonable without going through the process of contempt of court proceedings in future. But these provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, simply lack all common sense, they lack all balance and measure, and they are counterproductive.
The noble Baroness behind me suggested that we all, and the wider public, protest things such as stopping the Tube trains, but I would remind your Lordships—I think I have just read—that those who committed that apparent offence were resoundingly acquitted. The fact is that if we pass laws such as this law, that is going to be the reaction: the Government are going to be regarded as tyrants and the public will not play.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I tried to say that I think we do not want to muddle up too many things. The Bill might have been brought forward in order to deal with the popular revulsion at things such as the M25 sit-ins or getting on top of the Tube, and we have heard that from a number of noble Lords.
The point about this set of proposals, though, and things such as the triggering noise, is that they do not solve that problem. That is what drives me mad. The second lot of amendments—which were brought in anti-democratically in terms of process—at least looked like they referred to that set of egregious demonstrations. So that is that bit.
One thing that has been said which I think is very important is that there is a fractious atmosphere in society, which the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about last time we had this discussion, which is that people feel very strongly about some of the issues of the day. They are not prepared to always say that they support the right of demonstration; they think that something else is going on.
But one thing they definitely think is that the police are biased. They think that the police are erratic. Some people will say, “Well, the police won’t intervene because they’re all too busy taking the knee or driving around in rainbow-coloured vans”. Other people will say, “The police are acting like far-right stormtroopers protecting different types of people.” There is a public debate going on about the role of the police.
So, my objection to these amendment is that not only does it concentrate on noise, which nobody has ever complained about—who has brought that up?—but it puts the police in an even more invidious position. I do want to know how the Government will deal with that. The SOAS policy briefing, which I thought summed it up well, said that the Bill
“compels the police to make decisions about whether protests can go ahead, and therefore forces the police to become a visible and controversial actor in ordinary political debate.”
I think that this will make the position of the police much worse, so even if you are not on the side of the right to protest with no ifs and no buts—as I am—from the Government’s point of view and the Home Secretary’s point of view, who say they are doing it to help the police, they are actually putting the police in a position where they are wandering around assessing noise levels and therefore choosing which demos go ahead, which everybody will think is to do with politics and not procedure. So there seem to me to be some unintended consequences of that approach.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I share many of the concerns that have been expressed—particularly the absence of a sufficient mischief here and the absence of proper definition of the ingredients of the offence.
I will add just one further point: the ability to demonstrate, and the ability to demonstrate while making a noise, is a very valuable safety valve in our civil society. If you close off that safety valve, you are going to cause a far greater mischief than is currently the case.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, I do not think that the Government are trying to destroy democracy or steal all our freeborn rights from us, but I do think they are being extremely foolish. The wording of these amendments will create an absolute nightmare for the courts. Sitting here a moment ago I was trying to imagine how a judge would sum up one of these offences to a jury, and what the jury would make of it. It would be a chaotic scenario.
I will say one further thing, on a personal note. I attended both the great demonstrations against the Iraq war in 2002. One of them comprised over a million people, the second around 600,000 people. Those demonstrations would have been in breach of several of these amendments—not just the noise amendment but the various inconvenience amendments on making it difficult for people to get to their bank machines, hospitals and places of work. Under these amendments, those demonstrations would have been illegal. Is that really what Ministers seek to achieve with these amendments? If they do not, this is an extraordinarily foolish piece of drafting.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, no one likes pickets. Even pickets do not like picketing. However, these clauses impinge on the right to picket, the right to picket is a fundamental aspect of the right to strike, and the right to strike is a fundamental aspect of the right to bargain collectively, which is a fundamental aspect of democracy at work.
Picketing is a highly regulated area of the law in a very sensitive political area. It has been regulated by legislation since 1875 and the last statutory amendment was in the Trade Union Act 2016. There is also a code of practice regulating picketing. There are no exemptions for pickets from either the criminal or the civil law, but these clauses will restrict even further the limited right to picket.
On the issue of noise, other noble Lords have pointed out the vagueness of the concepts involved here, which will impose a great burden on the discretion of the police in deciding what is noisy and what is not. It is notable that legislation has—and workers are very familiar with this—imposed limits on noise by way of decibels and duration in many industries. Those scientific techniques are not used here.
The very purpose of a picket in a trade dispute is to cause
“disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity”—
namely, the employer. So pickets will be caught. I note that the amendment states that
“serious disruption to the life of the community”
may include two situations: first, the supply of
“a time-sensitive product to consumers”
and, secondly,
“prolonged disruption of access to … essential goods or any … service, including, in particular, access to … the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel … a system of communication … a transport facility … an educational institution, or … a service related to health.”
It does not take an expert to know that picketing is put at risk in almost every sector of the economy by these clauses, and it is for that reason that I have added my name to those of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, my noble friend Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in asking for these clauses to no longer stand part.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I also believe in freedom and in common sense. There are a number of provisions in this group, including the list we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. Now as I understand it, the Government are responding to the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s concerns. The council feels that, in the new world that has been described by others, public order legislation is not any longer appropriate and does not allow them to respond to the sort of disruptive protest tactics being used by some groups today that perhaps would not have been used in the past. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on the issue of noise, which people have highlighted.
I have two questions to add. First, how will these provisions help against Insulate Britain and what its members have been doing? How will the new arrangements work, particularly the developments as regards juries that others have mentioned? Secondly, I know that there have been concerns about the overuse of delegated powers in this part of the Bill. Indeed, there was an excellent debate in the House last week on that very issue, which some noble Lords were present for. What were the recommendations from the DPRRC and Constitution Committee in this area, and can my noble friend explain how they have been met? My understanding is that definitions of “serious disruption” have now been added to the face of the Bill, which was a concern. But does that meet the concern expressed by our committees?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this group includes 26 amendments, and that noble Lords are entitled to speak only once on each group, in case people were thinking of having another go. I cannot possibly speak on all 26 amendments; if I spent only one minute on each, I would be here for 26 minutes. But we on these Benches oppose all the measures in Part 3 of the Bill, including the new government amendments introduced late at night in Committee. We will come to those in a later group.
I am a former senior police officer and part of a small, specially selected group of senior police officers trained in the policing of protests. My view, and the view of the majority of police officers interviewed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has just said, is that the limiting factor in the policing of protests on the police’s ability to control protests is the number of suitably trained police officers available, not a lack of police powers or legislation.
Not only are new powers and new offences unnecessary but there is a very real danger of dragging the police into political decisions on which protests should go ahead and which should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has just said. There is a very real danger of more scenes like those we saw at the Sarah Everard vigil on Clapham Common happening with greater frequency. There is a real danger of more and more police officers being drawn into policing protests to enforce more and more restrictions and bans, taking them away from policing their communities and, as a result, further undermining trust and confidence in the police and their ability to enforce the law.
I spoke at length in Committee and do not intend to repeat myself. I refer noble Lords to the Official Report. We support all the non-government amendments in this group. Particularly, we do not agree that protests should be banned because the police think they might be too noisy—so we will be voting in support of Amendment 115.
We agree with the former Conservative Home Secretary who led on the original public order legislation in 1986 that the police should not be able to dictate where and when public meetings or assemblies should take place or to ban them completely. To quote Lord Hurd of Westwell,
“that would be an excessive limit on the right of assembly and freedom of speech.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/1986; col. 797.]
The Minister may say that the provisions simply bring limitations on assemblies into line with the limitations on processions, but I ask what has changed. It is still an excessive limit on the right of assembly and freedom of speech. I will therefore be testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 132. These measures are an outrageous limitation of people’s fundamental right in a democracy, and we oppose them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I start by quoting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who said that good debate relies on good listening. I hope that noble Lords will listen, as they did in the previous group, to what I have to say.
My noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Coaker, were all in agreement that many of them would have been in breach of these provisions in protests that they took part in. No. I disagree with that; the police rarely impose conditions on a protest, and we expect that to continue to be the case.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Walney, made some compelling arguments about how lucky we are to live in a democracy and how much we value protest—we can hear the drumbeats outside, which no one is going to stop. To answer the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, the provisions are not new today; they have been in the Bill from the start.
The government amendments give effect to the recommendations made by both the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. Under the Public Order Act 1986 as amended by the Bill, the police may attach certain conditions to a public procession, public assembly or one-person protest, including where that is necessary to prevent serious disruption. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to define the meaning of “serious disruption” in regulations, and we have published an indicative draft of such regulations.
However, both the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee argued that definitions should be in the Bill, although the DPRRC agreed that there should be a power to amend the definition by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. The government amendments therefore take the definitions as set out in the draft regulations and write them into the Public Order Act. Again, I express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Blencathra—although I do not see him in his place—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the other members of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. I trust that the amendments will be acceptable to them and indeed to the House as a whole. The word “significant” is lifted from the draft regulations that the Constitution Committee said were not unreasonable.
Amendment 115, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would remove the new noise triggers for the police to impose conditions on public processions. Amendments 123, 124, 125 and 147 would collectively do the same for public assemblies and single-person protests. In response to those amendments, I reiterate to the House that noise generated by protesters can have a significant and detrimental impact on the wider public. It is unacceptable, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham says, that certain protests can seriously disrupt the lives of ordinary people.
It is absolutely right that the Government give the police the tools that they require to tackle disruptive protests. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated during the debate in Committee on these measures,
“noise can be more than an irritant.”—[Official Report, 24/11/21; col. 944.]
In some contexts, it can be tortuous, and it is important to contextualise the different situations in which it can happen, such as the time of day or where it takes place. Is it outside an old people’s home, or is it in Parliament Square? Is it anti-vaxxers outside a school, or in St Ann’s Square in Manchester?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and all noble Lords who spoke in the debate. These amendments deal with existing parts of the Bill; we will come to the new clauses that the Government propose in later groups. We have very serious concerns about what the existing clauses, to which I tabled Amendment 115 and which many noble Lords have spoken about this evening, will do to the right to protest. I remind noble Lords, because I am going to seek to test the opinion of the House, that Amendment 115 specifically deals with the Bill’s provisions with respect to noise, which are ridiculous, irrelevant and simply will not work. They will impact on the right to protest. If they will not impact on the right to protest, what is the point of the Government proposing the law in the first place?
With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, if I am right they were Members of Parliament during the Margaret Thatcher and John Major Governments. People will say, “This is a bygone age. What does Lord Hain know about it? He’s talking about things from decades ago.” But what about the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham? There were riots during the poll tax and the miners’ strike; look at all the protests that went on there, many of which I played a part in, particularly on the poll tax and the miners’ strike—not the riots.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I was not born yesterday.
The noise was massive during the poll tax and the miners’ strike protests. The disruption outside Parliament was absolutely enormous: rattling the gates, banging the drums, stopping this and that. What did Margaret Thatcher do? She did not introduce a noise amendment to the right to protest. I completely and utterly reject the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, but she did not do this, and neither did John Major. What has happened that has caused the Government now to introduce these changes to the right to protest with respect to noise, which previous Prime Ministers did not do in the face of some of the most difficult demonstrations, whatever the rights and wrongs of them? It beggars belief.
I say this to the Minister: if these amendments do not pass and the Bill becomes law, there will be a demonstration on climate change, on the building of a dam or a housing estate, or on some road going through a forest, and the police will put conditions on it with respect to noise and the public will say, “When did this happen? Who passed this? What on earth were they thinking of?” If you ask the public whether they object to disruption, or whether they object to protests with respect to their lives, then of course they will say yes. I moan about demonstrations if I cannot get into Parliament, but it does not mean that they are wrong or that they should not take place.
Protesting is a part of democracy. Of course I do not believe that the Government are some sort of right-wing fascist organisation, but I believe that this particular measure is a fundamental attack on a freedom that the citizens of this country have enjoyed for centuries. As such, I hope the Chamber will support Amendment 115.
This amendment replaces the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the meaning of serious disruption for the purposes of section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 with provisions on the face of the Bill, subject to a power to amend these provisions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 49, line 27, page 49, line 28, page 49, line 30 and page 49, line 40 confer power on the Secretary of State to amend new subsections (2ZA) to (2ZC) of section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 in the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 49, line 3 and make consequential amendments to Part 2 of that Act.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 49, line 22.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 49, line 22.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 49, line 22.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 49, line 22.
“(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the cases in which a public assembly in England and Wales may result in serious disruption to the life of the community include, in particular, where—(a) it may result in a significant delay to the supply of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product, or(b) it may result in a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including, in particular, access to— (i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,(ii) a system of communication,(iii) a place of worship,(iv) a transport facility,(v) an educational institution, or(vi) a service relating to health.(2ZB) In subsection (2ZA)(a) “time-sensitive product” means a product whose value or use to its consumers may be significantly reduced by a delay in the supply of the product to them.(2ZC) For the purposes of subsection (1)(aa), the cases in which the noise generated by persons taking part in a public assembly may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the assembly include, in particular, where it may result in persons connected with the organisation not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period of time, to carry on in that vicinity the activities or any one of them.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the meaning of serious disruption for the purposes of section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 with provisions on the face of the Bill, subject to a power to amend these provisions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 51, line 8, page 51, line 9, page 51, line 11 and page 51, line 21 confer power on the Secretary of State to amend new subsections (2ZA) to (2ZC) of section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 in the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 50, line 32 and make consequential amendments to Part 2 of that Act.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 51, line 3.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 51, line 3.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 51, line 3.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 51, line 3.
Lord Paddick
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 9.20 pm.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The Question is that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 9.20 pm. The Question will be decided by a remote Division.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Would it be appropriate for the usual channels to meet for five minutes or so to see whether we need to have a Division on this issue? It may be of guidance to the House if we could adjourn for five minutes.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that, with the agreement of the House, we adjourn until 9.15 pm to let the Minister finish her dinner break.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I hope we are all refreshed after that break, particularly the Minister. I thank her for giving the time and energy to meet me last week to consider my objections to Clause 59.
I have brought Amendments 133A and 133B before the House because Clause 59 has been too tightly drawn. It will prohibit large, peaceful and well-organised demonstrations taking place in Parliament Square at any time, even at the weekend, if there was any danger that the weight of numbers would obstruct a vehicle going into Parliament or even, in the words of the clause, make
“the passage of a vehicle more difficult”.
Parliament Square is the temple of protest. It is where the people of this country have gathered for centuries to voice their opposition to government policies, hoping their concerns will penetrate the walls of Parliament. In 2002, more than 400,000 people attended the countryside march. In 2018 and 2019, millions came to the People’s Vote and Brexit day celebration marches, and the women’s march drew thousands to support women’s rights. All ended with massed but organised protests in Parliament Square, all of which, by dint of huge numbers, will have obstructed the vehicle entrances to Parliament. I ask your Lordships to imagine the fury on all sides of the country if these were banned in future.
This is the mother of parliaments, outside which voters should gather to speak truth to power and where we, the parliamentarians who make the law, should hear them loud and clear. At this time, when politicians are seen to be out of touch with the feelings of the people, it is unconscionable that the House should pass a law shielding us from hearing what they have to say. A new poll shows that 79% of people disapprove of a ban, and 75% of them are Conservative voters.
The problem is that Clause 59, as with so much of Part 3 on public order, has been drafted to deal with the headlines about Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain deliberately blocking roads and bridges across the country and deliberately obstructing access to Parliament. The drafters have not considered the effect of the clause on large, peaceful protests outside Parliament.
I feel sure that many noble Lords have held protests outside Parliament and understand that permission first needs to be obtained from the GLA and the police. As it stands, the clause will make it impossible for the GLA, which controls the garden at the centre of Parliament Square, to give permission for any protest to take place if there is a danger of obstruction to Parliament by large numbers of protesters. The clause expands the controlled area beyond the garden to the roads and pavements of Parliament Square and half way up Whitehall, to the entrance of Downing Street. When granting permission, the GLA will now have to consider whether numbers of protesters will spill off the garden on to the road. The GLA considers 5,000 people to be the capacity of the garden. Any more will block the roads around Parliament Square.
These amendments are aimed purely at the permissions process between the GLA, other responsible bodies and the organisers of a protest. They are based on the existing wording granting the use of amplifying equipment in the square. They will ensure that large, peaceful protests continue to take place outside Parliament. I know that noble Lords will be worried that the wording of my amendments appears to give permission to protesters to obstruct vehicles; this is not the case. The police will still be involved in the consent process, requiring protesters to move on if they are deliberately blocking entrances to Parliament. Proposed new subsection (6) in Amendment 133B reinforces this by allowing the responsible person to withdraw an authorisation for a protest if the conditions are not being observed.
The Government and the Joint Committee on Human Rights are concerned that the police do not have powers to move on demonstrators who deliberately block access to Parliament. Even if these amendments are accepted, the powers granted in Clause 59 will still be available for the police to exercise. I urge the Minister to accept my amendments to ensure that Clause 59 does not cause an unintended ban on protests in Parliament Square. I know from talking to her that she does not want to become the Minister who bans protests outside Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support all the non-government amendments in this group. In particular, we agree that, just as protesters can be given permission to use amplification equipment in the vicinity of Parliament under existing legislation, large demonstrations should be able to block roads temporarily, given the necessary permission. We will vote for Amendments 133A and 133B should the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, divide the House.
In Committee, I spoke at length on why we oppose this clause and support Amendment 137A. I refer noble Lords to the Official Report.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on his excellent introduction. This is the first time I have spoken this evening but my remarks apply to many other aspects of this Bill and many of the other areas that we are voting on.
There are some excellent and important measures in this Bill. I agree that banning dangerous or violent protestors is important; I am pleased that my noble friend the Minister said in an earlier debate that the law must protect the public and prevent extremist protests such as those by Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain. However, I respectfully suggest that the measures in Clause 59 are like using not a hammer but dynamite to crack a nut.
The Conservative Party has always championed law and order but also freedom of speech and expression, most importantly around Parliament Square—the very heart of our democracy. Amendments 133A and 133B would protect the public’s right to demonstrate and express views in Parliament Square, which is so important. I hope that colleagues on these Benches will consider supporting these important changes to the Bill.
I do not believe that the Government really intend to ban peaceful protest. My noble friend the Minister will assure the House that such protests can still proceed, and I have no doubt that she is sincere in that assurance. But I respectfully point out that, without these amendments, this legislation could prove a Trojan horse, allowing future Governments to introduce the shadow of repression into our country, and could represent a potential attack on the most fundamental freedoms of our democracy. We could allow this and any future Government to ban large demonstrations around Parliament Square on the basis of a ministerial diktat and police connivance. Indeed, the grounds on which such protests can be criminalised are quite flimsy. One example, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, mentioned, is proposed new subsection (4A)—to be inserted by Clause 59(3)(c)—which states that
“obstructing the passage of a vehicle includes making the passage of a vehicle more difficult.”
What does that mean? Is it a 30-second delay? Every large protest would be banned, which would effectively change the way our democracy has worked for centuries.
This country has a proud record of standing up to despots, authoritarian rulers and corrupt dictatorships. We have offered sanctuary to those fleeing repression, for which I will be eternally grateful. The most recent example is of Hong Kong residents fleeing Chinese repression, who witnessed their Government recently tearing down the statue memorialising the Tiananmen Square massacre. When those Hong Kong exiles arrive here and learn that this mother of all parliaments no longer allows large protests outside its door, at any time, what will they think?
Democratic Governments must not surround themselves only with yea-sayers, hearing only what they want or choose to hear and squashing dissent. I believe it is important for noble Lords to stand up for our cherished freedoms, prevent any descent into authoritarian rule and support these wholly reasonable amendments to this Bill.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, my name is also added to the amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which he moved so eloquently and comprehensively. I really do not want to take up any more of the House’s time, but simply say that we support this amendment and what was said by him, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. If the noble Viscount is not happy with the response he gets and decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support him in the vote.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, these amendments relate to Clauses 59 and 60, which ensure—as was originally proposed by the right honourable Harriet Harman, as chair of the JCHR, to whom we send our deepest sympathies—that vehicular access to the Parliamentary Estate is not prevented by protests or other activity; and Clause 61, which restates the common-law offence of public nuisance in statute.
I begin with Amendments 133A and 133B in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which I was able to discuss with him and Dominic Grieve last week. They seek to avoid a perceived outcome of Clause 59 that the Greater London Authority will no longer authorise large-scale assemblies on Parliament Square, due to the risk that such assemblies could obstruct vehicles entering or exiting the controlled area around Parliament.
I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for meeting me last week to raise his concerns about Clause 59. I understand that he is concerned that this clause may have the unintended consequences that the Greater London Authority, which is responsible for Parliament Square Garden, would no longer be able to authorise assemblies in the garden if they risk blocking vehicular access to the Parliamentary Estate. I reassure him tonight, as I did the other day, that this is not the case.
The GLA’s by-laws for Parliament Square Garden require that written permission is granted for certain acts to be conducted in the garden; organising or taking part in an assembly is one of those acts. It is important to note that this by-law applies to the garden itself and does not extend to Carriage Gates, nor the road around the garden. The by-laws state that permission will not be given in respect of any matter defined as a “prohibited activity” under Section 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. Clause 59 amends this section to include obstructing the passage of a vehicle into or out of an entrance or exit to the Parliamentary Estate as a prohibited activity.
In practice, this means that the GLA could not permit an assembly in Parliament Square Garden if its stated and primary aim is to obstruct vehicular passage in and out of Parliament. However, nothing in Clause 59 means that permission could not still be granted for any other assembly, even if that risks some individuals in attendance obstructing vehicles entering and exiting Parliament. This is the point I was trying to impress the other day.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I thank those from all over the House who have supported this amendment. I hope the Minister will listen very carefully to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, about the sort of example we are setting to the refugees from Hong Kong, for instance.
I have listened very carefully to the words of the Minister who claims that this clause will not cause any problems for giving permission for large protests on Parliament Square. The lawyers I have talked to have said that the GLA will, under the by-law, particularly since it is now having to look at this extended area around the garden, have to take into account the sheer numbers and the effect of those numbers on obstructing vehicles. If there are half a million people taking part in a protest, inevitably they are going to obstruct vehicles, whether they mean to or not—of course they are. The GLA, I suppose, could cordon off the whole garden so that protesters could not go on to it, but it would make a bit of a nonsense and I do not think that is what the people of this country would want. Therefore, I would still like this amendment to be part of the Bill and I therefore want to test the opinion of the House.
“(3A) After section 143 insert—“143A Authorisation (1) The responsible person for any land in the Palace of Westminster controlled area may authorise a person to carry out in accordance with this section an activity that will obstruct the passage of a vehicle of any description into or from the Parliamentary Estate while on or adjoining the Palace of Westminster controlled area.(2) An application for the authorisation must be made by or on behalf of the person (or persons) seeking the authorisation.(3) The responsible person may— (a) determine the form in which and the manner in which an application is to be made; (b) specify the information to be provided in connection with an application;(c) require a fee to be paid for determining the application.(4) If an application is made to a responsible person, the person must—(a) determine the application, and(b) give notice in writing to the applicant of the person’s decision within the period of 21 days beginning with the day the person receives the application.(5) The notice must specify—(a) the person or persons authorised (whether by name or description),(b) the nature of the activity that is to be permitted,(c) the period to which the authorisation applies, and(d) any conditions to which the authorisation is subject.(6) The responsible person may at any time withdraw an authorisation if the conditions to which it is subject are not being observed by giving notice in writing to the applicant.””
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 53, line 40 make it clear that one element of the new offence of public nuisance requires a person’s act or omission to create a risk of, or to cause, serious harm as defined in clause 60(2) to the public or a section of the public.
“(2) In subsection (1)(b)(i) “serious harm” means—(a) death, personal injury or disease,(b) loss of, or damage to, property, or(c) serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 55, line 33.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends Clause 60 to clarify that the Clause does not affect the civil liability of any person for the tort of public nuisance. The tort currently tracks the common law offence and this amendment makes it clear that the replacement of the offence does not affect the tort.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 56, line 23.
“(5A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), the cases in which the noise generated by a person taking part in a one-person protest may result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the protest include, in particular, where it may result in persons connected with the organisation not being reasonably able, for a prolonged period of time, to carry on in that vicinity the activities or any one of them.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the meaning of serious disruption for the purposes of section 14ZA of the Public Order Act 1986 with provisions on the face of the Bill, subject to a power to amend these provisions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 58, line 19, page 58, line 20, page 58, line 22 and page 58, line 29 confer power on the Secretary of State to amend subsection (5A) of new section 14ZA of the Public Order Act 1986 in the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 57, line 22 and make consequential amendments to Part 2 of that Act.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 58, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 58, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 58, line 15.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 58, line 15.
Lord Paddick
“Offence of locking on
(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) they intentionally—(i) attach themselves to another person, to an object or to land,(ii) attach a person to another person, to an object or to land, or(iii) attach an object to another object or to land,(b) that act causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption to—(i) two or more individuals, or(ii) an organisation,in a place other than in a dwelling, and(c) they intend that act to have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (b) or are reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both.(4) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (3) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.(5) In this section “dwelling” means—(a) a building or structure which is used as a dwelling, or(b) a part of a building or structure, if the part is used as a dwelling,and includes any yard, garden, grounds, garage or outhouse belonging to and used with a dwelling.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence of “locking on”, involving the attachment of an individual to another individual, to an object or to land, or an object to another object or to land. It is a requirement of the offence that the act causes or is capable of causing serious disruption to two or more individuals or an organisation and that the accused intends that to occur or is reckless as to whether it will occur.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
This group of amendments brings us back to the new public order measures which the Government initially put forward in Committee. I will not repeat the detailed explanation of each of the new clauses but will instead reiterate the Government’s overall case for these additional measures and highlight the significant changes to the package as compared to the amendments tabled in Committee.
These new measures bolster the police’s powers to respond to the disruptive, dangerous and disproportionately costly tactics employed recently by some groups of protesters. For example, the Metropolitan Police spent over £4 million and deployed over 6,000 officers and staff to police the Insulate Britain protests between 13 September and 20 November last year. Injunctions have their place, but they can be slow to implement. Therefore, it is completely right that the Government are introducing these measures to the Bill to give police the right powers to respond immediately to such protests.
It is against this backdrop that we need to build on the measures already in Part 3 of the Bill. We need to ensure that the criminal law is fit for purpose by ensuring that there are appropriate, targeted offences to prosecute those who engage in actions which endanger others and cause wholly unacceptable disruption, and that the penalties are commensurate with the harm caused. But we also need to ensure that the police have the necessary powers to take effective preventive action. These amendments are directed to that end.
Amendments 148, 149 and 150 reintroduce the offences of locking on and going equipped to lock on, and amend the offence of obstructing the highway, all of which were discussed at Committee. Amendment 151 reintroduces the new offence of obstruction of major transport works.
In response to the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, in Committee, we have added a defence for this offence relating to trade disputes. Alongside the defence of reasonable excuse, it will be a defence for individuals to prove that their actions were performed in contemplation or furtherance of a lawful trade dispute. This is to make it clear that this new offence does not interfere with the rights of workers to engage in lawful trade disputes.
Amendment 152 introduces a new offence of interference with the use or operation of key national infrastructure. By targeting key transport infrastructure and printing presses, protesters have been able to inflict disruption and misery on the daily lives of the working public and to undermine press freedom. This Government take such acts extremely seriously. The introduction of this offence, which carries a maximum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, reflects that.
“Interference” is defined here as an act that prevents the infrastructure in question being operated to any extent for any of its intended purposes. Acts which significantly delay the operation of key national infrastructure are included within the definition. As with the offence relating to the obstruction of major transport works, Amendment 152 includes a reasonable excuse defence and a defence for those engaged in a trade dispute.
Amendments 154 to 158 reintroduce both the suspicion-based and suspicion-less stop and search powers, which were introduced in Committee. The list of offences to which these powers will apply has been extended to include the new offence of interfering with the operation of key national infrastructure. The police need to be able to respond to a seriously disruptive protest—for example, one blocking a motorway. The public, however, would far rather the police take preventive action, such as seizing locking on equipment, to avoid the disruption happening in the first place, so that they can get to work on time and ambulances can quickly get patients to hospital.
Finally, Amendments 159 and 163 reintroduce serious disruption prevention orders, or SDPOs. As I set out in Committee, these court orders address the acts of a small number of prolific and disruptive protesters who repeatedly trample on the rights of the public to go about their daily business. These amendments are largely unchanged from a similar amendment tabled earlier, but we have included express provision to enable a court to adjourn proceedings to hear an application for an SDPO once it has sentenced the offender in question.
It will be for the courts to determine whether it is necessary and proportionate to make an order for the purposes set out in new Sections 342L and 342M of the Sentencing Code. In reaching such a decision, the courts are well versed in balancing the rights of the individual who may be made the subject of an SDPO and the rights and freedoms of the public who may be significantly adversely affected by the protest-related activities of that individual.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We have amendments in this group, and I will refer also to the new government amendments. I will try to be brief since I do not wish to test the patience of the House, but I have a bit to get through. In that context, I congratulate the Minister on the quite enormous stamina which she has shown so far. I have to admit that it is way in excess of my stamina for this kind of thing.
We oppose the group of new government clauses on protest. In our view, they should not be added to the Bill, which already contains government proposals in relation to protests. The Bill has been in Parliament for some 11 months. However, these sweeping, significant and further controversial powers from the Government have not been looked at for a single minute by the elected House, which is normal practice in relation to controversial measures. In this House they have had just over one hour’s consideration, after midnight at the end of Committee, which meant, in effect, that the overwhelming majority of noble Lords were denied the opportunity to participate. We have now started to debate them here on Report at 9.50 pm and have been told that Report has to be completed tonight, whether before or after midnight. This is, frankly, an outrageous way to legislate. Sometimes a Bill needs late additions to respond to events that have to be addressed immediately. However, the Government did not apply this approach to abusive and intimidating protests outside schools and vaccine centres. Instead, this House compelled them to do so last week.
We support increasing sentences for those who protest dangerously by blocking motorways. This is also likely to cause a clear risk to life, and we were all aware of ambulances being impeded last year when motorways were obstructed and of members of the public being unable to complete time-critical journeys in the timescale required. Our Amendment 150A to government Amendment 150 would apply these increased sentences where they should actually be targeted: not at every road and highway across the board but at wilful obstruction of the motorways and major roads in the 4,300-mile strategic road network—SRN—at the core of our national transport system. Instruction of the SRN results in the most disruption due to volume of traffic, a lack of alternative routes and the difficulty of getting off such a major route because of infrequent junctions, for the large amounts of traffic obstructed. Our amendment would also largely prevent the higher penalties applying to obstruction of a grass verge or pavement, which may be interpreted as part of a highway.
The Government’s proposed locking-on amendment provides an exceptionally low threshold for a broad offence. It can be triggered by an act that is capable of causing disruption to two people. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services is not convinced of the need for this power. Its report on balancing protest powers states that
“most interviewees did not wish to criminalise protest actions through the creation of a specific offence concerning locking-on.”
The reality is that powers already exist for dealing with lock-ons. What we should be looking at is proper guidance, training and, as the inspectorate raised, improving our use of existing resources and specialist officers.
Our Amendments 160A to 160C are based on recommendations of HMICFRS, including consolidating police guidance on public order in one place and keeping track of national and local needs for specialist officers. These are examples of what could have been debated and worked on, if these proposals had been given proper scrutiny time, to find the best way through, but this House has not had that opportunity. I will make a reference to suffragettes: since locking on was used by the suffragettes, I hope that the Government are not going to tell us that it emerged as a tactic for the first time between Second Reading and Report, and that they had no opportunity to bring forward carefully drafted legislation instead of the rushed, broadly drafted power now in front of us.
Government Amendments 151 to 153 on obstruction of major transport works and key infrastructure are overreaching and unnecessary, as there are already existing public order powers that can apply to these situations. Amendment 151 will have an impact particularly on environmental protesters. Frankly, we have reached a sorry state of affairs when we legislate still further specifically against those concerned about the proven threat of climate change and its impact on our way of life and that of our children and grandchildren, and the tardy action on environmental issues. As the Prime Minister himself once committed to lying down in front of the bulldozers in opposition to a third runway, one wonders how much thought he has given to these widely drawn new powers.
We are opposed to the new stop and search on suspicion powers in Amendment 154. We have concerns over their disproportionate use in relation to black and minority ethnic groups and those groups’ level of trust in the police—a problem that we have not faced up to in other uses of stop and search; we also have concerns over how widely the powers are drawn.
It is, though, the final two powers—on suspicionless stop and search and serious disruption prevention orders—that we believe are the most extreme and pernicious. Suspicionless stop and search is a power that, until now, we have used to target serious violent crime and terrorism. These new government clauses would replicate that power to target peaceful protests. Where the power is used, it would permit any member of the public near a protest to be stopped and searched without cause and without suspicion.
The second of the final two powers—serious disruption prevention orders, which can be made without a conviction—are, in effect, essentially protest banning orders. HMICFRS has said that it believed that protest banning orders
“would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent.”
Like serious violence prevention orders, serious disruption prevention orders can be made using inadmissible evidence; they can be extended indefinitely; and breaching them is a criminal offence with terms of imprisonment attached.
These final two powers are overreaching, unwarranted powers which affect the rights of the British public. They should most certainly not be included in the Bill. The Government are trying to force them in through the back door, without full and necessary parliamentary scrutiny, including by this House.
The reason cannot be lack of parliamentary time to provide such full scrutiny—the Commons Chamber finished at 3.30 pm last Wednesday, following the Prime Minister’s performance at PMQs. We cannot support any of these last-minute, rushed and ill-thought-through broad powers in this group of new government amendments, with the exception of approving the increased sentences for wilfully obstructing motorways and major roads.
The absolute priority for us has to be opposing the Government’s suspicionless stop and search and the serious disruption prevention orders being put into statute. These, however, are down as the last new clauses in this group. Frankly, it is already quite late, and we ought to seek to have these votes as soon as possible, to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible can cast a vote.
I conclude by simply referring to what my noble friend Lord Blunkett wrote in April last year:
“Protest might be inconvenient for politicians, but it acts as a pressure valve, allowing citizens to express their views and vent frustrations that could otherwise boil over … If we suppress protest, we could see more anger towards institutions including the police, the judiciary and parliament.”
That is the direction in which we think the Government are heading with these new protest clauses.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I shall speak briefly, because I too want to get to the votes. Despite government claims to the contrary, these are draconian laws that are part of a wider assault on our democracy. We have a Government who are passing rules for us but not acting according to those rules themselves. The police protect the powerful, while getting more oppressive powers to use against the voiceless. This is an autocracy, not a democracy. The Government know that they will face bigger and more vocal protests while they get on with their dog whistle policies, which fail at the moment to distract from the terrible impact of their politics.
There will be a lot of climate change protests in future—I can see myself getting arrested, perhaps more than I have so far. Climate change is the biggest threat to human civilisation. It is an existential threat, and this Government are not acting fast enough.
The Government claim to speak for ordinary people, but it is ordinary people who protest on the streets, and the Government do not speak for them anymore; they do not speak for the great British public, because the great British public find the Bill and these late amendments offensive. The Greens here will be voting against all of these late amendments. We will not support the Labour amendment on the obstruction of the highway, only because it opens the door to the Government bringing back their original amendment. I just hope that the Government listen.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, gave an excellent speech in opposition to these government amendments and in support of other amendments tabled, and I have little to add to it.
I want to say a word or two about stop and search without suspicion. At one time, every year in London, about 180,000 people were stopped and searched without suspicion under the Terrorism Act. It caused tremendous anger and offence to those who were searched, particularly to those groups who fell into the broad definition of tropes used by police officers to decide who to stop and search. That was stopped. Interestingly, the provisions of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, as amended, now provide that an authorisation may be given for stop and search without suspicion by an assistant chief constable or above—a more senior officer than in this situation—and only if the person giving the authorisation
“considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism.”
The Terrorism Act stop and search power is there for the prevention of actual acts of actual terrorism which kill actual people.
The dilution of without-suspicion stop and search powers is a menacing and dangerous measure. I urge the Government to recognise that it is disproportionate to have a lower level of officer allowed to give an authorisation to stop and search basically middle-income, middle-class, middle-educated people who have strong feelings about the environment, who are not going to commit acts of terrorism but will just be a pretty awful nuisance—and that of course has to be dealt with in this Bill. It is disproportionate, and the Government should think twice about it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Government say that they are a law and order party, and it is important to recognise that law and order requires that, when Parliament makes criminal laws and sets out clear rules, the public themselves can decide whether they will be on the side of law and order or on the side of criminality. That requires that the laws that are introduced are proportional and have clarity.
Any member of the public needs to know whether they are breaking the law, so that they will not be labelled a criminal, but in this whole group of new amendments there is no clear guidance on, for example, what is a reasonable excuse. In an earlier set of amendments, the “ought to know” clause completely made it clear that one might not know. The phrase “reasonable excuse” is used as though one were guilty already and needed to give a good excuse for a perfectly reasonable, legal activity that is now treated with suspicion; the legal burden of proof is on the defence, whereas it should be a burden on the prosecution.
In Committee, when asked what reasonable excuse one might use for carrying a bicycle lock if it could be seen as potentially preparation for locking on, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams said:
“It is a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for carrying the equipment in question. For example, carrying a bike lock for the purposes of locking one’s bike to a designated space for bikes could be considered a reasonable excuse”.—[Official Report, 24/11/2021; col. 994.]
It struck me then that this is a situation whereby we have to explain to the authorities that in fact we are just carrying a bike lock and that we might want to lock our bike up, and that no, we were not the type of person who might misuse our bike lock. To be honest with you, that is no business of the police, the Government or the authorities. It seems alarming that people will need to have reasonable excuses for carrying out peaceful and lawful actions to avoid, potentially, prison terms. This is the micromanagement of what is considered to be the right kind of protest, when the Government claim that it is not attacking protests.
I would like to counter some of the arguments used by people I am broadly on the side of.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I know that this side wants us all not to debate, but I am going to carry on for a moment. I want to get to the vote—I am trying to win a vote. It is allowed—just let me get on with it.
The point that I wanted to make was that this is not about whether we think that there is a climate emergency or not. It is not about what side you are on in particular demonstrations. There are some people on this side who may think that people labelled anti-vaxxers should not be allowed to have demonstrations. We have to be careful about picking and choosing which protests we want.
The proposals increase criminal liability without the need of knowledge of wrongdoing for a whole range of people who might just want to express a different political opinion, which I still think is what debate and protest is all about. If you do not have the knowledge of wrongdoing in that way, peaceful protests will be criminalised, and it will have a chilling effect on the right to protest.
The Government say that they are doing something on law and order, but they are inadvertently criminalising all sorts of innocent people, whether they like it or not. That will damage the right to protest.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I suspect I am going to be in a small minority of people who are supporting the Government tonight. Regardless of that, I think the police should have an opportunity to make something of their case. The only, or main, reason we are debating this tonight is because of the disruption that was caused at Oxford Circus, Heathrow airport and on the M25, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to. It was dangerous at times and deeply disruptive to normal work around London and in other places where it took place. The police were criticised, and I must admit that at times I wondered why they were not using some existing powers around Oxford Circus, which looked like a fairly straightforward case of obstruction. I think they have made a case since, although they have gone a little quieter as the debate has approached, about the sort of help they need.
One of the things they needed help with is locking on. The law is not at all clear that just by locking on to something you have committed an offence. If you do not damage it, what is the problem? Well, it is fine until it disrupts the business or what people are trying to do, so I think there is a need to consider a change of law. If you are going to look for equipment that is going to be used for locking on, there is not much point unless you have a stop and search power. How are you going to find it? There is no power of prevention for these things. This is a power to try to prevent people arriving at a point where they can use the locking-on materials. People are worried about the random nature of stop and search without cause, but it is limited by geography, as it is for a limited area; by time, for a matter of hours; and by the seniority of the officer giving the authorisation. The Section 60 power already exists. Some people do not like it, but it is now relatively rarely used. Most stop and searches are under Section 1, where cause has to be given.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the class of the person you are about to stop and search is relevant in any way. The law should be equal for everybody, and whether people are middle-class or whatever their background, it not relevant in deciding what the law should be and whether we should intervene in people’s life.
On the power around the road network, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that Labour would prefer that we should target only motorways and major highways. But some hospitals are on side roads. Some ambulance stations are also on quite minor roads, so they can be disrupted, as can police stations and fire stations. So I do not think the quality of the road is relevant for this purpose; it is the intent and the disruption that is caused by the protest when it occurs.
My final point is that it was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that HMICFRS had called for the law to be changed to make sure that there is a proper record of public order skills around the country. I do not think that is a matter for law. It may well be that there is a need for more recording of skills, but, frankly, I do not think that is going to get us through this problem; you are going to have to have numbers of officers with the right powers.
The very final thing I shall say about these prevention orders is that the harm that these prevention orders are trying to remedy—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Given the noble Lord’s criticism of what I said, which he was perfectly entitled to make, does he agree that if the police without suspicion wrongly stop and search people who normally support the police very strongly and obey the law, it will diminish the respect in which they hold the law?
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
If someone is stopped and searched without good cause, either maliciously or for any other reason, I do not care whether they were a criminal in the past or a good person; it is a bad thing. Regardless of their background, there has to be a good cause for that stop and search unless the law says that it should be done without cause.
As I was saying about prevention orders, the reason that they were considered was that the rate at which people were being released from bail to return to the protest was overwhelming the ability of the police to deal with the disruption. That is what is being looked at, to see whether there is a possibility of exerting some inhibiting behaviour on the protesters. It would still not be easy. If protesters turn out in sufficient numbers, they will always overwhelm the police—that is the nature of a democracy—but in these disruptions, quite often relatively small numbers have disrupted many people and, frankly, put their lives at risk. So in fact it is a serious matter and the Government’s proposals are fairly reasonable. There may be things that people can argue at the edges, but I do not object to this and I support the Government’s proposals.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could deal with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to begin with. My recollection is that the report on public order from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services showed that many officers did not want additional powers to deal with locking on. That is in the report. My experience is that the police are getting better and better at dealing with locking on, particularly people supergluing themselves to roadways—people are not now glued to the roadway for very long.
On hospitals that are on minor roads, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made it quite clear that he wanted the increased penalty of imprisonment for highway obstruction on the strategic road network where there is no realistic way around a blockage that has been put in. A hospital may be on a minor road, but there are other ways of getting to it, and I do not feel that that argument holds water. I will come to the noble Lord’s comments about the serious disruption orders shortly.
The Minister said that these amendments were debated in Committee. That debate started at 11.50 pm. The Minister stood up to make her closing remarks at 1 am. Does she really think that that is serious consideration and debate of these measures?
These government amendments were a hurried response to the Home Secretary’s knee-jerk, populist reaction to Insulate Britain protests at the Conservative Party conference. Consideration of this part of the Bill had to be taken out of order, to give civil servants time to cobble together these last-minute, ill-conceived, badly thought-through acts of desperation, introduced into this House late at night on the last day of Committee without any consideration by the other place. If the Government are determined to bring in these draconian, antidemocratic laws, reminiscent of Cold War Eastern bloc police states, they should withdraw them now and introduce them as a separate Bill to allow the democratically elected House time to consider them properly.
We oppose all these government amendments, for the reasons I set out in Committee—albeit in the early hours of the morning—and I refer noble Lords to the Official Report. Given the hour, we will vote against the most egregious measures: Amendment 151, which is clearly targeted at climate protesters; Amendment 155, which gives police the power to stop and search anyone and everyone in the vicinity of a protest, including innocent passers-by; and Amendment 159, by which the police can apply for an order to ban people from their democratic right to protest, even when they have never been to a protest in their life, let alone been convicted of any offence in connection with a protest. That is the power in these measures—you do not even have to have been to a protest to be banned from future ones. You do not even have to be convicted of an offence in connection with a protest before you can be banned from going to protests.
If the Official Opposition decide to vote on Amendment 148, on locking on, we will support them. We will also vote in favour of Amendment 150A, to restrict imprisonment for highway obstruction to blocking motorways and other parts of the strategic road network.
The anti-protest measures in the original Bill were dreadful. These measures, and the way they have been introduced, are outrageous.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether noble Lords want more time to debate or me to hurry up. If noble Lords will indulge me for a minute, I will thank them for the support for the new measures that has come from one area of the House, but it is clear that a number of other noble Lords are less enamoured of the government amendments. As I said in opening the debate, I think the British public will fully support these reasonable and proportionate measures to ensure that their daily lives are not disrupted by the sorts of tactics we saw from Insulate Britain last autumn. This is not an argument for or against climate change; it is about the disruption caused to the lives of the working British public.
“Wilful obstruction of highway
(1) Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (penalty for wilful obstruction) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) after “liable to” insert “imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or”;(b) for “not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale” substitute “or both”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (1) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.(1B) For the purposes of this section it does not matter whether free passage along the highway in question has already been temporarily restricted or temporarily prohibited (whether by a constable, a traffic authority or otherwise).(1C) In subsection (1B), “traffic authority” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (see section 121A of that Act).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment increases the penalty for the offence of wilfully obstructing a highway. It also clarifies that for the purposes of the offence it does not matter whether free passage along the highway in question has already been temporarily restricted or prohibited.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I beg to move.
Amendment 150A (to Amendment 150)
Lord Rosser
“(2) After subsection (1) insert—“(1ZA) If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway which is part of the Strategic Road Network he is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine or both.””Member’s explanatory statement
This is an amendment to Government Amendment 150 creating a prison sentence for anyone wilfully obstructing a highway which is part of the Strategic Road Network, removing reference to a general highway.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, on my amendment, I just say that I did not think that the real problem of wilful obstruction was on side roads; there has certainly been a problem of wilful obstruction in relation to motorways and major roads in the strategic road network for the reasons that I mentioned. The fact that there could be an issue of wilful obstruction on other, lesser highways is not, frankly, a justification for including all highways in these powers under government Amendment 150—hence our Amendment 150A, restricting it to the strategic road network. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 150A.
“Obstruction etc of major transport works
(1) A person commits an offence if the person—(a) obstructs the undertaker or a person acting under the authority of the undertaker—(i) in setting out the lines of any major transport works,(ii) in constructing or maintaining any major transport works, or (iii) in taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating, or in connection with, the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, or(b) interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus which—(i) relates to the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, and(ii) belongs to the undertaker, to a person acting under the authority of the undertaker, to a statutory undertaker or to a person acting under the authority of a statutory undertaker.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that—(a) they had a reasonable excuse for the act mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection, or(b) the act mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, to a fine or to both.(4) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (3) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.(5) In this section “major transport works” means—(a) works in England and Wales—(i) relating to transport infrastructure, and(ii) the construction of which is authorised directly by an Act of Parliament, or(b) works the construction of which comprises development within subsection (6) that has been granted development consent by an order under section 114 of the Planning Act 2008.(6) Development is within this subsection if—(a) it is or forms part of a nationally significant infrastructure project within any of paragraphs (h) to (l) of section 14(1) of the Planning Act 2008,(b) it is or forms part of a project (or proposed project) in the field of transport in relation to which a direction has been given under section 35(1) of that Act (directions in relation to projects of national significance) by the Secretary of State, or(c) it is associated development in relation to development within paragraph (a) or (b).(7) In this section “undertaker”—(a) in relation to major transport works within subsection (5)(a), means a person who is authorised by or under the Act (whether as a result of being appointed the nominated undertaker for the purposes of the Act or otherwise) to construct or maintain any of the works;(b) in relation to major transport works within subsection (5)(b), means a person who is constructing or maintaining any of the works (whether as a result of being the undertaker for the purposes of the order granting development consent or otherwise).(8) In this section—“associated development” has the same meaning as in the Planning Act 2008 (see section 115 of that Act);“development” has the same meaning as in the Planning Act 2008 (see section 32 of that Act);“development consent” has the same meaning as in the Planning Act 2008 (see section 31 of that Act); “England” includes the English inshore region within the meaning of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322 of that Act);“maintain” includes inspect, repair, adjust, alter, remove, reconstruct and replace, and “maintenance” is to be construed accordingly;“nationally significant infrastructure project” has the same meaning as in the Planning Act 2008 (see section 14(1) of that Act);“statutory undertaker” means a person who is, or who is deemed to be, a statutory undertaker for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;“trade dispute” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, except that section 218 of that Act is to be read as if—(a) it made provision corresponding to section 244(4) of that Act, and(b) in subsection (5), the definition of worker included any person falling within paragraph (b) of the definition of worker in section 244(5) of that Act;“Wales” includes the Welsh inshore region within the meaning of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322 of that Act).(9) In section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 (nationally significant infrastructure projects), after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) An order under subsection (3)(a) may also amend section (Obstruction etc of major transport works) (6)(a) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021 (obstruction etc of major transport works).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment contains a new offence of obstructing the construction or maintenance of major transport works. These are transport works that are authorised directly by an Act of Parliament or by certain development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008.
“Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure
(1) A person commits an offence if—(a) they do an act which interferes with the use or operation of any key national infrastructure in England and Wales, and(b) they intend that act to interfere with the use or operation of such infrastructure or are reckless as to whether it will do so.(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that—(a) they had a reasonable excuse for the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection, or(b) the act mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection was done wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine or to both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine, or to both.(4) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020, the reference in subsection (3)(a) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.(5) For the purposes of subsection (1) a person’s act interferes with the use or operation of key national infrastructure if it prevents the infrastructure from being used or operated to any extent for any of its intended purposes.(6) The cases in which infrastructure is prevented from being used or operated for any of its intended purposes include where its use or operation for any of those purposes is significantly delayed.(7) In this section “key national infrastructure” means—(a) road transport infrastructure,(b) rail infrastructure,(c) air transport infrastructure,(d) harbour infrastructure,(e) downstream oil infrastructure, or(f) newspaper printing infrastructure.Section (Key national infrastructure) makes further provision about these kinds of infrastructure.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument— (a) amend subsection (7) to add a new kind of infrastructure or to vary or remove an existing kind of infrastructure;(b) amend section (Key national infrastructure) to add, amend or remove provision about a kind of infrastructure which is in, or is to be added to, subsection (7) or is to be removed from that subsection.(9) Regulations under subsection (8)—(a) may make different provision for different purposes;(b) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(11) In this section—“England” includes the English inshore region within the meaning of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322 of that Act);“trade dispute” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, except that section 218 of that Act is to be read as if—(a) it made provision corresponding to section 244(4) of that Act, and(b) in subsection (5), the definition of worker included any person falling within paragraph (b) of the definition of worker in section 244(5) of that Act;“Wales” includes the Welsh inshore region within the meaning of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (see section 322 of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it an offence for a person to do an act which interferes with the use or operation of key national infrastructure where the person intends the act to have that effect or is reckless as to whether it will do so. This is subject to a defence of reasonable excuse and a defence applying to industrial action.
“Key national infrastructure
(1) This section has effect for the purposes of section (Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure).(2) “Road transport infrastructure” means—(a) a special road within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980 (see section 329(1) of that Act), or(b) a road which, under the system for assigning identification numbers to roads administered by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers, has for the time being been assigned a number prefixed by A or B.(3) “Rail infrastructure” means infrastructure used for the purposes of railway services within the meaning of Part 1 of the Railways Act 1993 (see section 82 of that Act).(4) In the application of section 82 of the Railways Act 1993 for the purposes of subsection (3) “railway” has the wider meaning given in section 81(2) of that Act.(5) “Air transport infrastructure” means—(a) an airport within the meaning of the Airports Act 1986 (see section 82(1) of that Act), or(b) any infrastructure which—(i) does not form part of an airport within the meaning of that Act, and(ii) is used for the provision of air traffic services within the meaning of Part 1 of the Transport Act 2000 (see section 98 of that Act).(6) “Harbour infrastructure” means a harbour within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1964 (see section 57(1) of that Act) which provides facilities for or in connection with—(a) the embarking or disembarking of passengers who are carried in the course of a business, or(b) the loading or unloading of cargo which is carried in the course of a business.(7) “Downstream oil infrastructure” means infrastructure used for or in connection with any of the following activities—(a) the refinement or other processing of crude oil or oil feedstocks;(b) the storage of crude oil or crude oil-based fuel for onward distribution, other than storage by a person who supplies crude oil-based fuel to the public where the storage is for the purposes of such supply;(c) the loading or unloading of crude oil or crude oil-based fuel for onward distribution, other than unloading to a person who supplies crude oil-based fuel to the public where the unloading is for the purposes of such supply; (d) the carriage, by road, rail, sea or inland waterway, of crude oil or crude oil-based fuel for the purposes of onward distribution;(e) the conveyance of crude oil or crude oil-based fuel by means of a pipe-line within the meaning of the Pipe-lines Act 1962 (see section 65 of that Act).(8) “Newspaper printing infrastructure” means infrastructure the primary purpose of which is the printing of one or more national or local newspapers.(9) In this section—“local newspaper” means a newspaper which is published at least fortnightly and is in circulation in a part of England and Wales;“national newspaper” means a newspaper which is published at least fortnightly and is in circulation in England, in Wales or in both;“newspaper” includes a periodical or magazine.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines the different types of key national infrastructure for the purposes of the new Clause in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 62 and creating the offence of interfering with the use or operation of such infrastructure.
“Powers to stop and search on suspicion
In section 1(8) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (offences in relation to which stop and search power applies)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (d), and(b) after paragraph (e) insert—“(f) an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (wilful obstruction) involving activity which causes or is capable of causing serious disruption to two or more individuals or to an organisation;(g) an offence under section 61 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2021 (intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance);(h) an offence under section (Offence of locking on) of that Act (offence of locking on);(i) an offence under section (Obstruction etc of major transport works) of that Act (obstruction etc of major transport works); and(j) an offence under section (Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure) of that Act (interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure).”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to allow a constable to stop and search a person or vehicle if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find an article made, adapted or intended for use in the course of or in connection with an offence listed in the amendment.
“Powers to stop and search without suspicion
(1) This section applies if a police officer of or above the rank of inspector reasonably believes—(a) that any of the following offences may be committed in any locality within the officer’s police area—(i) an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 (wilful obstruction) involving activity which causes or is capable of causing serious disruption to two or more individuals or to an organisation;(ii) an offence under section 61 (intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance);(iii) an offence under section (Offence of locking on) (offence of locking on);(iv) an offence under section (Obstruction etc of major transport works) (obstruction etc of major transport works);(v) an offence under section (Interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure) (interference with use or operation of key national infrastructure), or(b) that persons are carrying prohibited objects in any locality within the officer’s police area.(2) In this section “prohibited object” means an object which—(a) is made or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with an offence within subsection (1)(a), or(b) is intended by the person having it with them for such use by them or by some other person,and for the purposes of this section a person carries a prohibited object if they have it in their possession.(3) If the further condition in subsection (4) is met, the police officer may give an authorisation that the powers conferred by this section are to be exercisable— (a) anywhere within a specified locality within the officer’s police area, and(b) for a specified period not exceeding 24 hours.(4) The further condition is that the police officer reasonably believes that—(a) the authorisation is necessary to prevent the commission of offences within subsection (1)(a) or the carrying of prohibited objects (as the case may be),(b) the specified locality is no greater than is necessary to prevent such activity, and(c) the specified period is no longer than is necessary to prevent such activity.(5) If it appears to a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent that it is necessary to do so to prevent the commission of offences within subsection (1)(a) or the carrying of prohibited objects, the officer may direct that the authorisation is to continue in force for a further period not exceeding 24 hours.(6) This section confers on any constable in uniform power—(a) to stop any person and search them or anything carried by them for a prohibited object;(b) to stop any vehicle and search the vehicle, its driver and any passenger for a prohibited object.(7) A constable may, in the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (6), stop any person or vehicle and make any search the constable thinks fit whether or not the constable has any grounds for suspecting that the person or vehicle is carrying a prohibited object.(8) If in the course of a search under this section a constable discovers an object which the constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be a prohibited object, the constable may seize it.(9) This section and sections (Further provisions about authorisations and directions under section (Powers to stop and search without suspicion)) (further provisions about authorisations and directions under this section), (Further provisions about searches under section (Powers to stop and search without suspicion)) (further provisions about searches under this section) and (Offence relating to section (Powers to stop and search without suspicion)) (offence relating to this section) apply (with the necessary modifications) to ships, aircraft and hovercraft as they apply to vehicles.(10) In this section and the sections mentioned in subsection (9)—“specified” means specified in an authorisation under this section;“vehicle” includes a caravan as defined in section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.(11) The powers conferred by this section and the sections mentioned in subsection (9) do not affect any power conferred otherwise than by this section or those sections.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for a senior police officer to give an authorisation applying to a specified locality for a specified period and allowing a constable to stop and search a person or vehicle for an object made, adapted or intended for use in the course of or in connection with an offence listed in the amendment. While the authorisation is in force the constable may exercise the power whether or not they have any grounds for suspecting the person or vehicle is carrying such an object.
“Serious disruption prevention orders
(1) In Part 11 of the Sentencing Code (behaviour orders), after Chapter 1A (as inserted by section 141) insert—“CHAPTER 1BSERIOUS DISRUPTION PREVENTION ORDERSSerious disruption prevention orders made on conviction342L Serious disruption prevention order made on conviction(1) This section applies where—(a) a person aged 18 or over (“P”) is convicted of an offence (“the current offence”) which was committed on or after the day on which this section comes into force, and(b) the prosecution applies for a serious disruption prevention order to be made in respect of P.(2) The court dealing with P in respect of the current offence may make a serious disruption prevention order in respect of P if—(a) the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the current offence is a protest-related offence,(b) the earlier offence condition is met, and(c) the court considers it necessary to make the order for a purpose mentioned in subsection (5).(3) The earlier offence condition is that— (a) within the relevant period, P has been convicted of an offence (“the earlier offence”),(b) the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the earlier offence was a protest-related offence, and(c) the current offence and the earlier offence—(i) relate to different protests, or(ii) were committed on different days.(4) In subsection (3) “the relevant period” means the period of 5 years ending with the day on which P is convicted of the current offence; but an offence may be taken into account for the purposes of this section only if it was committed—(a) on or after the day on which this section comes into force, and(b) when P was aged 16 or over.(5) The purposes are—(a) to prevent P from committing a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction;(b) to prevent P from carrying out activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales;(c) to prevent P from causing or contributing to—(i) the commission by any other person of a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(ii) the carrying out by any other person of activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales;(d) to protect two or more individuals, or an organisation, in England and Wales from the risk of serious disruption arising from—(i) a protest-related offence,(ii) a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(iii) activities related to a protest.(6) A serious disruption prevention order under this section is an order which, for a purpose mentioned in subsection (5)—(a) requires P to do anything described in the order;(b) prohibits P from doing anything described in the order.(7) The court may make a serious disruption prevention order in respect of P only if it is made in addition to—(a) a sentence imposed in respect of the current offence, or(b) an order discharging P conditionally.(8) For the purpose of deciding whether to make a serious disruption prevention order the court may consider evidence led by the prosecution or P.(9) It does not matter whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings for the current offence.(10) The court may adjourn any proceedings on an application for a serious disruption prevention order even after sentencing P.(11) If P does not appear for any adjourned proceedings the court may—(a) further adjourn the proceedings,(b) issue a warrant for P’s arrest, or(c) hear the proceedings in P’s absence. (12) The court may not act under subsection (11)(b) unless it is satisfied that P has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings.(13) The court may not act under subsection (11)(c) unless it is satisfied that P—(a) has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and(b) has been informed that if P does not appear for those proceedings the court may hear the proceedings in P’s absence.(14) On making a serious disruption prevention order the court must in ordinary language explain to P the effects of the order.(15) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of 2 or more days, or at some time during a period of 2 or more days, it must be taken for the purposes of this section to have been committed on the last of those days.Serious disruption prevention orders made otherwise than on conviction342M Serious disruption prevention order made otherwise than on conviction(1) A magistrates’ court may make a serious disruption prevention order in respect of a person (“P”) where—(a) a person within subsection (7) applies by complaint to the court for a serious disruption prevention order to be made in respect of P,(b) P is aged 18 or over when the application is made,(c) the condition in subsection (2) is met, and(d) the court considers it necessary to make the order for a purpose mentioned in subsection (4).(2) This condition in this subsection is that the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that—(a) on at least two occasions in the relevant period, P has—(i) been convicted of a protest-related offence,(ii) been found in contempt of court for a protest-related breach of an injunction,(iii) carried out activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales,(iv) caused or contributed to the commission by any other person of a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(v) caused or contributed to the carrying out by any other person of activities related to a protest that resulted in, or were likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales, and(b) each event mentioned in paragraph (a)—(i) relates to a different protest, or(ii) took place on a different day.(3) In subsection (2) “the relevant period” means the period of 5 years ending with the day on which the order is made; but an event may be taken into account for the purposes of this section only if it occurred—(a) on or after the day on which this section comes into force, and(b) when P was aged 16 or over.(4) The purposes are—(a) to prevent P from committing a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction; (b) to prevent P from carrying out activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales;(c) to prevent P from causing or contributing to—(i) the commission by any other person of a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(ii) the carrying out by any other person of activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales;(d) to protect two or more individuals, or an organisation, in England and Wales from the risk of serious disruption arising from—(i) a protest-related offence,(ii) a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(iii) activities related to a protest.(5) A serious disruption prevention order under this section is an order which, for a purpose mentioned in subsection (4)—(a) requires P to do anything described in the order;(b) prohibits P from doing anything described in the order.(6) On making a serious disruption prevention order the court must in ordinary language explain to P the effects of the order.(7) The following persons are within this subsection—(a) a relevant chief officer of police;(b) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force;(c) the chief constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;(d) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police.(8) For the purposes of subsection (7)(a) a chief officer of police is a relevant chief officer of police in relation to an application for a serious disruption prevention order in respect of P if—(a) P lives in the chief officer’s police area, or(b) the chief officer believes that P is in, or is intending to come to, the chief officer’s police area.(9) An application for a serious disruption prevention order made by a chief officer of police for a police area may be made only to a court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of that police area.(10) Where an offence is found to have been committed over a period of 2 or more days, or at some time during a period of 2 or more days, it must be taken for the purposes of this section to have been committed on the last of those days.(11) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (time limits) does not apply to a complaint under this section.Provisions of serious disruption prevention orders342N Provisions of serious disruption prevention order(1) The requirements imposed on a person (“P”) by a serious disruption prevention order may, in particular, have the effect of requiring P to present themselves to a particular person at a particular place at, or between, particular times on particular days.(2) Sections 342O and 342P make further provision about the inclusion of requirements (including notification requirements) in a serious disruption prevention order. (3) The prohibitions imposed on a person (“P”) by a serious disruption prevention order may, in particular, have the effect of prohibiting P from—(a) being at a particular place;(b) being at a particular place between particular times on particular days;(c) being at a particular place between particular times on any day;(d) being with particular persons;(e) participating in particular activities;(f) having particular articles with them;(g) using the internet to facilitate or encourage persons to—(i) commit a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(ii) carry out activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales.(4) References in this section to a particular place or particular persons, activities or articles include a place, persons, activities or articles of a particular description.(5) A serious disruption prevention order which imposes prohibitions on a person may include exceptions from those prohibitions.(6) Nothing in this section affects the generality of sections 342L(6) and 342M(5).(7) The requirements or prohibitions which are imposed on a person by a serious disruption prevention order must, so far as practicable, be such as to avoid—(a) any conflict with the person’s religious beliefs, and(b) any interference with the times, if any, at which the person normally works or attends any educational establishment.342O Requirements in serious disruption prevention order(1) A serious disruption prevention order which imposes on a person (“P”) a requirement, other than a notification requirement under section 342P, must specify a person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement.(2) That person may be an individual or an organisation.(3) Before including such a requirement, the court must receive evidence about its suitability and enforceability from—(a) the individual to be specified under subsection (1), if an individual is to be specified;(b) an individual representing the organisation to be specified under subsection (1), if an organisation is to be specified.(4) Before including two or more such requirements, the court must consider their compatibility with each other.(5) It is the duty of a person specified under subsection (1)—(a) to make any necessary arrangements in connection with the requirements for which the person has responsibility (the “relevant requirements”);(b) to promote P’s compliance with the relevant requirements;(c) if the person considers that P—(i) has complied with all of the relevant requirements, or(ii) has failed to comply with a relevant requirement,to inform the appropriate chief officer of police. (6) In subsection (5)(c) “the appropriate chief officer of police” means—(a) the chief officer of police for the police area in which it appears to the person specified under subsection (1) that P lives, or(b) if it appears to that person that P lives in more than one police area, whichever of the chief officers of police of those areas the person thinks it is most appropriate to inform.(7) Where P is subject to a requirement in a serious disruption prevention order, other than a notification requirement under section 342P, P must—(a) keep in touch with the person specified under subsection (1) in relation to that requirement, in accordance with any instructions given by that person from time to time, and(b) notify that person of any change of P’s home address.(8) The obligations mentioned in subsection (7) have effect as if they were requirements imposed on P by the order.342P Notification requirements in serious disruption prevention order(1) A serious disruption prevention order made in respect of a person (“P”) must impose on P the notification requirements in subsections (2) and (4).(2) P must be required to notify the information in subsection (3) to the police within the period of 3 days beginning with the day on which the order takes effect.(3) That information is—(a) P’s name on the day that the notification is given and, where P uses one or more other names on that day, each of those names,(b) P’s home address on that day, and(c) the address of any other premises at which, on that day, P regularly resides or stays.(4) P must be required to notify the information mentioned in subsection (5) to the police within the period of 3 days beginning with the day on which P—(a) uses a name which has not been previously notified to the police in accordance with the order,(b) changes their home address, or(c) decides to live for a period of one month or more at any premises the address of which has not been previously notified to the police in accordance with the order.(5) That information is—(a) in a case within subsection (4)(a), the name which has not previously been notified,(b) in a case within subsection (4)(b), the new home address, and(c) in a case within subsection (4)(c), the address of the premises at which P has decided to live.(6) A serious disruption prevention order must provide that P gives a notification of the kind mentioned in subsection (2) or (4) by—(a) attending at a police station in a police area in which P lives, and(b) giving an oral notification to a police officer, or to any person authorised for the purpose by the officer in charge of the station.342Q Duration of serious disruption prevention order(1) A serious disruption prevention order takes effect on the day it is made, subject to subsections (3) and (4). (2) A serious disruption prevention order must specify the period for which it has effect, which must be a fixed period of not less than 1 week and not more than 2 years.(3) Subsection (4) applies in relation to a serious disruption prevention order made in respect of a person (“P”) if—(a) P has been remanded in or committed to custody by an order of a court,(b) a custodial sentence has been imposed on P or P is serving or otherwise subject to a such a sentence, or(c) P is on licence for part of the term of a custodial sentence.(4) The order may provide that it does not take effect until—(a) P is released from custody,(b) P ceases to be subject to a custodial sentence, or(c) P ceases to be on licence.(5) A serious disruption prevention order may specify periods for which particular requirements or prohibitions have effect.(6) Where a court makes a serious disruption prevention order in respect of a person and the person is already subject to such an order, the earlier order ceases to have effect.(7) In this section “custodial sentence” includes a pre-Code custodial sentence (see section 222(4)).342R Other information to be included in serious disruption prevention orderA serious disruption prevention order made in respect of a person must specify—(a) the reasons for making the order, and(b) the penalties which may be imposed on the person for breaching the order.Offences342S Offences relating to a serious disruption prevention order(1) Where a serious disruption prevention order has effect in respect of a person (“P”), P commits an offence if P—(a) fails without reasonable excuse to do anything P is required to do by the order,(b) without reasonable excuse does anything P is prohibited from doing by the order, or(c) notifies to the police, in purported compliance with the order, any information which P knows to be false.(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks or a fine or both.(3) In relation to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (alteration of penalties for certain summary offences: England and Wales), the reference in subsection (2) to 51 weeks is to be read as a reference to 6 months.Variation, renewal or discharge of serious disruption prevention order342T Variation, renewal or discharge of serious disruption prevention order(1) Where a serious disruption prevention order has been made in respect of a person (“P”), a person within subsection (2) may apply to the appropriate court for an order varying, renewing or discharging the order.(2) Those persons are—(a) P; (b) the chief officer of police for the police area in which P lives;(c) a chief officer of police who believes that P is in, or is intending to come to, the chief officer’s police area;(d) if the application for the order was made by a chief officer of police other than one within paragraph (b) or (c), the chief officer by whom the application was made;(e) the chief officer of police for a police area in which P committed an offence on the basis of which the order was made;(f) where the order was made following an application by a constable within subsection (3), that constable.(3) Those constables are—(a) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force;(b) the chief constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;(c) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police.(4) An application under this section must be made—(a) where the appropriate court is a magistrates’ court, by complaint;(b) in any other case, in accordance with rules of court.(5) Before making a decision on an application under this section, the court must hear—(a) the person making the application, and(b) any other person within subsection (2) who wishes to be heard.(6) Subject to subsection (7), on an application under this section the court may make such order varying, renewing or discharging the serious disruption prevention order as it thinks appropriate.(7) The court may renew a serious disruption prevention order, or vary such an order so as to lengthen its duration or to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on P, only if it considers that to do so is necessary—(a) to prevent P from committing a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction,(b) to prevent P from carrying out activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales,(c) to prevent P from causing or contributing to—(i) the commission by any other person of a protest-related offence or a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(ii) the carrying out by any other person of activities related to a protest that result in, or are likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals, or to an organisation, in England and Wales, or(d) to protect two or more individuals, or an organisation, in England and Wales from the risk of serious disruption arising from—(i) a protest-related offence,(ii) a protest-related breach of an injunction, or(iii) activities related to a protest.(8) Sections 342N, 342O, 342P (other than subsections (2) and (3)), 342Q and 342R have effect in relation to the renewal of a serious disruption prevention order, or the variation of such an order so as to lengthen its duration or to impose a new requirement or prohibition, as they have effect in relation to the making of such an order. (9) On making an order under this section varying or renewing a serious disruption prevention order, the court must in ordinary language explain to P the effects of the serious disruption prevention order (as varied or renewed).(10) Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 does not apply to a complaint under this section.(11) In this section “the appropriate court” means—(a) where the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal made the order, the Crown Court;(b) where a magistrates’ court made the order and the application is made by P or a constable within subsection (3)—(i) that magistrates’ court, or(ii) a magistrates’ court for the area in which P lives;(c) where a magistrates’ court made the order and the application is made by a chief officer of police—(i) that magistrates’ court,(ii) a magistrates’ court for the area in which P lives, or(iii) a magistrates’ court acting for a local justice area that includes any part of the chief officer’s police area.Appeals342U Appeal against serious disruption prevention order(1) Where a serious disruption prevention order is made under section 342L (order on conviction) in respect of a person (“P”), P may appeal against the making of the order as if the order were a sentence passed on P for the offence.(2) Where a serious disruption prevention order is made under section 342M (order otherwise than on conviction) in respect of a person (“P”), P may appeal to the appropriate court against the making of the order.(3) A person who applied under section 342M (order otherwise than on conviction) for a serious disruption prevention order to be imposed in respect of a person may appeal to the appropriate court against a refusal to make the order.(4) Where an application is made under section 342T for an order varying, renewing or discharging a serious disruption prevention order made in respect of a person (“P”)—(a) the person who made the application may appeal to the appropriate court against a refusal to make an order under that section;(b) P may appeal to the appropriate court against the making of an order under that section which was made on the application of a person other than P;(c) a person within subsection (2) of that section (other than P) may appeal to the appropriate court against the making of an order under that section which was made on the application of P.(5) In this section “the appropriate court” means—(a) in relation to an appeal under subsection (2), the Crown Court;(b) in relation to an appeal under subsection (3) or (4)—(i) where the application in question was made to a magistrates’ court, the Crown Court;(ii) where the application in question was made to the Crown Court, the Court of Appeal.(6) On an appeal under this section to the Crown Court, the court may make—(a) such orders as may be necessary to give effect to its determination of the appeal, and (b) such incidental and consequential orders as appear to it to be appropriate.General342V Guidance(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to—(a) chief officers of police,(b) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force,(c) the chief constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, and(d) the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police,in relation to serious disruption prevention orders.(2) The guidance may in particular include—(a) guidance about the exercise by chief officers of police and the chief constables mentioned in subsection (1) of their functions under this Chapter,(b) guidance about identifying persons in respect of whom it may be appropriate for applications for serious disruption prevention orders to be made, and(c) guidance about providing assistance to prosecutors in connection with applications for serious disruption prevention orders.(3) The Secretary of State may revise any guidance issued under this section.(4) The Secretary of State must arrange for any guidance issued under this section to be published.(5) A chief officer of police or a chief constable mentioned in subsection (1) must have regard to any guidance issued under this section.342W Guidance: Parliamentary procedure(1) Before issuing guidance under section 342V, the Secretary of State must lay a draft of the guidance before Parliament.(2) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the draft guidance, the guidance may not be issued.(3) If no such resolution is made within that period, the Secretary of State may issue the guidance.(4) In this section “the 40-day period”, in relation to draft guidance, means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House on the same day, the later of the days on which it is laid).(5) In calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.342X Interpretation of ChapterIn this Chapter—“home address”, in relation to a person (“P”), means—(a) the address of P’s sole or main residence, or(b) if P has no such residence, the address or location of a place where P can regularly be found and, if there is more than one such place, such one of those places as P may select;“injunction” means an injunction granted by the High Court, the county court or a youth court;“protest-related breach”, in relation to an injunction, means a breach which is directly related to a protest; “protest-related offence” means an offence which is directly related to a protest.”(2) In section 3(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions), before paragraph (g) insert—“(fi) to have the conduct of applications for orders under section 342L(1)(b) of the Sentencing Code (serious disruption prevention orders on conviction);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment contains provisions about serious disruption prevention orders. These are orders which can be imposed on a person who has committed two protest-related offences or who has, on at least two occasions, committed protest-related breaches of injunctions or caused or contributed to the commission of such offences or breaches or to activity related to a protest that resulted in serious disruption to two or more individuals or to an organisation.
“Repeal of Vagrancy Act 1824
(1) The Vagrancy Act 1824 is repealed.(2) In this section—“the 2014 Act” means the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014;“begging” means asking for gifts on streets or in other public places (for which purpose it is immaterial whether gifts are of money or in kind, whether they are expressed as gifts or as loans, and whether a person asks expressly or impliedly, by displaying receptacles for donations or otherwise; but “begging” does not include soliciting donations to a registered charity with the express written authority of that charity);“registered charity” means a charity registered under section 30 of the Charities Act 2011, or exempted or excepted from registration under or by virtue of that section; and “sleeping rough” means sleeping (or making preparations to sleep, or possessing bedding or other equipment for the purpose of sleeping) on streets or in other public places, or in places or structures not designed for human habitation.(3) The following principles are to be applied in the exercise of powers under the 2014 Act—(a) begging or sleeping rough does not in itself amount to action causing alarm or distress (in the absence of other factors);(b) policing and other enforcement action should balance protection of the community with sensitivity to the problems that cause people to engage in begging or sleeping rough; and(c) powers under the 2014 Act should not in general be used in relation to people sleeping rough, and should be used in relation to people begging only where no other approach is reasonably available.(4) A constable or other person exercising functions under the 2014 Act, or considering whether to exercise functions under that Act, in connection with a person who has been, or may have been, involved in begging or sleeping rough, must consider whether the person could be referred to public authorities, or charitable or other persons, for help in addressing the problems that cause them to be involved in begging or sleeping rough.(5) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local authorities and police forces about the implementation of subsections (3) and (4).(6) Local authorities and police forces must—(a) have regard to the guidance; and(b) take reasonable steps to provide education and training designed to ensure consistent and effective implementation of subsections (3) and (4).(7) Before issuing (or revising) the guidance the Secretary of State must consult—(a) representatives of police forces;(b) representatives of local authorities; and(c) persons representing the interests of homeless persons.(8) The following enactments are repealed (in consequence of subsection (1))—(a) the Vagrancy Act 1898;(b) the Vagrancy Act 1935;(c) sections 20(1)(g) and 24(1)(f) of the Sentencing Act 2020;(d) section 55(2)(b) of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006;(e) paragraph 18 of Schedule 8 to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005;(f) paragraphs 3(3)(b) and 7(3) of Schedule 3C to the Police Reform Act 2002;(g) paragraph 2(3)(aa) of Schedule 5 to that Act;(h) paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000;(i) section 43(5) of the Mental Health Act 1983;(j) section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982;(k) section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967;(l) in section 48(2) of the Forestry Act 1967, the words “or against the Vagrancy Act 1824”;(m) in section 20(4) of the New Towns Act (Northern Ireland) 1965, the words “or against section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824”;(n) section 2(3)(c) of the House to House Collections Act 1939; and (o) in section 81 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907, the words “shall for the purpose of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and of any Act for the time being in force altering or amending the same, be deemed to be an open and public place, and”.(9) This section extends to England and Wales only.(10) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the date of Royal Assent.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 and establish that begging or sleeping rough is not itself criminal; it would require police officers to balance protection of the community with sensitivity to the problems that cause people to engage in begging or sleeping rough and ensure that general public order enforcement powers should not in general be used in relation to people sleeping rough, and should be used in relation to people begging only where no other approach is reasonably available.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for being forced to move Amendment 160 and to speak to amendment 165 at this ridiculous hour. I hope that your Lordships can please hang on for just another few minutes, and I express my deep appreciation to those who have stayed to support these amendments to the Vagrancy Act 1824, which would be repealed by Amendment 160. I pay tribute to my colleagues from all parts of the House who are supporting this amendment, not least the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the erstwhile distinguished Housing Minister responsible for the important rough sleepers initiative in earlier times; the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who has helped us with invaluable legal expertise; and Crisis—with congratulations and thanks to its new chief executive, Matt Downie—for its powerful campaigning on this repeal.
We discussed these amendments in Committee, and subsequently a number of us met with the Minister here today and the Minister for Rough Sleeping and Housing, Eddie Hughes. They explained that the Government are fully committed to repealing the law that makes homelessness a criminal act—but not necessarily now. Currently, the Vagrancy Act turns unfortunate casualties of our housing and care systems into criminals and deters them from seeking the protection and support they need to move away from the streets.
The shadow of the totally inappropriate Vagrancy Act still hangs over the public policy framework for homelessness and rough sleeping. The Government have done some really good work in helping thousands of homeless people into safe accommodation during the Covid crisis. These efforts may justify past delays in addressing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act, but any further delay would seriously undermine the reputation of the Government in this field.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will add a very short footnote to the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and pay tribute to the way that he has spearheaded the campaign to repeal the Vagrancy Act. He has summarised the case for repeal succinctly. Nearly a year ago, on 25 February, the then Secretary of State said that the Act had been reviewed and, in his opinion, “should be repealed”. He said that it was
“an antiquated piece of legislation whose time has been and gone.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/21; col. 1138.]
Since then, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others have consulted extensively with a range of stakeholders—the police, local government, housing charities and legal experts—confirming the view that the Act is indeed redundant and can safely be repealed, with other, more up-to-date pieces of legislation to deal with aggressive behaviour. That took us to Committee stage, when the Government applied the brakes.
To get an insight into the Government’s reservations —as the noble Lord has just said—we met Ministers on 2 December and asked for details of why they believed that sections of the Act were still needed. We needed that so we could amend, if necessary, our amendments for Report and avoid a Division. We were told we could have the necessary details. Here, I am afraid, the Department for Levelling Up, whose policy area this is, has let my noble friend the Minister down. Despite repeated reminders, as we have just heard, only on the last working day before today did we get the reply—far too late to table amendments, six weeks after the meeting and with arguments I found less than compelling. As we are trying to deliver what is stated government policy, I think the performance of that department fell below the standard that we were entitled to receive.
The noble Lord, Lord Best, has set out what seems to me a perfectly respectable compromise, which even at this late stage would enable us to withdraw the amendment, and I hope that the Minister can agree to it. If not, then with some regret—because we have been willing to compromise throughout—I will support the amendment and hope it goes to the other place, where we know it will have support not just from the former Secretary of State but from Conservative Members of Parliament in London, including the former leader of Westminster City Council. I support the amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to which I have added my name. In view of the hour, I too will be brief, as the two noble Lords have already said it all. I thank the Minister for the time that she gave us both in meetings and in numerous emails. I genuinely believe that there is real commitment to undoing this blot on our societal conscience. Therefore, given the genuineness of that feeling, it is massively disappointing that it appears that the Government have decided not to seize the only opportunity that we can see in the legislative calendar to actually repeal this piece of legislation.
There is widespread support for repealing this Act. To do so would actually be popular and uncontroversial, unlike much of this Bill. It is unequivocally the right thing to do. The fact that in Scotland it has been repealed for years and that most police forces rarely, if ever, use the powers in the Act is surely evidence enough that, in reality, it is of little use in tackling the current issues of homelessness, where there are, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said, a raft of alternative measures at the disposal of the police and local authorities. It will be a great disappointment for many if this can is to be kicked further down the road. That is why, if it comes to a vote, we will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Best. To steal a slogan from somewhere else, why do not the Government “Just Do It”?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House can be proud tonight for seeking to prevent injustices well into the future, but in seeking to support the noble Lord, Lord Best, we can try to act on injustices that are nearly 200 years old.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we will be supporting the noble Lord, Lord Best, if he chooses to press his amendment to a vote. If I may refer briefly to my experiences as a magistrate, it is indeed true that we do not actually see this charge brought very often—of course, we do see beggars, but it really is not that often. It seems to me that there is widespread cross-party support for repealing the Act. A compromise has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I will be interested in hearing the Minister’s response. If the noble Lord does choose to press his amendment, we will support him.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I will join other noble Lords in trying to be brief, given the lateness of the hour. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for their commitment on this issue. I can only apologise that the letter was so late in returning to them.
I assured noble Lords in Committee, and I do so again now, that the Government firmly agree that no one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live or for sleeping rough. The Government’s dedication to supporting this group has been at the centre of our response to the pandemic, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said. We have also recently provided £28 million to local authorities to support them to promote vaccination among people sleeping rough and to provide emergency accommodation to get people off the streets. That builds on the success of the Everyone In programme.
The Government are fully committed to reviewing the Vagrancy Act, but the review has been delayed by the pandemic and by our resulting endeavours to protect vulnerable individuals. In Committee, I explained that rough sleeping and begging were complex issues, and that we therefore must give due consideration to how and why the Vagrancy Act was still used to tackle begging and what impact any changes to the Act will have. This includes consideration of any legislative gap left by repeal that may impact the police’s moves to deal with begging.
The noble Lord spoke about the way the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 can be used to deal with certain types of begging, but that Act is not always a suitable alternative. Begging is complex and does not always meet the legal tests in the 2014 legislation to allow the police or local authorities to tackle specific forms of begging where intervention may still be useful, specifically passive begging, where there is no associated anti-social behaviour but where, none the less, there might be an impact on communities as well as the individual. For example, someone who is sleeping rough might engage in passive begging and might use that money to survive on the street. They might be resistant to taking up offers of support, and this might have an indirect impact on communities or businesses. In such circumstances, there would be nothing the police could do to help compel the individual to take up support.
There are also international examples of different approaches taken to tackle begging, including passive begging, that we should consider. For example, should the police be able to intervene if begging affects businesses or, as in some countries, if begging is opportunistic, for example near an ATM, or fraudulent, such as feigning injury or illness?
The Government think that enforcement, when coupled with meaningful offers of support and close work with other agencies, can form an important part of moving people away from the streets. It is vital that the police can play their part here and that they have effective legislation at their fingertips, but this position does not negate the Government’s firm view that rough sleeping should not be criminalised and, where an individual is truly destitute, it is paramount that a multiagency approach is taken to provide that necessary support. To ensure that the response is effective, we need legislation that complements the delivery of services and allows for constructive engagement with vulnerable individuals. I recently wrote to the noble Lord with more information on the detail of our position.
As it stands, an outright repeal of the Vagrancy Act might leave a gap. That is why, as I explained when I met with the noble Lord, once the necessary work has been concluded, the Government are committed to repealing the outdated Act and replacing it with much more modern, fit-for-purpose legislation when parliamentary time allows. Until we have completed this work, it would be a bit premature to repeal the Act. In the light of the commitment that I have outlined, confirming that the Government will consult on what the appropriate legislation should look like, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am sincerely grateful to noble Lords who supported the case for repeal of the Vagrancy Act. I thank the Minister for her comments, but I confess to being very disappointed that she has not been able to commit to a Third Reading amendment covering the repeal of just the rough sleeping part of the Vagrancy Act. Even though she made it clear that this will happen sometime one day, she has not been able to announce that this step will be taken at Third Reading. I really see no reason why we could not come to an agreement on this amendment, which is limited but repeals the most egregious aspect of the old Vagrancy Act.
However, the Minister has rejected our proposals, which means that people who are homeless will remain subject to being criminalised rather than being supported out of their predicament into the indefinite future. My only course of action is to hope that this can be resolved in the Commons. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“10A_ In Schedule 24, omit paragraph 154(f).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment repeals an amendment of section 38(4)(j) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which has been repealed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I know this is the business that most people have been waiting for. Amendments 161 and 162 have both arisen following the consolidation of sentencing procedural law into the Sentencing Code by the Sentencing Act 2020.
These amendments, as eagle-eyed noble Lords will have realised, omit provisions in Schedule 24 to the Sentencing Act 2020 and Schedule 13 to the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 respectively. Those provisions are redundant, as they make amendments to provisions which have already been omitted or repealed. Omitting them will avoid any potential confusion regarding their operation. I beg to move.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 (c. 11)
12_ In Schedule 13 to the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021, omit paragraph 44.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment repeals an amendment in the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 of section 106A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, which was repealed by the Sentencing Act 2020.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the Amendment tabled in Lord Best's name to After Clause 62.
“(sa) section (Knife crime prevention order on conviction: adjournment of proceedings) (2) to (4);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Clause in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 142 and relating to adjournment of proceedings on an application for a knife crime prevention order.
“(ta) section (Football banning orders: relevant offences) for the purposes of making an order;(tb) section (Football banning orders: power to amend list of relevant offences);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Clauses in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford to be inserted after Clause 164 and relating to football banning orders. It has the effect that the powers to make an order or regulations under the Clauses come into force on Royal Assent.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“(aa) section (Required life sentence for manslaughter of emergency worker);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Clause in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar to be inserted after Clause 2 and relating to a required life sentence for the manslaughter of an emergency worker.
“(ga) sections (Penalty for cruelty to children) and (Penalty for causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential upon the amendments in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar to add clauses relating to offences against children before Clause 102.