House of Commons

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 12 July 2022

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)]

1. What recent steps his Department has taken to help support the photonics industry. [R]

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that photonics is one of the seven technology families highlighted in the innovation strategy with the absolute intention of showing and developing its domestic potential and the exports possibilities.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank the Secretary of State for his response, but he will know that photonics is completely undervalued across the United Kingdom and that south Devon is home to a large contingent of the photonics sector. With that in mind, can I invite him or presumably his successor, if I am allowed to say that, to the iMAPS—International Microelectronics Assembly and Packaging Society—conference on 18 October to safeguard and flag up the photonics sector?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that in the current circumstances 18 October is a very long time away, but of course I will do my best to attend that conference.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on photonics and quantum, I am well aware of the huge success of the UK photonics sector, but its future depends on a thriving semiconductor industry based here in the UK. The UK has that capability, but we need the semiconductor strategy. Could the Secretary of State update the House on when we can expect to see that strategy?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

By a curious anomaly, the semiconductor strategy is fully owned by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, so that question could be directed to it, but I am grateful that the hon. Member has acknowledged the booming sector here in the UK.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of increases in the energy price cap on living standards.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

We talk in Cabinet about the cost of living and the price cap all the time. The hon. Member will know that decisions on the level of the price cap are for Ofgem, but it is something we are constantly talking about in Cabinet.

[Martyn Day]

MoneySavingExpert’s Martin Lewis has asked a great question over social media:

“The energy price cap’s predicted to rise 64% in Oct taking a typical bill to £3,244/yr; & rise again in Jan to £500/yr more than when May’s help package was announced. What’ll u do to avoid this & when?”

How would the Secretary of State answer that question?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Member will know that the various parts are moving in the Government, but I am sure there will be the customary statement or Budget in November from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure there will be some interesting measures there to deal with that particular question.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain how people who live in park homes are going to be able to benefit from the £400 donation from the energy price cap?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am very pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we recognise the difficulty there. There was a loophole, but we are in the process of consultation about how to deal with that particular issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

I am afraid the Secretary of State just does not get it. As we now know, by the end of the year fuel bills are going to increase by an amount greater than the financial support that has been put in place by his Government. One third of someone’s state pension is going to be required just to pay their electricity and gas bills, so I have a simple question, which I will repeat again: what are they going to do about it?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We have already announced, in the course of the past few months, £37 billion-worth of cost of living support measures this year. I have also mentioned that there will be a Budget in November, when I am sure there will be an update on this very issue.

[Stephen Flynn]

So nothing new, but let us face the reality as outlined by the abrdn Financial Fairness Trust just in the last couple of days: one in six households in the UK are now in “serious financial difficulties”—a number higher than throughout the entire pandemic—while inflation is sky-high, energy bills are sky-high, fuel bills are sky-high, clothing bills are sky-high, food bills are sky-high, wages are stagnating and we have the lowest growth in the entire G20, bar Russia. Britain is broken, isn’t it?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am not going to take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about economic management when his core policy is to separate from the UK, which will have a devastating economic impact on people in Scotland. I am not going to take any lessons from him, thank you very much.

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

3. What recent steps his Department has taken to help support the oil and gas sector.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

The North sea transition deal sets out how the Government are working in partnership with the offshore oil and gas industry to achieve a managed energy transition that leaves nobody behind.

[Fay Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but 66% of my constituents live off the gas grid and rely on heating oil deliveries to heat their home—obviously not in these temperatures today—and I am extremely worried about oil deliveries in the winter. Has my right hon. Friend got his eye on these constituents, who comprise a huge part of rural Britain?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Wales is the part of the UK with the highest percentage of those off the gas grid, and I know that her rural part of Wales is therefore likely to be among the areas most affected by the rise in the price of heating oil. We have made sure that those off the gas grid but on the electricity grid will benefit from the £400 energy bill rebate. We have also put £1.1 billion into the home upgrade grant to provide energy efficiency and clean heating upgrades to support lower-income households living off the main gas grid. Obviously, we are continuing to monitor the situation extremely closely, particularly for the most vulnerable, most rural constituents such as my hon. Friend’s.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The UK already has the lowest tax take anywhere in the world from an offshore oil and gas regime, so it is perverse that the Government’s new investment allowance will essentially incentivise yet more oil and gas exploration at a time when we know that we absolutely need to leave fossil fuels in the ground. Given that the Secretary of State himself has said that it will take up to a decade to extract sufficient volumes from fracking, will he undertake to speak to his Treasury colleagues and make sure that fracking at the very least is excluded from this perverse investment allowance?

[Greg Hands]

I must say I find the Green party’s attitude to these issues bizarre: it seems to be resolutely against any oil and gas extraction in this country, which could only mean it would be in favour of imports, and those imports would be higher priced, more volatile, likely to be from more dangerous parts of the world, and come with higher embedded emissions. The embedded emissions of liquified natural gas are about 2.5 times higher than the emissions from the gas we get from the UK continental shelf. The hon. Lady describes herself as a Green party politician, but I find her approach distinctly ungreen compared to that of this Conservative Government.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

4. What recent steps his Department has taken to help increase the level of research and development spending.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

19. What recent steps his Department has taken to help increase the level of research and development spending.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

We are providing the fastest ever sustained uplift in R&D funding, reaching £20 billion per annum by 2024-25. If association to Horizon Europe is not possible in good time to make the most of that programme, we will take forward a bold and ambitious package of UK alternatives.

[Henry Smith]

This country has been world-leading in its covid-19 vaccination programme and so much more in our pharmaceutical industries as well as the health sector. Can the Minister say a little more about what specific research and development investment will go into pharmaceuticals and the health sector? I would particularly like to mention cancer services and Alector oncology in my constituency which is expanding.

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend has always been a passionate advocate and defender of business in the Crawley constituency, specifically R&D projects and innovation, and I am glad he mentioned Alector and others, as they are important companies in his constituency. We continue to support investment in R&D through a vibrant research and innovation system that attracts private sector investment and drives up productivity across the UK, including in Crawley.

[Chris Clarkson]

We are on the cusp of a green energy revolution with hydrogen, modular nuclear and now fusion in the mix. What steps is the Department taking to ensure British innovation is in the vanguard of that revolution, thus ensuring our long-term energy security?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is always on the front foot on low-carbon energy and innovation in Heywood and Middleton. He will know that the Government’s flagship £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio is making those important investments in hydrogen, advanced nuclear technologies and so on. On fusion, we are investing £700 million in research facilities and programmes over the next three years. My hon. Friend will also know that the energy security Bill we published last week includes launch pads for both hydrogen and nuclear fusion.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

That was the very first mention of hydrogen this morning. Does the Minister agree that there is such potential in hydrogen energy? We can already buy heavy goods vehicles and trucks that are hydrogen driven, and a network of hydrogen filling stations is being opened at the moment across our country. If he does agree, why does he not put more research money into hydrogen for every kind of energy use?

[Greg Hands]

We are 14 minutes into Question Time; I do not think that is too bad for the first mention of hydrogen. I realise that on the periodic table, it is No. 1—right at the top left—but that does not mean that it always has to be the first thing mentioned at Question Time.

The amount of money and resources going into hydrogen remains extremely strong. It is a really important part of the net zero innovation portfolio. Just over the past few months, I have been to the Whitelee wind farm just south of Glasgow to see the new hydrogen production facility there. That facility is going to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do: provide hydrogen for vehicles, particularly buses. The whole of the Glasgow bus fleet and, indeed, the whole of the Glasgow dustcart fleet will be fuelled by hydrogen from that wind farm.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

We need to increase investment in R&D; we also need to think carefully about where we spend it. In South Yorkshire we have some outstanding translational research institutions—the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and the Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre—in two outstanding universities. I know that the Secretary of State is supportive, but will the Minister pledge to work carefully with the Mayor and partners in our region so that we can unlock the huge potential in South Yorkshire?

[Greg Hands]

The answer is yes. We always welcome Mayors with a constructive attitude to working with the Government. If I am not mistaken, I have a meeting with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues next week. A delegation is coming to see me, led by—I think—the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It might be a different part of Sheffield; the Chair of the Select Committee on Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), is the Member I am thinking of.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I suggest that the Minister reminds Ministers in the other place that they are responsible to MPs in this House as well, and that they should meet with them? I hope that will be a clear message to the Lords.

I call Chi Onwurah, the Labour spokesperson.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Despite being critical to our world-beating research and a Conservative manifesto commitment, Britain’s participation in the world’s biggest science funding programme, Horizon Europe, is in peril. Before resigning, the then science Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), took to Twitter to lobby the new Chancellor for funding for his plan B, but the Chancellor was busy trying to get the Prime Minister he had just accepted a job from to leave his job. Now, although the former science Minister has asked for his job back, the still in place, though disgraced, Prime Minister is too busy nobbling those going for his job to fill the science job. It is total chaos. Science deserves better, doesn’t it?

[Greg Hands]

I thought that was a rather convoluted question, if you do not mind my saying so, Mr Speaker.

We in the UK Government are absolutely committed to getting a good deal for UK science, whether through association with Horizon Europe or through our plan B Horizon plan, which is also a fully funded approach to making sure that UK science does not lose out. Perhaps the hon. Lady might welcome the big boost in R&D spending in this country, with the most sustained uplift, from £15 billion today to £20 billion in two years’ time—a 33% increase in just two years.

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions his Department has had with the Competition and Markets Authority on its review of the fuel market.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary asked the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct an urgent review of the market for petrol and diesel. The CMA published its response on 8 July and has opened a market study into the fuel market, as my right hon. Friend requested.

[Laura Farris]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I know he has been working with the CMA on this issue, and I have read with interest its report on the discrepancy between the price of crude oil and wholesale prices. However, prices at the pumps in West Berkshire are still very high. My constituency is a rural one where people are completely reliant on their cars, so could my right hon. Friend provide an update as to when my constituents can expect to see better value at the petrol pumps?

[Greg Hands]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and other colleagues for leading the campaign and for pointing out some of the discrepancies in the market. I am delighted that the CMA is now carrying out a study. It found that rural fuel prices were consistently higher than those in urban areas, which is definitely worth a further market probe, so I urge her as a campaign leader and other colleagues to submit views and evidence to the CMA as it carries out its market study. One thing that was clear is that in the view of the CMA the duty cut put forward by the Government earlier this year was passed on to retailers.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

The CMA would be greatly helped in the energy and fuel market, and especially in the production of hydrogen, by fairness in the TNUoS—Transmission Network Use of System—charges for transmission costs in the electricity networks. When will Scottish renewables producers stop paying £7.36 per MWh for transmission, when producers in independent EU countries pay about 46p per MWh—a difference of 16 times affecting the production of hydrogen, an important fuel?

[Greg Hands]

It is good to be back on hydrogen again. The hon. Gentleman will reflect, I am sure, on the answers I gave earlier on the success of hydrogen, particularly in Scotland. I will say two things in answer to his question on transmission charges. First, as he knows, transmission charges are a matter for Ofgem. Secondly, Scottish consumers benefit from transmission charges compared to consumers in the rest of the United Kingdom. He may wish to reflect on all the pros and cons of the policy he appears to be proposing.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the impact of the rise in energy prices on (a) households and (b) businesses.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

The Government recognise the impact that increasing energy prices are having on households, which is why we are providing £37 billion in support for consumers this year alone. The Government are in regular contact with business groups and suppliers to explore ways to protect businesses.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Citizens Advice Luton has seen a 119% increase in local people saying they cannot afford their energy bills after April’s price increase, even after cutting back on other essential spending. I heard the Secretary of State say that the issue is talked about constantly in Cabinet, but does the Minister recognise that the energy price cap increase later this year will push even more families into poverty and hardship?

[Greg Hands]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady in her analysis of the underlying issue: the big rise in global energy prices over the past 12 months. That is exactly why we are taking the action we are taking: £37 billion-worth of support for consumers and bill payers over the course of this year. That is a massive amount of Government support going into ensuring that people get the support they need to be able to pay those bills in the coming months.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for outlining those measures. I sense it will be a very bleak winter; the energy price cap will play a role, but it would help if it were augmented by a social tariff. Will he advise on whether there have been any discussions in Government about the introduction of such a tariff?

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question. Obviously, all these things are under review, but I remind him that we replaced the social tariff with other support schemes for bill payers under the coalition. That remains our position, but we—both the Department and the Treasury, and indeed, the whole Government—study these positions and issues very closely indeed.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is very clear that the rising price of heating people’s homes will be devastating and go well beyond anything the Government have done to help households so far. For people living off-mains who are reliant on heating oil, for example—19,000 households in Cumbria alone—there is no cap whatever. They have seen their prices more than double over the past 12 months. What will the Minister do to ensure people in rural communities like mine are not hit even harder than the majority?

[Greg Hands]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we reflected on this issue in an earlier question. The Government are providing support for those who are off the gas grid. For example, those who pay an electricity bill will qualify for the £400 reduction this year. We have also put £1.1 billion into the home upgrade grant, on top of the £2.5 billion already deployed, to make sure vulnerable households, which could well include some of his constituents, are able to profit from the energy measures being put forward by the Government. His question on the price cap is a reasonable question to put. The information I have directly from the trade body UKIFDA—the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association—is that a price cap would be extremely difficult for its members, the people in the retail market for heating oil, because it becomes very difficult for a small business to hedge. However, it is something I discuss with MPs, the industry and the trade body regularly to see what more can be done, and the situation is under constant review.

[Katherine Fletcher]

One thing we can do to bring energy prices down is have an absolutely massive expansion of renewable offshore energy, whether that is tidal or wind. Last week, I met National Grid, which will use Penwortham on the Ribble estuary coast as the point to onshore a lot of the electricity that helps to get our fuel bills down. Does the Minister welcome the fact that National Grid has seen the opportunity of Penwortham, and does he agree that we just need to make sure that the environment and the natural Ribble estuary are protected as the cables and the energy come forward?

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her constant very good and strong engagement on behalf of her Ribble valley constituents. Renewable energy is, of course, part of the solution. That is why we announced the allocation round for the latest auction of renewable energy last week. It was the most successful ever, with 10.8 GW of renewable energy coming to this country through the contracts for difference mechanism. It has been a huge success, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that, at present, all retail electricity supplies—whether they derive from more expensive gas or cheaper renewables—are charged as though they had all come from gas. He also knows how to decouple prices coming into the retail market, so that domestic and business customers can enjoy considerable reductions in their energy bills by getting the direct benefit of renewable prices. Why is he not legislating to do so?

[Greg Hands]

The shadow Minister raises an interesting and good point about how the UK electricity market is structured. That is one reason why we have launched the REMA—review of electricity market arrangements—process and why we are taking action in the Energy Bill on aspects of the domestic energy system that will yield real gains for consumers, such as the onshore distribution and transmission network, so that there will be more competition in the network. There will be other measures in the Bill, which I very much hope that he and the other Opposition Front Benchers will support in due course.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to help support the creation of new low-carbon technologies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

Low-carbon technologies are fundamental to meeting our net zero target and securing our energy supply. The Government have set out their ambition to invest up to £22 billion in research and development by 2026-27. Our £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio is accelerating the commercialisation of innovative low-carbon technologies, systems and processes in the power, buildings and industrial sectors.

[Ruth Edwards]

I thank the Minister for her answer and welcome her to her place. May I bring to her attention the excellent bid from Uniper for carbon capture and storage technology to be built into its new energy from waste plant at Ratcliffe-on-Soar, which sits in the heart of the east midlands freeport? Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK’s first inland CCS facility, creating a carbon-negative and fully sustainable waste treatment solution, is worthy of investment through phase 2 of the carbon capture, utilisation and storage fund?

[Jane Hunt]

I commend my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Sorry, I commend my hon. Friend—it is only a matter of time—for working incredibly hard not only in Rushcliffe, but to promote the freeport for the whole of the east midlands. She is doing an incredible job. We are committed to deploying CCUS, including from energy from waste plants. We will announce the projects to proceed to the next stage of the track 1 CCUS process in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. I welcome the Minister to her place.

The lack of grid capacity in Wales is a chronic problem, stalling both onshore and offshore low-carbon developments. National Grid’s pathway to 2030 proposes a new connection between north and south Wales. Will the Minister commit to working with the Welsh Government to set a precondition for any development of sufficient capacity to ensure that local, small-scale energy projects can access the grid at low cost?

[Jane Hunt]

We always work to ensure adequate capacity. Perhaps the right hon. Member could meet National Grid to talk about that, but if she would like to come back to me on the point when she has done so, I will be happy to meet her.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to her post. We all agree that supporting investment in new low-carbon technologies is an important part of reaching net zero—well, most of us do. In the past week, one of the candidates for Prime Minister has said that

“we need to suspend the all-consuming desire to achieve net zero by 2050.”

Another claims that it was

“wrong of us to set a target”

for net zero. The frontrunner spent two years at the Treasury blocking additional climate spend. It is all well and good for the Minister to talk about the need for investment, but how can we, and more importantly the investors out there, have any confidence that it will continue?

[Jane Hunt]

It is clearly in our manifesto that we are completely committed to net zero. I will not be commenting further on any leadership elections.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

9. What recent progress his Department has made on increasing the number of (a) satellite launches and (b) space-related exports. [R]

[Mr Speaker]

Who wants to take Question 9?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

I will, Mr Speaker.

We have funded a range of industry projects to establish vertical launch services from Scotland and support horizontal launch from Cornwall, with the UK’s first launch on track for later this year. We are supporting the growth of UK space exports through targeted campaigns matching UK companies with new large customers globally; through our new Export Academy, which upskills first-time exporters; and through establishing new and innovative international partnerships.

[Richard Graham]

I congratulate the Minister on her appointment, and on taking this question on an exciting growth sector for UK tech. Although our satellite capabilities are well known, the ability to launch satellites is something new indeed. There is considerable demand for satellites from countries in south-east Asia that wish to take advantage of the ability to map and plan their agriculture better and to research and better protect against severe weather issues, as well as getting valuable marine and fishing information. Can my hon. Friend confirm how we will know how much capacity is available for our partners in south-east Asia and elsewhere abroad? When will it be available?

[Jane Hunt]

It is indeed an exciting opportunity. Delivering our planned launches from Cornwall and Scotland will allow the UK to establish itself as a leader in the growing global launch market. It will ensure that the UK is attractive to companies around the world that seek to launch satellites that meet our regulatory standards. UK Space Agency-led international partnership programmes in 2018 explored how UK satellite technology could be used in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam; I am pleased to say that a number of opportunities were identified.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

11. What recent steps his Department has taken to increase the supply of rare earth metals while maintaining high environmental standards.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

We are absolutely focused on critical minerals. I am delighted to say that we will publish a critical minerals strategy, which I personally commissioned and have a personal interest in as Secretary of State.

[Mr Holden]

China has been hoovering up rare earth metals around the world, and obviously other parts of the world have far worse environmental standards for extraction than the UK, but rare earth metals are vital to Nissan in Sunderland, where many of my constituents work, and to Britishvolt, which is just up the road. I thank the Department for the extra money that has been provided recently, with £1 million for Northern Lithium and Weardale Lithium in my constituency to look at this, but what more can the Government do to really help deliver the UK production of vital rare earth metals?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that necessity. The Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre was launched only last week and is looking at precisely the question that he raises. In respect of Nissan and Britishvolt, he will know that we landed those investments only last year. We are looking very closely at how we can secure the supply chain here in the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Bill Esterson.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Rare earth minerals are essential to our economy, not least in low-carbon sectors and in defence. The Japanese Government developed their rare minerals plan as long ago as 2010, in response to a blockade by China. I know the UK Government say that they will publish a critical materials strategy in the autumn, but if other countries have been building resilience since 2010, what confidence can we have that this Government will develop an effective strategy for our economy and our national security when, as the Secretary of State has just admitted, they have only just woken up to the scale of the risks that we face?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I think the hon. Gentleman does the Government a disservice. Obviously Japan was focused on security of supply, given its immediate exposure to China. Where we have come in is in bringing together, for instance, the United States and Canada: officials in Canada whom I speak to are looking at our critical minerals strategy with great interest, and we are very much leading the way in the Five Eyes.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What recent steps his Department has taken to help support the growth of community-owned energy projects.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

We encourage community energy groups to work closely with local authorities to support the development of projects through UK-wide growth funding.

[Geraint Davies]

The Minister knows that community-owned local energy projects will be critical to delivering net zero and national security, and are often best delivered by co-operatives. However, he should also know that the minimum tariff paid by the big suppliers to the small suppliers is often too low to make many smaller suppliers viable. Will he look into that minimum tariff, and also work with the Co-operative party to support and fund the launch of new locally owned community energy projects?

[Greg Hands]

I should be happy to have a look at those tariffs, but I do not think that this would prevent us from supporting community energy projects as a Government. We have a very good track record in that regard, through previous funds and through, for example, the towns fund, run by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which has just awarded more than £23.6 million to Glastonbury Town Council. The projects involved include the Glastonbury clean energy project, whose purpose is investment in renewable energy generation and low-carbon transport infrastructure. There is a great deal going on in this space, but I am happy to look at the tariff question in particular.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

14. When he will bring forward a consultation on the safety of products that are sold online.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

As the hon. Lady should know, a consultation, which includes proposals to take further steps to address unsafe products sold online, is being finalised, and the consultation paper will be published later this year.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Unsuspecting and cash-strapped consumers are being peddled recalled white goods, unsafe devices claiming to save energy, and dangerous toys. Online marketplaces are a hotbed for unsafe products, as has been evidenced time and again by investigations carried out by Electrical Safety First and other organisations. What steps are the Government are taking to address the safety risks that consumers face when shopping on these platforms?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As the hon. Lady will know, the Office for Product Safety and Standards leads a national programme of regulatory action to look at precisely those risks. In 2021, for example, 12,500 products were removed from supply as a direct result of OPSS intervention.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

My late constituent Bethany Shipsey was tragically killed after consuming just a small amount of the lethal explosive precursor dinitrophenol—DNP—which is sometimes wrongly marketed as a slimming or bodybuilding product. May I ask my right hon. Friend for a meeting to discuss this tragedy, and how we can take steps to crack down on the overseas suppliers who are selling this deadly substance into the UK online?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend, who did excellent work at the Department for Education.

[Mr Speaker]

Unlike Lord Callanan, who does not meet people.

Sir Edward Leigh is not here, so I call Gavin Newlands.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

16. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of increases in the energy price cap on living standards.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

We have talked about energy prices. We have an energy price cap, and we have it because it protects consumers from being exposed to the wild gyration of prices—and that is what it has been doing.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, whatever that was.

More than a fifth of my constituents already live in fuel poverty, despite the best efforts of the Scottish Government and local agencies investing heavily in energy efficiency measures. The £400 announced by the previous Chancellor is totally inadequate given that we hear the price cap is to rise by a further £500. What action will the Secretary of State, and what is left of his Government, be taking to change the energy market fundamentally in order to ensure that no one in this country is left to choose between heating and eating?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I made the point about the price cap because wholesale gas prices have gone up 20 times and the price cap is protecting vulnerable people who are eligible for it, just as some in the House have remarked that people relying on off-gas grid heating are not protected by it. In relation to the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s question, we are looking at energy market reform to decouple the marginal cost—the cost that people pay—from the actual cost of generation, which is much more based on renewables.

[John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)]

17. If he will make an assessment of the implications for his policies of the report by the Climate Change Committee, “2022 Progress Report to Parliament”, published on 29 June 2022.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

As required by the Climate Change Act 2008, the Government will respond later this year to the committee’s report and will provide an annual update on the delivery progress of the net zero strategy.

[John Mc Nally]

I thank the Minister for that answer. However, less than a year on from COP26, it is scary watching the Government rolling back climate policies. The Climate Change Committee has said:

“Tangible progress is lagging the policy ambition”.

Examples include cutting support for electric vehicles, a levy incentivising only oil exploration and prime ministerial contenders planning to suspend green levies. Why is the Secretary of State’s party determined to inflict damage on our common home, this planet, at this critical time?

[Greg Hands]

Can I just correct the hon. Gentleman on one thing? The Climate Change Committee’s report was actually full of praise for the Government on electric vehicles and on what we are doing on electricity decarbonisation. On his wider point, this Government have a fantastic record of action on climate, thanks to the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma). At the start of the year, 30% of global GDP was signed up to net zero targets. That is now 90%, and the UK is leading the way with our own net zero strategy, published just before COP last year.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

20. What steps he is taking to deliver new and advanced nuclear power in the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

My hon. Friend will have noticed that we are fully committed to the nuclear power industry and, unlike the Opposition, we are looking to develop nuclear power because it is an essential component of decarbonised, stable, firm power.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reassurance. I have long spoken up for modular nuclear technology, not only for the baseload it can supply to our energy production but for the jobs and prosperity it can provide for the city of Derby and the north of England. Does he agree that while we wait for this modular nuclear technology to come online, it is also important that we invest in fracking, because short-term energy security has never been more important than it is currently?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend will know that I asked the British Geological Survey to look at fracking, and we will be coming out with a statement on its findings shortly.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Richard Graham, you have had a question.

[Richard Graham]

I’ve got another one.

[Mr Speaker]

You can’t have one! I hate to say it to you, but how long have you been here?

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

21. What assessment he has made of the impact of the rise in energy prices on (a) households and (b) businesses.

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

The Government recognise the impact that increasing energy prices are having on households. That is why we are providing £15 billion in additional support to the £22 billion we announced previously. The Government are in regular contact with business groups and suppliers to explore ways to protect businesses.

[Paul Blomfield]

The finance director of Thessco, a successful Sheffield alloy manufacturer, has told me that the company’s electricity bill has increased by more than 300% and its gas bill by more than 400%. It does not qualify for help under the energy intensive industries compensation scheme simply because its raw materials are precious metals. The previous Industry Minister acknowledged this in a letter to me but hoped that, despite not helping, the scheme did

“demonstrate an intent to try to help”.

Extraordinary. Does the Minister agree that small and medium-sized enterprises such as Thessco do not need demonstrations of intent and that they need practical support to avoid being crushed by rising energy bills?

[Greg Hands]

The Government absolutely recognise the challenge being faced by businesses and consumers in relation to the rise in global energy prices. It may be that the business in question qualifies for other things, such as the energy intensive industries exemption scheme, and I will have a look at that, but what is certain is that it will qualify for the business rates relief—totalling £7 billion over the next five years—and the annual investment allowance, which increases from £200,000 to £1 million over the course of this year, as well as some of the other really important measures the Government have put in place to support businesses at this difficult time.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

22. What recent steps his Department has taken to help support business supply chains.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

We continue to monitor supply chain pressures, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to ensure business resilience. The Government engage regularly with UK businesses and industry to understand the impact of this and other global events on our supply chains.

[Mohammad Yasin]

Whether it is shortages in medicines, shortages in building materials or empty spaces on supermarket shelves, my constituents are still finding stock shortages everywhere. Retailers say this is the worst supply chain crisis they can remember, with no sign of the problem easing soon. What is the Minister doing now to help businesses through this and to mitigate the impact of spiralling inflation?

[Jane Hunt]

Of course, these are global issues, but the Government have taken decisive action to ease pressures on supply chains, such as by managing peak demand at the end of last year, including by expanding and streamlining testing for heavy goods vehicle drivers to enable an extra 50,000 tests per year. So things are being done.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)]

My Department remains relentlessly focused on energy security for the winter, and I have met many business groups, business people and energy suppliers over the last few days. Only last week, to protect our people from costly bills, we published the Energy Bill, and I am pleased that last week’s fourth round of the contracts for difference scheme was the most successful ever. It secured almost 11 GW across a range of clean technologies, including offshore wind, onshore wind, solar and, for the first time ever, floating offshore wind and tidal stream. This will help to boost our energy security for many years to come.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I say that his answer to my earlier question will have been of little comfort to more than 100,000 households living in park homes? The Government are apparently still working on how to deal with this issue, but meanwhile those households fear they will miss out while those with second homes benefit more than twice, so can he guarantee that each of those households will get £400 in cash, as an energy bill rebate, whether it be in the form of a voucher, a direct payment or whatever? They need to know now that they will get the £400.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend has very successfully asked the same question twice, which is fair enough, and I will give him the same answer. We have had the consultation, and we will come up with a response that ensures his constituents get a fair deal on this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the last 12 years, this country has had a referendum on its membership of the European Union, a referendum on the continued existence of the UK and four general elections, and now we are about to have our fourth Prime Minister. In that time, business investment in the UK has fallen to the lowest level in the G7. Does the Secretary of State accept that one reason for that is the lack of political stability under the Conservative party?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will take no lessons in political stability from the hon. Gentleman, who stood on a platform to elect a neo-Marxist as Prime Minister of this country. That would have been a catastrophic disaster for business investment and, indeed, for our economic prospects.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be the next Chancellor, he will have to do better than that.

Let us look at an area where he should have taken a lesson from us. Earlier in the year, we said it would be a mistake for this Government to increase national insurance. With inflation and energy bills rising for businesses, we said it was wrong for the Government to add to that burden in a way no other major economy was doing. It seems that Conservative contenders are now lining up to disown the tax rise they voted for just a few months ago. Does he agree with his colleagues that the Government got this badly wrong?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

People will understand that the increase in the national insurance contribution was precisely to pay for the NHS backlog and for ongoing health and social care costs. In that context, it made sense.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

T3. As my right hon. Friend has indicated, we had the very good news last week that ScottishPower Renewables had been successful in the contract for difference auction for its East Anglia Three offshore wind project. I would be grateful if he would outline what else is being done to provide certainty over future CfD auctions, which will allow offshore wind developers to invest more in order to meet the Government’s 2030 target and bring more jobs to coastal communities such as those in Waveney?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that when he first came into the House we did not have any auctions and then for about six years we had an auction every other year. It was very much my intention as Secretary of State to introduce an annual auction, and I am pleased to say we have done so. It has given much more security and visibility to the supply chain, which was one reason why I introduced it.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

T2. More than 150 seafarers on P&O’s Cairnryan to Larne services were covered by the national minimum wage when the company callously sacked the remaining seafarers in March. The Government’s nine-point plan makes great play of enforcing the national minimum wage on international ferry routes but fails to ensure that collectively bargained terms and conditions for crew will be imposed on P&O to lift pay and conditions. So will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that P&O can no longer undercut rival operators from Cairnryan, thus returning jobs to local crew and protecting maritime jobs and skills?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I have talked about this issue with my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, and we are looking at ways in which egregious action can be mitigated.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T7. Torness power station provides excellent jobs in my constituency and low-carbon power across the UK. Have the UK Government made any progress in convincing the SNP Government of the importance of nuclear power to our future energy needs?

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

I have raised this issue continually. I have been in Scotland six times in this role in the past nine months and I have raised the issue repeatedly with the SNP—with Scottish Government Ministers and in this House. They have an incredible disregard for Scotland’s incredible nuclear past. The workers at Torness have taken great pride in providing reliable, zero-carbon energy since 1988, and it is scandalous that the SNP and its representatives here in Westminster want to end Scotland’s brilliant nuclear tradition, which we know has really served the whole of the UK, particularly my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

T4.   When do the Government hope to respond to last week’s West Midlands Combined Authority plan for growth and, in particular, its urgent calls to support the electric vehicle industry by securing a gigafactory at Coventry, the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure and support for supply chain transition and diversification?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been to Coventry many times to discuss this issue and that we have landed gigafactories in Sunderland. There were none when I became Secretary of State and we now have two, and we are working all the time to land more of them here in the UK.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

T9. Given the changing ministerial personnel, will the Government reassure us of their ongoing commitment to generate growth to beat living cost pressures through backing science and technology projects such as BioYorkshire in my constituency, which has already brought some 40 new high-skilled jobs to the constituency with the relocation of Azotic Technologies?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend is a consistent champion for his York constituents, and I assure him that we remain committed to delivering on the fastest sustained uplift in research and development funding, reaching £20 billion per annum in just two years’ time, from £15 billion today. That is a huge uplift, and of course we are going to make sure that all parts of the UK benefit from it. I am sure that part of that will be in and around York.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

T5. Last week, I asked the Secretary of State about support for pumped storage hydro, and he let the cat out of the bag when he responded: “It should be stressed that this is a very specific technology to Scotland.”That was a disgraceful comment. It probably explains why Scotland has been overlooked for carbon capture and storage and excluded from the hydrogen village trials. But we do have the highest grid charges in the whole of Europe and we have contributed £400 billion in oil and gas revenue. Scotland is getting exploited, not supported. Is not that the case?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is absolute nonsense. My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question was that pumped storage hydro was something that was particular in Scotland—it was something that happened in Scotland. But as for this general remark about us not supporting Scottish energy, the SNP is the party that has turned its back on Scottish nuclear, which employs huge numbers of people. The SNP has completely abandoned nuclear, it does not care about the jobs, and it does not care about industry in its own country.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I had looked forward to being in the box, but as they say, them’s the breaks. I take the opportunity to thank the Secretary of State, my private office and the team in the Department for their support in the past year. Does the Secretary of State agree that whoever wins this fabulous festival of talent, it is essential that we put science, technology and innovation at the very heart of our economy—perhaps even with a Cabinet Minister for it?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I think it is absolutely essential. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree when I say that he was an excellent Science Minister, and I am delighted to see him take an interest in our affairs from where he is seated. I look forward to his ongoing contribution to our science and technology agenda in the course of this Parliament.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T8.   An ambitious nationwide insulation programme is absolutely essential to meeting our net zero target, although I note this morning that the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch) has described that goal as “unilateral economic disarmament”. If she and others hoping to be Prime Minister had attended Sir Patrick Vallance’s alarming briefing yesterday on the climate crisis, she would have understood how important it was to reduce household emissions. So will the Secretary of State create jobs, cut bills and slash emissions by investing in insulation?

[Greg Hands]

That is exactly what we are doing. We have committed £6.6 billion over the course of this Parliament. The local authority delivery scheme, £787 million; the home upgrade grants, £950 million; the social housing decarbonisation fund, over £800 million. These are real, big pieces of taxpayers’ money going into energy efficiency, and it is coming at a good time, when people need it most.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Government’s energy security strategy acknowledges that onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of renewable power but, shockingly, proposes no wholesale changes to planning regulations for onshore wind in England. But we in Wales stand ready to help. What funding will the Minister provide for further research and development into producing greater efficiency in grid transmission, and will the Minister now commit to significant investment in the national grid in Wales?

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady will have studied the evidence that I gave to the Welsh Affairs Committee a couple of months ago on the national grid in Wales. When it comes to ensuring that we are equipped in renewable energy, we have just announced the results of last week’s contract for difference auction. I remind her that when she was a supporter of the last Labour Government, only 7% of our electricity was generated from renewables. It is now 43%.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

The east has offshore wind and nuclear to give the nation. London wants its power. Why should Bury St Edmunds, and the broader Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex, have 50-metre pylons tearing across its countryside? Up north, we have routed it under the sea. We in the east want a fair consultation. My right hon. Friend has listened to us; please listen to us again to get to the right answer.

[Greg Hands]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right that I have met East Anglia MPs to discuss this matter—it has been impressed on me across more than 20 constituencies—and I am sure that I will have further engagements with her. I continue to work with National Grid as part of its processes to ensure that her constituents get the best possible deal.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Competition and Markets Authority recently concluded that a lack of competition in key parts of the economy was leading to higher mark-ups from already profitable firms. In short, inflation was being caused in part because Ministers were not doing enough to ensure effective competition across those key bits of the economy. What is the Secretary of State doing about that?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The new CMA chair, Marcus Bokkerink, was confirmed by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. He and I are working very closely to see how we can improve the performance of the CMA, to make sure that consumers get a better deal.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), the fact is that National Grid is committing to 800 miles of undersea cabling to protect countryside in Scotland and the north of England from new pylons, but to only 80 miles off East Anglia, even though we produce so much offshore wind. Why are our constituents not going to get a fairer share?

[Greg Hands]

My hon. Friend and I have met to discuss this issue at least three times, and he continues to be a champion for his constituents. I know he is doing a lot of constituency meetings on this. I will continue to engage and make sure that National Grid also engages with him constantly.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

The Minister knows that 115 Horizon Europe grants were cancelled last week. Will he commit to ensuring that that money is given to our excellent scientists, just as the previous, excellent, science Minister would have done?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am pleased to announce that we have, in the first instance, committed to Horizon, but we also have a plan B—an alternative that will ensure that all the money we have put into Horizon is retained in the UK. That is exactly what I am discussing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I strongly endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), but may I raise a separate issue with the Secretary of State: the deep concern felt across the creative industries about the proposal in the consultation about relaxing the copyright exception for artificial intelligence? I spoke to the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who was sympathetic and said he would look into it. May I ask that the new Minister also looks into it and makes sure that we protect one of our most important industries?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows that I am in constant talks with officials in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for that Department to make sure that we have a reasonable response to this danger, which he very ably highlights.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the mineworkers’ pension scheme. I know, after speaking to him last week, that it has been referred to the Treasury for a decision. Given that that decision needs to be made before the House rises next week, may I urge him to chase it up, please?

[Greg Hands]

I am happy to have further conversations with Treasury Ministers. As the hon. Lady knows, the Government’s position on the core issue remains unchanged, but I will ensure that the specific, additional issue she has raised is put again to Her Majesty’s Treasury.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Thank you for giving me a second chance, Mr Speaker. May I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Energy Minister on last week’s first ever ringfenced marine energy renewables auction? This is a landmark moment for the UK in generating our own domestic green energy from some of the world’s fiercest tides. When will my right hon. Friend be able to announce another ringfenced pot for marine energy?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

During my time as the Energy Minister, my hon. Friend lobbied hard and consistently on this subject, and I am pleased to say that through my successors as Energy Minister and with me as Secretary of State, we have finally delivered. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work to secure that.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with local authorities and other Departments about what seems to be a threat to the future of community swimming pools from rising energy bills? Swim UK, the Royal Life Saving Society and other organisations have said that, potentially, hundreds of pools face closure.

[Greg Hands]

I am happy to examine this issue as a former employee of a swimming pool. In 1985, I worked for six months at a German swimming pool, Sommerbad Kreuzberg, which I am happy to read into Hansard for all the staff who still work there. The hon. Gentleman knows that we have provided support for businesses at this difficult time through grants, business rates relief and other reliefs, and we will continue to engage with those facing challenges in relation to energy bills.

Points of Order

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

12:30

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your advice on how to get a satisfactory response from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions concerning new data from her Department, published last week, which shows that 140 deaths of vulnerable claimants have been investigated since 2019—and these are only the deaths that we know about. It is a scandal that the bereaved families are not made aware of or involved in these investigations, and that we are denied data on the true scale of the deaths. Can you suggest why the Secretary of State is refusing to hold a public inquiry, and what I can do to hold her to account and get one?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that I am not responsible for the actions of the Secretary of State. I know, too, that she has put her comments on record, and I hope that those on the Government Front Bench have taken them on board. I am sure that she will also pursue the other avenues that are available to her.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In recent weeks, I have tabled numerous written parliamentary questions on a range of topics, including, the minimum wage for seafarers, a statutory code on fire and rehire, ethnicity pay gap reporting, umbrella companies, and the now vanished employment Bill only for Ministers to tell me that the Bills, drafts, consultations and responses that they have long promised will be published in “due course”. Yet in “due course” never arrives and it appears to be nothing more than a phrase that Ministers use to kick plans into the long grass. May I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, on what actions are open to me to ensure that the Government provide a proper response on when publications will be made available, or do I assume that this Government will only care about fighting to protect and uphold the rights of working people in “due course”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. As he knows, I am not responsible for ministerial answers, but he has put his views on record, and I trust that they will be conveyed to the Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Members, from whichever party and on whichever side of the House they sit, should rightly have their questions answered as early as possible. There is no excuse. We have been through the excuse of covid. We may have a bit of a crisis in Government, but Members should have their letters and questions answered. I do not care from which side of the House they come, this is about respect to this House and respect to the elected Members. I am sure that some of the Ministers who may now be on the Back Benches will also want their questions answered in the future, so, please, take this on board. Do not disrespect the Members of this House. Keep me informed of what goes on.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, and I think you will be particularly interested in this one. You will know, because I informed you and others in the House, that, over the past few days, I have been wearing a very sophisticated air quality monitor. I have to say that the quality of the air in this Chamber is very polluted—well above World Health Organisation standards—but in other parts of the House, where our staff are working, it is twice as bad. It is a seriously polluted atmosphere that we are asking our employees on this estate to work in. We have the summer recess coming up, so may I ask you, Mr Speaker, to see whether something can be done—both in the short term and then in the longer term—to protect the people who work in this Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

I know that the hon. Member has been here longer than anybody I can think of in the Chamber at the moment. He knows the best avenues available to him, and I know that he will already be penning his letter to Sir Charles Walker and the Administration Committee, and I am sure that they will seriously take on board his findings.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Department for Work and Pensions questions yesterday, the Secretary of State challenged the figures that I used about child poverty, asking that I advise where I got them from. That struck me as rather odd, because I got those statistics from her own Department. Today, we hear from the North East Child Poverty Commission that the north-east has overtaken London in terms of having the highest rate of child poverty in the UK, at 38%, up from 37% the previous year—that is 11 children in a classroom of 30.

In 2020-21, the north-east continues to see a longer-term trend, with the region experiencing by far the steepest increases in child poverty in the UK in recent years. One third of the north-east’s parliamentary constituencies now have a child poverty rate of 40% or above.

I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, have heard from the Secretary of State about whether she has since managed to read her own statistics, and if she plans a statement on the worsening of child poverty in my region?

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for the Minister’s answers, nor would I wish to be. I thank him for letting me know that he was going to ask the question. I have had no notice of any statement coming forward on the subject he mentions but, as I say, he has certainly put it on record and I know that people will be listening on the Government side. I am sure that, in future, those points can be corrected if the hon. Gentleman is right. He has put forward the stats and he has put forward his case. I am sure they will be checked and the House will ensure that we have the right record of statistics going forward.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We now have a caretaker Government who have given themselves a self-denying ordinance not to do anything controversial or change policy in any way. Today we have before us, with Report just coming up, an extraordinarily controversial piece of legislation that really should wait for the new, appropriate Government to deal with it in the future. Is there any mechanism whereby this House can delay the Report stage before us today until later in the year, when it can be dealt with properly?

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman is another Member who has been here a very long time and knows I am not responsible for the business of the House. I am sure he will take the matter up in different ways and through different avenues. As we all know, he does not give up quite so easily, even though he knows I have not got the power.

Pets (Microchips)

1st reading
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12.41 pm

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision regarding pets with microchips; and for connected purposes.

This is the third time I have stood up to present this Bill—make of that what you will, Mr Speaker—but we keep going. I also stand here because of an important member of my family: not my wife Joanne or my two sons, who are in the Public Gallery today, but my black Labrador Bertie, who at the moment is happily in doggy day care in Bury. He is a much-loved member of my family. This is a Bill for pet owners and pet lovers who value their pet cats and dogs as members of their family.

My Pets (Microchips) Bill aims to bring into law two campaigns that are due to the efforts of others—Tuk’s law and Gizmo’s law. Gizmo’s law is a campaign that emanates from my own Bury North constituency, hence the reason I am proud to stand here. I pay tribute to Helena Abrahams, Wendy Andrew and the whole team at Gizmo’s Legacy, who have done an incredible job. Tuk’s law is a four-year campaign by Sue Williams and Dawn Ashley. It has been an honour to work with Sue and Dawn over a number of years on this matter, with the great assistance of Dominic Dyer.

What is my Bill about? Tuk’s law is a campaign to create a new law that would mean that veterinary surgeons would be legally required to scan for rescue back-up contact details on microchips and confirm that the owner of the animal is actually the person presenting the animal, prior to euthanasia, if the animal can be treated. The campaign highlights an issue that I was horrified by when I first became aware of it. We have a pandemic in this country of healthy dogs being taken to vets and put down or euthanised without any reference to their ownership or having their microchip scanned.

What is rescue back-up? It is registration on a microchip. Rescue organisations and breeders register their details on the original database as a secondary contact as part of the adoption contract or bill of sale. In times of vulnerability, the secondary contact is there to prevent the animal being unnecessarily euthanised and to alert the veterinarian that an alternate is in place. Tuk’s law calls for two things: first, to establish legal ownership, and secondly, for a legal requirement on the veterinary surgeon to scan for a rescue back-up.

As we speak today, there is no legal requirement for vets to do that, but there should not be unfair criticism of the veterinary profession. During the time I have been presenting these Bills to the House, a voluntary code of conduct has been entered into by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I am extremely grateful for the step it has taken, but the problem remains. Euthanasia remains solely at the discretion of a veterinarian and is not a legal requirement. Animals can still be subjected to unsubstantiated accusations of health or behaviour issues and there is no obligation to seek verification or alternative options to euthanasia. With rising veterinarian and insurance costs, economic euthanasia is likely to rise in the near future, and the rescues’ and breeders’ commitment to the safety of their animals’ long-term needs has to be acknowledged and should be acted on in all circumstances.

The rescue back-up provision allows time for comprehensive assessments, healthcare checks and rehoming support, and guarantees that any life-ending decision is based on the animal’s best interests, with all facts and alternative options known. For any dog owner in this place, the idea that our animal, as a healthy animal, could be taken and euthanised without our consent, for whatever reason, and without a second option being sought, is something that legislation needs to remedy. This campaign is backed by of thousands of people throughout the country.

As I said, Gizmo’s law is a proud Bury North campaign. Gizmo’s law is about the other end of the life spectrum. It is about cats that are sadly deceased. All too often in hon. Members’ constituencies and boroughs throughout this country, if a cat is sadly involved in an accident or dies by whatever means, if the local authority is called in, the step that is generally taken is to put that animal, without reference to the owner and without microchipping it, into landfill. That is not acceptable. Cats are part of our families—part of who we are. I know you would completely agree with that, Mr Speaker.

Gizmo’s law is a fully funded campaign where each local authority in the country will be provided with a scanner and legally required to bag the cat that has been killed in tragic circumstances, to record where it was found, and to scan the microchip and search the six databases that are open to cats that have been microchipped. That would allow cat owners to be reunited with their much-loved pet. If an animal is part of your family, it does not matter which stage of its life it is at—you want to know what has happened to it.

That requirement is not greatly bureaucratic or time-consuming. It is cost-neutral. It is simply asking local authorities to scan a microchip and to contact owners. There truly cannot be anything unreasonable about that. Sadly, however, I have numerous examples of councils throughout the country that simply ignore this, and the cat is thrown into landfill with the owner knowing nothing more about it.

This is about the Berties; it is about all the cats; it is about everyone who views animals as having as much right as any other member of the family. This is a passionate campaign. I have the honour to stand here but I go back to Helena, Wendy, Sue and Dawn—to all those people who every single day are going out loving, protecting and caring for their animals.

This is hopefully a matter that the Government can take further. If the Minister were given an opportunity, he would talk about the consultation on the issue that closed in May. The Government are taking positive steps in respect of looking at the issue of microchipping. I am incredibly grateful for the work of Ministers throughout the period I have been trying to persuade them of the merits of this legislation. It is part of a conversation that will hopefully bring Tuk’s law and Gizmo’s law into statute.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say that Attlee is fully supportive of what you are trying to do?

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That James Daly, Mark Eastwood, Jim Shannon, Saqib Bhatti, Sir Gavin Williamson, Anthony Mangnall, Mark Logan, Aaron Bell, Jake Berry, Damien Moore, Nickie Aiken and Paul Bristow present the Bill.

James Daly accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 139).

Online Safety Bill: Programme (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 19 April 2022 in the last Session of Parliament (Online Safety Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:

(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.

(3) Proceedings on Consideration—

(a) shall be taken on each of those days in the order shown in the first column of the following Table, and

(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Online Safety Bill

Report stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

Day 1

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Relevant Documents: Report of the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill, Session 2021-22: Draft Online Safety Bill, HC 609, and the Government Response, CP 640; Letter from the Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights relating to the Online Safety Bill, dated 16 June 2022; Letter from the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport relating to the Online Safety Bill, dated 19 May 2022; First Report of the Digital, Cultural, Media and Sport Committee, Amending the Online Safety Bill, HC 271]

New Clause 19

Duties to protect news publisher content

(1) This section sets out the duties to protect news publisher content which apply in relation to Category 1 services.

(2) Subject to subsections (4), (5) and (8), a duty, in relation to a service, to take the steps set out in subsection (3) before—

(a) taking action in relation to content present on the service that is news publisher content, or

(b) taking action against a user who is a recognised news publisher.

(3) The steps referred to in subsection (2) are—

(a) to give the recognised news publisher in question a notification which—

(i) specifies the action that the provider is considering taking,

(ii) gives reasons for that proposed action by reference to each relevant provision of the terms of service,

(iii) where the proposed action relates to news publisher content that is also journalistic content, explains how the provider took the importance of the free expression of journalistic content into account when deciding on the proposed action, and

(iv) specifies a reasonable period within which the recognised news publisher may make representations,

(b) to consider any representations that are made, and

(c) to notify the recognised news publisher of the decision and the reasons for it (addressing any representations made).

(4) If a provider of a service reasonably considers that the provider would incur criminal or civil liability in relation to news publisher content present on the service if it were not taken down swiftly, the provider may take down that content without having taken the steps set out in subsection (3).

(5) A provider of a service may also take down news publisher content present on the service without having taken the steps set out in subsection (3) if that content amounts to a relevant offence (see section 52 and also subsection (10) of this section).

(6) Subject to subsection (8), if a provider takes action in relation to news publisher content or against a recognised news publisher without having taken the steps set out in subsection (3), a duty to take the steps set out in subsection (7).

(7) The steps referred to in subsection (6) are—

(a) to swiftly notify the recognised news publisher in question of the action taken, giving the provider’s justification for not having first taken the steps set out in subsection (3),

(b) to specify a reasonable period within which the recognised news publisher may request that the action is reversed, and

(c) if a request is made as mentioned in paragraph (b)—

(i) to consider the request and whether the steps set out in subsection (3) should have been taken prior to the action being taken,

(ii) if the provider concludes that those steps should have been taken, to swiftly reverse the action, and

(iii) to notify the recognised news publisher of the decision and the reasons for it (addressing any reasons accompanying the request for reversal of the action).

(8) If a recognised news publisher has been banned from using a service (and the ban is still in force), the provider of the service may take action in relation to news publisher content present on the service which was generated or originally published or broadcast by the recognised news publisher without complying with the duties set out in this section.

(9) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), a provider is not to be regarded as taking action in relation to news publisher content in the following circumstances—

(a) a provider takes action in relation to content which is not news publisher content, that action affects related news publisher content, the grounds for the action only relate to the content which is not news publisher content, and it is not technically feasible for the action only to relate to the content which is not news publisher content;

(b) a provider takes action against a user, and that action affects news publisher content that has been uploaded to or shared on the service by the user.

(10) Section (Providers’ judgements about the status of content) (providers’ judgements about the status of content) applies in relation to judgements by providers about whether news publisher content amounts to a relevant offence as it applies in relation to judgements about whether content is illegal content.

(11) OFCOM’s guidance under section (Guidance about illegal content judgements) (guidance about illegal content judgements) must include guidance about the matters dealt with in section (Providers’ judgements about the status of content) as that section applies by reason of subsection (10).

(12) Any provision of the terms of service has effect subject to this section.

(13) In this section—

(a) references to “news publisher content” are to content that is news publisher content in relation to the service in question;

(b) references to “taking action” in relation to content are to—

(i) taking down content,

(ii) restricting users’ access to content, or

(iii) taking other action in relation to content (for example, adding warning labels to content);

(c) references to “taking action” against a person are to giving a warning to a person, or suspending or banning a person from using a service, or in any way restricting a person’s ability to use a service.

(14) Taking any step set out in subsection (3) or (7) does not count as “taking action” for the purposes of this section.

(15) See—

section 16 for the meaning of “journalistic content”;

section 49 for the meaning of “news publisher content”;

section 50 for the meaning of “recognised news publisher”.”—(Damian Collins.)

Member’s explanatory statement

This new clause requires providers to notify a recognised news publisher and provide a right to make representations before taking action in relation to news publisher content or against the publisher (except in certain circumstances), and to notify a recognised news publisher after action is taken without that process being followed and provide an opportunity for the publisher to request that the action is reversed.

Brought up, and read the First time.

12:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Damian Collins)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Secretary of State’s powers to suggest modifications to a code of practice—

“(1) The Secretary of State may on receipt of a code write within one month of that day to OFCOM with reasoned, evidence-based suggestions for modifying the code.

(2) OFCOM shall have due regard to the Secretary of State’s letter and must reply to the Secretary of State within one month of receipt.

(3) The Secretary of State may only write to OFCOM twice under this section for each code.

(4) The Secretary of State and OFCOM shall publish their letters as soon as reasonably possible after transmission, having made any reasonable redactions for public safety and national security.

(5) If the draft of a code of practice contains modifications made following changes arising from correspondence under this section, the affirmative procedure applies.”

New clause 3—Priority illegal content: violence against women and girls—

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, any provision applied to priority illegal content should also be applied to any content which—

(a) constitutes,

(b) encourages, or

(c) promotes

(2) ‘Violence against women and girls’ is defined by Article 3 of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (‘the Istanbul Convention’).”

This new clause applies provisions to priority illegal content to content which constitutes, encourages or promotes violence against women and girls.

New clause 4—Duty about content advertising or facilitating prostitution: Category 1 and Category 2B services—

“(1) A provider of a Category 1 or Category 2B service must operate the service so as to—

(a) prevent individuals from encountering content that advertises or facilitates prostitution;

(b) minimise the length of time for which any such content is present;

(c) where the provider is alerted by a person to the presence of such content, or becomes aware of it in any other way, swiftly take down such content.

(2) A provider of a Category 1 or Category 2B service must include clear and accessible provisions in a publicly available statement giving information about any proactive technology used by the service for the purpose of compliance with the duty set out in subsection (1) (including the kind of technology, when it is used, and how it works).

(3) If a person is the provider of more than one Category 1 or Category 2B service, the duties set out in this section apply in relation to each such service.

(4) The duties set out in this section extend only to the design, operation and use of a Category 1 or Category 2B service in the United Kingdom.

(5) For the meaning of ‘Category 1 service’ and ‘Category 2B service’, see section 81 (register of categories of services).

(6) For the meaning of ‘prostitution’, see section 54 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”

New clause 5—Duty about content advertising or facilitating prostitution: Category 2A services—

“(1) A provider of a Category 2A service must operate that service so as to minimise the risk of individuals encountering content which advertises or facilitates prostitution in or via search results of the service.

(2) A provider of a Category 2A service must include clear and accessible provisions in a publicly available statement giving information about any proactive technology used by the service for the purpose of compliance with the duty set out in subsection (1) (including the kind of technology, when it is used, and how it works).

(3) The reference to encountering content which advertises or facilitates prostitution “in or via search results” of a search service does not include a reference to encountering such content as a result of any subsequent interactions with an internet service other than the search service.

(4) If a person is the provider of more than one Category 2A service, the duties set out in this section apply in relation to each such service.

(5) The duties set out in this section extend only to the design, operation and use of a Category 2A service in the United Kingdom.

(6) For the meaning of ‘Category 2A service’, see section 81 (register of categories of services).

(7) For the meaning of ‘prostitution’, see section 54 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”

New clause 6—Duty about content advertising or facilitating prostitution: internet services providing pornographic content—

“(1) A provider of an internet service within the scope of section 67 of this Act must operate that service so as to—

(a) prevent individuals from encountering content that advertises or facilitates prostitution;

(b) minimise the length of time for which any such content is present;

(c) where the provider is alerted by a person to the presence of such content, or becomes aware of it in any other way, swiftly take down such content.

(2) A provider of an internet service under this section must include clear and accessible provisions in a publicly available statement giving information about any proactive technology used by the service for the purpose of compliance with the duty set out in subsection (1) (including the kind of technology, when it is used, and how it works).

(3) If a person is the provider of more than one internet service under this section, the duties set out in this section apply in relation to each such service.

(4) For the meaning of ‘prostitution’, see section 54 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.”

New clause 8—Duties about advertisements for cosmetic procedures—

“(1) A provider of a regulated service must operate the service using systems and processes designed to—

(a) prevent individuals from encountering advertisements for cosmetic procedures that do not meet the conditions specified in subsection (3);

(b) minimise the length of time for which any such advertisement is present;

(c) where the provider is alerted by a person to the presence of such an advertisement, or becomes aware of it in any other way, swiftly take it down.

(2) A provider of a regulated service must include clear and accessible provisions in the terms of service giving information about any proactive technology used by the service for the purpose of compliance with the duty set out in subsection (1) (including the kind of technology, when it is used, and how it works).

(3) The conditions under subsection (1)(a) are that the advertisement—

(a) contains a disclaimer as to the health risks of the cosmetic procedure, and

(b) includes a certified service quality indicator.

(4) If a person is the provider or more than one regulated service, the duties set out in this section apply in relation to each such service.

(5) The duties set out in this section extent only to the design, operation and use of a regulated service in the United Kingdom.

(6) For the meaning of ‘regulated service’, see section 3 (‘Regulated service’. ‘Part 3 service’ etc).”

This new clause would place a duty on all internet service providers regulated by the Bill to prevent individuals from encountering adverts for cosmetic procedures that do not contain a disclaimer as to the health risks of the procedure nor include a certified service quality indicator.

New clause 9—Content harmful to adults risk assessment duties: regulated search services—

“(1) This section sets out the duties about risk assessments which apply in relation to all regulated search services.

(2) A duty to carry out a suitable and sufficient priority adults risk assessment at a time set out in, or as provided by Schedule 3.

(3) A duty to take appropriate steps to keep an adults’ risk assessment up to date, including when OFCOM make any significant change to a risk profile that relates to services of the kind in question.

(4) Before making any significant change to any aspect of a service’s design or operation, a duty to carry out a further suitable and sufficient adult risk assessment relating to the impacts of that proposed change.

(5) An ‘adults risk assessment’ of a service of a particular kind means an assessment of the following matters, taking into account the risk profile that relates to services of that kind—

(a) the level of risk of individuals who are users of the service encountering each kind of priority content that is harmful to adults (with each kind separately assessed), taking into account (in particular) risks presented by algorithms used by the service, and the way that the service indexes, organises and presents search results;

(b) the level of risk of functionalities of the service facilitating individuals encountering search content that is harmful to adults, identifying and assessing those functionalities that present higher levels of risk;

(c) the nature, and severity, of the harm that might be suffered by individuals from the matters identified in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b);

(d) how the design and operation of the service (including the business model, governance, use of proactive technology, measures to promote users’ media literacy and safe use of the service, and other systems and processes) may reduce or increase the risks identified.

(6) In this section, references to risk profiles are to the risk profiles for the time being published under section 84 which relate to the risk of harm to adults presented by priority content that is harmful to adults.

(7) See also—section 20(2) (records of risk assessments), and Schedule 3 (timing of providers’ assessments).”

New clause 10—Safety Duties Protecting Adults: regulated search services—

“(1) This section sets out the duties about protecting adults which apply in relation to all regulated search services.

(2) A duty to summarise in the policies of the search service the findings of the most recent adults’ risk assessment of a service (including as to levels of risk and as to nature, and severity, of potential harm to adults).

(3) A duty to include provisions in the search service policies specifying, in relation to each kind of priority content that is harmful to adults that is to be treated in a way described in subsection (4), which of those kinds of treatment is to be applied.

(4) The duties set out in subsections (2) and (3) apply across all areas of a service, including the way the search engine is operated and used as well as search content of the service, and (among other things) require the provider of a service to take or use measures in the following areas, if it is proportionate to do so—

(a) regulatory compliance and risk management arrangements,

(b) design of functionalities, algorithms and other features relating to the search engine,

(c) functionalities allowing users to control the content they encounter in search results,

(d) content prioritisation and ranking,

(e) user support measures, and

(f) staff policies and practices.

(5) A duty to explain in the terms of service the provider’s response to the risks relating to priority content that is harmful to adults (as identified in the most recent adults’ risk assessment of the service), by reference to—

(a) any provisions of the policies included in compliance with the duty set out in subsection (3), and

(b) any other provisions of the terms of service designed to mitigate or manage those risks.

(6) If provisions are included in the policies in compliance with the duty set out in subsection (3), a duty to ensure that those provisions—

(a) are clear and accessible, and

(b) are applied consistently in relation to content which the provider reasonably considers is priority

(NaN) If the provider of a service becomes aware of any non-designated content that is harmful to adults present on the service, a duty to notify OFCOM of—

(a) the kinds of such content identified, and

(b) the incidence of those kinds of content on the service.

(NaN) A duty to ensure that the provisions of the publicly available statement referred to in subsections (5) and (7) are clear and accessible.

(NaN) In this section—

‘adults’ risk assessment’ has the meaning given by section 12;

‘non-designated content that is harmful to adults’ means content that is harmful to adults other than priority content that is harmful to adults.”

New clause 18—Child user empowerment duties—

“(1) This section sets out the duties to empower child users which apply in relation to Category 1 services.

(2) A duty to include in a service, to the extent that it is proportionate to do so, features which child users may use or apply if they wish to increase their control over harmful content.

(3) The features referred to in subsection (2) are those which, if used or applied by a user, result in the use by the service of systems or processes designed to—

(a) reduce the likelihood of the user encountering priority content that is harmful, or particular kinds of such content, by means of the service, or

(b) alert the user to the harmful nature of priority content that is harmful that the user may encounter by means of the service.

(4) A duty to ensure that all features included in a service in compliance with the duty set out in subsection (2) are made available to all child users.

(5) A duty to include clear and accessible provisions in the terms of service specifying which features are offered in compliance with the duty set out in subsection (2), and how users may take advantage of them.

(6) A duty to include in a service features which child users may use or apply if they wish to filter out non-verified users.

(7) The features referred to in subsection (6) are those which, if used or applied by a user, result in the use by the service of systems or processes designed to—

(a) prevent non-verified users from interacting with content which that user generates, uploads or shares on the service, and

(b) reduce the likelihood of that user encountering content which non-verified users generate, upload or share on the service.

(8) A duty to include in a service features which child users may use or apply if they wish to only encounter content by users they have approved.

(9) A duty to include in a service features which child users may use or apply if they wish to filter out private messages from—

(a) non-verified users, or

(b) adult users, or

(c) any user other than those on a list approved by the child user.

(10) In determining what is proportionate for the purposes of subsection (2), the following factors, in particular, are relevant—

(a) all the findings of the most recent child risk assessment (including as to levels of risk and as to nature, and severity, of potential harm), and

(b) the size and capacity of the provider of a service.

(11) In this section ‘non-verified user’ means a user who has not verified their identity to the provider of a service (see section 57(1)).

(12) In this section references to features include references to functionalities and settings.”

New clause 24—Category 1 services: duty not to discriminate, harass or victimise against service users—

“(1) The following duties apply to all providers of Category 1 services.

(2) A duty not to discriminate, on the grounds of a protected characteristic, against a person wishing to use the service by not providing the service, if the result of not providing the service is to cause harm to that person.

(3) A duty not to discriminate, on the grounds of a protected characteristic, against any user of the service in a way that causes harm to the user—

(a) as to the terms on which the provider provides the service to the user;

(b) by terminating the provision of the service to the user;

(c) by subjecting the user to any other harm.

(4) A duty not to harass, on the grounds of a protected characteristic, a user of the service in a way that causes harm to the user.

(5) A duty not to victimise because of a protected characteristic a person wishing to use the service by not providing the user with the service, if the result of not providing the service is to cause harm to that person.

(6) A duty not to victimise a service user—

(a) as to the terms on which the provider provides the service to the user;

(b) by terminating the provision of the service to the user;

(c) by subjecting the user to any other harm.

(7) In this section—

references to harassing, discriminating or victimising have the same meaning as set out in Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010;

‘protected characteristic’ means a characteristic listed in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010.”

This new clause would place a duty, regulated by Ofcom, on Category 1 service providers not to discriminate, harass or victimise users of their services on the basis of a protected characteristic if doing so would result in them being caused harm. Discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and protected characteristics, have the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010.

New clause 25—Report on duties that apply to all internet services likely to be accessed by children—

“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent evaluation of the matters under subsection (2) and must lay the report of the evaluation before Parliament.

(2) The evaluation under subsection (1) must consider whether the following duties should be imposed on all providers of services on the internet that are likely to be accessed by children, other than services regulated by this Act—

(a) duties similar to those imposed on regulated services by sections 10 and 25 of this Act to carry out a children’s risk assessment, and

(b) duties similar to those imposed on regulated services by sections 11 and 26 of this Act to protect children’s online safety.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation on whether all providers of internet services likely to be accessed by children should be subject to child safety duties and must conduct a children’s risk assessment.

New clause 26—Safety by design—

“(1) In exercising their functions under this Act—

(a) The Secretary of State, and

(b) OFCOM

must have due regard to the principles in subsections (2)-(3).

(2) The first principle is that providers of regulated services should design those services to prevent harmful content from being disseminated widely, and that this is preferable in the first instance to both—

(a) removing harmful content after it has already been disseminated widely, and

(b) restricting which users can access the service or part of it on the basis that harmful content is likely to disseminate widely on that service.

(4) The second principle is that providers of regulated services should safeguard freedom of expression and participation, including the freedom of expression and participation of children.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State and Ofcom to have due regard to the principle that internet services should be safe by design.

New clause 27—Publication of risk assessments—

“Whenever a Category 1 service carries out any risk assessment pursuant to Part 3 of this Act, the service must publish the risk assessment on the service’s website.”

New clause 38—End-to-end encryption—

“Nothing in this Act shall prevent providers of user-to-user services protecting their users’ privacy through end-to-end encryption.”

Government amendment 57.

Amendment 202, in clause 6, page 5, line 11, at end insert—

“(ba) the duty about pornographic content set out in Schedule [Additional duties on pornographic content].”

This amendment ensures that user-to-user services must meet the new duties set out in NS1.

Government amendments 163, 58, 59 and 60.

Amendment 17, in clause 8, page 7, line 14, at end insert—

“(h) how the service may be used in conjunction with other regulated user-to-user services such that it may—

(i) enable users to encounter illegal content on other regulated user-to-user services, and

(ii) constitute part of a pathway to harm to individuals who are users of the service, in particular in relation to CSEA content.”

This amendment would incorporate into the duties a requirement to consider cross-platform risk.

Amendment 15, in clause 8, page 7, line 14, at end insert—

“(5A) The duties set out in this section apply in respect of content which reasonably foreseeably facilitates or aids the discovery or dissemination of CSEA content.”

This amendment extends the illegal content risk assessment duties to cover content which could be foreseen to facilitate or aid the discovery or dissemination of CSEA content.

Government amendments 61 and 62.

Amendment 18, page 7, line 30 [Clause 9], at end insert—

“(none) ‘, including by being directed while on the service towards priority illegal content hosted by a different service;’

This amendment aims to include within companies’ safety duties a duty to consider cross-platform risk.

Amendment 16, in clause 9, page 7, line 35, at end insert—

“(d) minimise the presence of content which reasonably foreseeably facilitates or aids the discovery or dissemination of priority illegal content, including CSEA content.”

This amendment brings measures to minimise content that may facilitate or aid the discovery of priority illegal content within the scope of the duty to maintain proportionate systems and processes.

Amendment 19, in clause 9, page 7, line 35, at end insert—

“(3A) A duty to collaborate with other companies to take reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent the means by which their services can be used in conjunction with other services to facilitate the encountering or dissemination of priority illegal content, including CSEA content.”

This amendment creates a duty to collaborate in cases where there is potential cross-platform risk in relation to priority illegal content and CSEA content.

Government amendments 63 to 67.

Amendment 190, page 10, line 11, in clause 11, at end insert “, and—

(c) mitigate the harm to children caused by habit-forming features of the service by consideration and analysis of how processes (including algorithmic serving of content, the display of other users’ approval of posts and notifications) contribute to development of habit-forming behaviour.”

This amendment requires services to take or use proportionate measures to mitigate the harm to children caused by habit-forming features of a service.

Government amendments 68 and 69.

Amendment 42, page 11, line 16, in clause 11, at end insert—

“(c) the benefits of the service to children’s well-being.”

Amendment 151, page 12, line 43, leave out Clause 13.

This amendment seeks to remove Clause 13 from the Bill.

Government amendment 70.

Amendment 48, page 13, line 5, in clause 13, leave out “is to be treated” and insert

“the provider decides to treat”

This amendment would mean that providers would be free to decide how to treat content that has been designated ‘legal but harmful’ to adults.

Amendment 49, page 13, line 11, in clause 13, at end insert—

‘(ca) taking no action;”

This amendment provides that providers would be free to take no action in response to content referred to in subsection (3).

Government amendments 71 and 72.

Amendment 157, page 14, line 11, in clause 14, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 156, which would require all users of Category 1 services to be verified.

Government amendments 73, 164, 74 and 165.

Amendment 10, page 16, line 16, in clause 16, leave out from “or” until the end of line 17.

Government amendments 166 and 167.

Amendment 50, page 20, line 21, in clause 19, at end insert—

“(6A) A duty to include clear provision in the terms of service that the provider will not take down, or restrict access to content generated, uploaded or shared by a user save where it reasonably concludes that—

(a) the provider is required to do so pursuant to the provisions of this Act, or

(b) it is otherwise reasonable and proportionate to do so.”

This amendment sets out a duty for providers to include in terms of service a commitment not to take down or restrict access to content generated, uploaded or shared by a user except in particular circumstances.

Government amendment 168.

Amendment 51, page 20, line 37, in clause 19, at end insert—

“(10) In any claim for breach of contract brought in relation to the provisions referred to in subsection (7), where the breach is established, the court may make such award by way of compensation as it considers appropriate for the removal of, or restriction of access to, the content in question.”

This amendment means that where a claim is made for a breach of the terms of service result from Amendment 50, the court has the power to make compensation as it considers appropriate.

Government amendment 169.

Amendment 47, page 22, line 10, in clause 21, at end insert—

“(ba) the duties about adults’ risk assessment duties in section (Content harmful to adult risk assessment duties: regulated search services),

(bb) the safety duties protecting adults in section (Safety duties protecting adults: regulated search services).”

Government amendments 75 to 82.

Amendment 162, page 31, line 19, in clause 31, leave out “significant”

This amendment removes the requirement for there to be a “significant” number of child users, and replaces it with “a number” of child users.

Government amendments 85 to 87.

Amendment 192, page 36, line 31, in clause 37, at end insert—

“(ha) persons whom OFCOM consider to have expertise in matters relating to the Equality Act 2010,”

This amendment requires Ofcom to consult people with expertise on the Equality Act 2010 about codes of practice.

Amendment 44, page 37, line 25, in clause 39, leave out from beginning to the second “the” in line 26.

This amendment will remove the ability of the Secretary of State to block codes of practice being, as soon as practical, laid before the House for its consideration.

Amendment 45, page 38, line 8, leave out Clause 40.

This amendment will remove the ability of the Secretary of State to block codes of practice being, as soon as practical, laid before the House for its consideration.

Amendment 13, page 38, line 12, in clause 40, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment 46, page 39, line 30, leave out Clause 41.

This amendment will remove the ability of the Secretary of State to block codes of practice being, as soon as practical, laid before the House for its consideration.

Amendment 14, page 39, line 33, in clause 41, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment 21, page 40, line 29, in clause 43, leave out “may require” and insert “may make representations to”

Amendment 22, page 40, line 33, in clause 43, at end insert—

‘(2A) OFCOM must have due regard to representations by the Secretary of State under subsection (2).”

Government amendments 88 to 89 and 170 to 172.

Amendment 161, page 45, line 23, in clause 49, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment removes the exemption for one-to-one live aural communications.

Amendment 188, page 45, line 24, in clause 49, leave out paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the exemption for comments and reviews on provider content.

Government amendments 90 and 173.

Amendment 197, page 47, line 12, in clause 50, after “material” insert

“or special interest news material”.

Amendment 11, page 47, line 19, in clause 50, after “has” insert “suitable and sufficient”.

Amendment 198, page 47, line 37, in clause 50, leave out the first “is” and insert

“and special interest news material are”.

Amendment 199, page 48, line 3, in clause 50, at end insert—

““special interest news material” means material consisting of news or information about a particular pastime, hobby, trade, business, industry or profession.”

Amendment 12, page 48, line 7, in clause 50, after “a” insert “suitable and sufficient”.

Government amendments 91 to 94.

Amendment 52, page 49, line 13, in clause 52, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment limits the list of relevant offences to those specifically specified.

Government amendments 95 to 100.

Amendment 20, page 51, line 3, in clause 54, at end insert—

‘(2A) Priority content designated under subsection (2) must include—

(a) content that contains public health related misinformation or disinformation, and

(b) misinformation or disinformation that is promulgated by a foreign state.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State’s designation of “priority content that is harmful to adults” to include public health-related misinformation or disinformation, and misinformation or disinformation spread by a foreign state.

Amendment 53, page 51, line 47, in clause 55, after “State” insert “reasonably”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 54, would mean that the Secretary of State must reasonably consider the risk of harm to each one of an appreciable number of adults before specifying a description of the content.

Amendment 54, page 52, line 1, in clause 55, after “to” insert “each of”.

This amendment is linked to Amendment 53.

Amendment 55, page 52, line 12, in clause 55, after “OFCOM” insert

“, Parliament and members of the public in a manner the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult Parliament and the public, as well as Ofcom, in a manner the Secretary of State considers appropriate before making regulations about harmful content.

Government amendments 147 to 149.

Amendment 43, page 177, line 23, in schedule 4, after “ages” insert

“, including the benefits of the service to their well-being,”

Amendment 196, page 180, line 9, in schedule 4, at end insert—

Amendment 187, page 186, line 32, in schedule 7, at end insert—

“Human trafficking

22A An offence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”

This amendment includes Human Trafficking as a priority offence.

Amendment 211, page 187, line 23, in schedule 7, at end insert—

Government new clause 14.

Government new clause 15.

Government amendments 83 to 84.

Amendment 156, page 53, line 7, in clause 57, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

‘(1) A provider of a Category 1 service must require all adult users of the service to verify their identity in order to access the service.

(2) The verification process—

(a) may be of any kind (and in particular, it need not require documentation to be provided),

(b) must—

(i) be carried out by a third party on behalf of the provider of the Category 1 service,

(ii) ensure that all anonymous users of the Category 1 service cannot be identified by other users, apart from where provided for by section (Duty to ensure anonymity of users).”

This amendment would require all users of Category 1 services to be verified. The verification process would have to be carried out by a third party and to ensure the anonymity of users.

Government amendment 101.

Amendment 193, page 58, line 33, in clause 65, at end insert—

“(ea) persons whom OFCOM consider to have expertise in matters relating to the Equality Act 2010,”

This amendment requires Ofcom to consult people with expertise on the Equality Act 2010 in respect of guidance about transparency reports.

Amendment 203, page 60, line 33, in clause 68, at end insert—

‘(2B) A duty to meet the conditions set out in Schedule [Additional duties on pornographic content].”

This amendment ensures that commercial pornographic websites must meet the new duties set out in NS1.

Government amendments 141, 177 to 184, 142 to 145, 185 to 186 and 146.

New schedule 1—Additional duties on pornographic content

“30 All user-to-user services and an internet service which provides regulated provider pornographic content must meet the following conditions for pornographic content and content that includes sexual photographs and films (“relevant content”).

The conditions are—

(a) the service must not contain any prohibited material,

(b) the service must review all relevant content before publication.

31 In this Schedule—

“photographs and films” has the same meaning as section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (meaning of “disclose” and “photograph or film”)

“prohibited material” has the same meaning as section 368E(3) of the Communications Act 2003 (harmful material).”

The new schedule sets out additional duties for pornographic content which apply to user-to-user services under Part 3 and commercial pornographic websites under Part 5.

Government amendments 150 and 174.

Amendment 191, page 94, line 24, in clause 12, at end insert—

“Section [Category 1 services: duty not to discriminate against, harass or victimise service users] Duty not to discriminate against, harass or victimise

This amendment makes NC24 an enforceable requirement.

Government amendment 131.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the new Minister to the Dispatch Box.

[Damian Collins]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am honoured to have been appointed the Minister responsible for the Online Safety Bill. Having worked on these issues for a number of years, I am well aware of the urgency and importance of this legislation, in particular to protect children and tackle criminal activity online—that is why we are discussing this legislation.

Relative to the point of order from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I have the greatest respect for him and his standing in this House, but it feels like we have been discussing this Bill for at least five years. We have had a Green Paper and a White Paper. We had a pre-legislative scrutiny process, which I was honoured to be asked to chair. We have had reports from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and from other Select Committees and all-party parliamentary groups of this House. This legislation does not want for scrutiny.

We have also had a highly collaborative and iterative process in the discussion of the Bill. We have had 66 Government acceptances of recommendations made by the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill. We have had Government amendments in Committee. We are discusssing Government amendments today and we have Government commitments to table amendments in the House of Lords. The Bill has received a huge amount of consultation. It is highly important legislation, and the victims of online crime, online fraud, bullying and harassment want to see us get the Bill into the Lords and on the statute book as quickly as possible.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his position. He will understand that those of us who have followed the Bill in some detail since its inception had some nervousness as to who might be standing at that Dispatch Box today, but we could not be more relieved that it is him. May I pick up on his point about the point of order from our right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)? Does he agree that an additional point to add to his list is that, unusually, this legislation has a remarkable amount of cross-party consensus behind its principles? That distinguishes it from some of the other legislation that perhaps we should not consider in these two weeks. I accept there is plenty of detail to be examined but, in principle, this Bill has a lot of support in this place.

[Damian Collins]

I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. That is why the Bill passed Second Reading without a Division and the Joint Committee produced a unanimous report. I am happy for Members to cast me in the role of poacher turned gamekeeper on the Bill, but looking around the House, there are plenty of gamekeepers turned poachers here today who will ensure we have a lively debate.

[Mr Speaker]

And the other way, as well.

[Damian Collins]

Exactly. The concept at the heart of this legislation is simple. Tech companies, like those in every other sector, must take appropriate responsibility for the consequences of their business decisions. As they continue to offer their users the latest innovations that enrich our lives, they must consider safety as well as profit. They must treat their users fairly and ensure that the internet remains a place for robust debate. The Bill has benefited from input and scrutiny from right across the House. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who has worked tirelessly on the Bill, not least through 50 hours of Public Bill Committee, and the Bill is better for his input and work.

We have also listened to the work of other Members of the House, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who have all made important contributions to the discussion of the Bill.

We have also listened to those concerned about freedom of expression online. It is worth pausing on that, as there has been a lot of discussion about whether the Bill is censoring legal speech online and much understandable outrage from those who think it is. I asked the same questions when I chaired the Joint Committee on the Bill. This debate does not reflect the actual text of the Bill itself. The Bill does not require platforms to restrict legal speech—let us be absolutely clear about that. It does not give the Government, Ofcom or tech platforms the power to make something illegal online that is legal offline. In fact, if those concerned about the Bill studied it in detail, they would realise that the Bill protects freedom of speech. In particular, the Bill will temper the huge power over public discourse wielded by the big tech companies behind closed doors in California. They are unaccountable for the decisions they make on censoring free speech on a daily basis. Their decisions about what content is allowed will finally be subject to proper transparency requirements.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

My hon. Friend did not have the joy of being on the Bill Committee, as I did with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was the Minister at that point. The point that my hon. Friend has just made about free speech is so important for women and girls who are not able to go online because of the violent abuse that they receive, and that has to be taken into account by those who seek to criticise the Bill. We have to make sure that people who currently feel silenced do not feel silenced in future and can participate online in the way that they should be able to do. My hon. Friend is making an excellent point and I welcome him to his position.

[Damian Collins]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right on that point. The structure of the Bill is very simple. There is a legal priority of harms, and things that are illegal offline will be regulated online at the level of the criminal threshold. There are protections for freedom of speech and there is proper transparency about harmful content, which I will come on to address.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does the Minister agree that, in moderating content, category 1 service providers such as Twitter should be bound by the duties under our domestic law not to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of a protected characteristic? Will he take a look at the amendments I have brought forward today on that point, which I had the opportunity of discussing with his predecessor, who I think was sympathetic?

[Damian Collins]

The hon. and learned Lady makes a very important point. The legislation sets regulatory thresholds at the criminal law level based on existing offences in law. Many of the points she made are covered by existing public law offences, particularly in regards to discriminating against people based on their protected characteristics. As she well knows, the internet is a reserved matter, so the legal threshold is set at where UK law stands, but where law may differ in Scotland, the police authorities in Scotland can still take action against individuals in breach of the law.

[Joanna Cherry]

The difficulty is that Twitter claims it is not covered by the Equality Act 2010. I have seen legal correspondence to that effect. I am not talking about the criminal law here. I am talking about Twitter’s duty not to discriminate against women, for example, or those who hold gender critical beliefs in its moderation of content. That is the purpose of my amendment today—it would ensure that Twitter and other service providers providing a service in the United Kingdom abide by our domestic law. It is not really a reserved or devolved matter.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. and learned Lady is right. There are priority offences where the companies, regardless of their terms of service, have to meet their obligations. If something is illegal offline, it is illegal online as well. There are priority areas where the company must proactively look for that. There are also non-priority areas where the company should take action against anything that is an offence in law and meets the criminal threshold online. The job of the regulator is to hold them to account for that. They also have to be transparent in their terms of service as category 1 companies. If they have clear policies against discrimination, which they on the whole all do, they will have to set out what they would do, and the regulator can hold them to account to make sure they do what they say. The regulator cannot make them take down speech that is legal or below a criminal threshold, but they can hold them to account publicly for the decisions they make.

One of the most important aspects of this Bill with regard to the category 1 companies is transparency. At the moment, the platforms make decisions about curating their content—who to take down, who to suppress, who to leave up—but those are their decisions. There is no external scrutiny of what they do or even whether they do what they say they will do. As a point of basic consumer protection law, if companies say in their terms of service that they will do something, they should be held to account for it. What is put on the label also needs to be in the tin and that is what the Bill will do for the internet.

I now want to talk about journalism and the role of the news media in the online world, which is a very important part of this Bill. The Government are committed to defending the invaluable role of a free media. Online safety legislation must protect the vital role of the press in providing people with reliable and accurate sources of information. Companies must therefore put in place protections for journalistic content. User-to-user services will not have to apply their safety duties in part 3 of the Bill to news publishers’ content shared on their services. News publishers’ content on their own sites will also not be in scope of regulation.

12:59

New clause 19 and associated amendments introduce a further requirement on category 1 services to notify a recognised news publisher and offer a right of appeal before removing or moderating its content or taking any action against its account. This new provision will reduce the risk of major online platforms taking over-zealous, arbitrary or accidental moderation decisions against news publisher content, which plays an invaluable role in UK democracy and society.

We recognise that there are cases where platforms must be able to remove content without having to provide an appeal, and the new clause has been drafted to ensure that platforms will not be required to provide an appeal before removing content that would give rise to civil or criminal liability to the service itself, or where it amounts to a relevant offence as defined by the Bill. This means that platforms can take down without an appeal content that would count as illegal content under the Bill.

Moreover, in response to some of the concerns raised, in particular by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam as well as by other Members, about the danger of creating an inadvertent loophole for bad actors, we have committed to further tightening the definition of “recognised news provider” in the House of Lords to ensure that sanctioned entities, such as RT, cannot benefit from these protections.

As the legislation comes into force, the Government are committed to ensuring that protections for journalism and news publisher content effectively safeguard users’ access to such content. We have therefore tabled amendments 167 and 168 to require category 1 companies to assess the impact of their safety duties on how news publisher and journalistic content are treated when hosted on the service. They must then demonstrate the steps they are taking to mitigate any impact.

In addition, a series of amendments, including new clause 20, will require Ofcom to produce a report assessing the impact of the Online Safety Bill on the availability and treatment of news publisher content and journalistic content on category 1 services. This will include consideration of the impact of new clause 19, and Ofcom must do this within two years of the relevant provisions being commenced.

The Bill already excludes comments sections on news publishers’ sites from the Bill’s safety duties. These comments are crucial for enabling reader engagement with the news and encouraging public debate, as well as for the sustainability of the news media. We have tabled a series of amendments to strengthen these protections, reflecting the Government’s commitment to media freedom. The amendments will create a higher bar for removing the protections in place for comments sections on recognised news publishers’ sites by ensuring that these can only be brought into the scope of regulation via primary legislation.

Government amendments 70 and 71 clarify the policy intention of the clause 13 adult safety duties to improve transparency about how providers treat harmful content, rather than incentivise its removal. The changes respond to concerns raised by stakeholders that the drafting did not make it sufficiently clear that providers could choose simply to allow any form of legal content, rather than promote, restrict or remove it, regardless of the harm to users.

This is a really important point that has sometimes been missed in the discussion on the Bill. There are very clear duties relating to illegal harm that companies must proactively identify and mitigate. The transparency requirements for other harmful content are very clear that companies must set out what their policies are. Enforcement action can be taken by the regulator for breach of their policies, but the primary objective is that companies make clear what their policies are. It is not a requirement for companies to remove legal speech if their policies do not allow that.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his position, and it is wonderful to have somebody else who—like the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp)—knows what he is talking about. On this issue, which is pretty key, I think it would work if minimum standards were set on the risk assessments that platforms have to make to judge what is legal but harmful content, but at the moment such minimum standards are not in the Bill. Could the Minister comment on that? Otherwise, there is a danger that platforms will set a risk assessment that allows really vile harmful but legal content to carry on appearing on their platform.

[Damian Collins]

The right hon. Lady makes a very important point. There have to be minimum safety standards, and I think that was also reflected in the report of the Joint Committee, which I chaired. Those minimum legal standards are set where the criminal law is set for these priority legal offences. A company may have higher terms of service—it may operate at a higher level—in which case it will be judged on the operation of its terms of service. However, for priority illegal content, it cannot have a code of practice that is below the legal threshold, and it would be in breach of the provisions if it did. For priority illegal offences, the minimum threshold is set by the law.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I understand that in relation to illegal harmful content, but I am talking about legal but harmful content. I understand that the Joint Committee that the hon. Member chaired recommended that for legal but harmful content, there should be minimum standards against which the platforms would be judged. I may have missed it, but I cannot see that in the Bill.

[Damian Collins]

The Joint Committee’s recommendation was for a restructuring of the Bill, so that rather than having general duty of care responsibilities that were not defined, we defined those responsibilities based on existing areas of law. The core principle behind the Bill is to take things that are illegal offline, and to regulate such things online based on the legal threshold. That is what the Bill does.

In schedule 7, which did not exist in the draft phase, we have written into the Bill a long list of offences in law. I expect that, as this regime is created, the House will insert more regulations and laws into schedule 7 as priority offences in law. Even if an offence in law is not listed in the priority illegal harms schedule, it can still be a non-priority harm, meaning that even if a company does not have to look for evidence of that offence proactively, it still has to act if it is made aware of the offence. I think the law gives us a very wide range of offences, clearly defined against offences in law, where there are clearly understood legal thresholds.

The question is: what is to be done about other content that may be harmful but sits below the threshold? The Government have made it clear that we intend to bring forward amendments that set out clear priorities for companies on the reporting of such harmful content, where we expect the companies to set out what their policies are. That will include setting out clearly their policies on things such as online abuse and harassment, the circulation of real or manufactured intimate images, content promoting self-harm, content promoting eating disorders or legal suicide content—this is content relating to adults—so the companies will have to be transparent on that point.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, and I look forward to supporting him in his role as he previously supported me in mine. I think he made an important point a minute ago about content that is legal but considered to be harmful. It has been widely misreported in the press that this Bill censors or prohibits such content. As the Minister said a moment ago, it does no such thing. There is no requirement on platforms to censor or remove content that is legal, and amendment 71 to clause 13 makes that expressly clear. Does he agree that reports suggesting that the Bill mandates censorship of legal content are completely inaccurate?

[Damian Collins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and as I said earlier, he is absolutely right. There is no requirement for platforms to take down legal speech, and they cannot be directed to do so. What we have is a transparency requirement to set out their policies, with particular regard to some of the offences I mentioned earlier, and a wide schedule of things that are offences in law that are enforced through the Bill itself. This is a very important distinction to make. I said to him on Second Reading that I thought the general term “legal but harmful” had added a lot of confusion to the way the Bill was perceived, because it created the impression that the removal of legal speech could be required by order of the regulator, and that is not the case.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on his promotion and on his excellent chairmanship of the prelegislative scrutiny Committee, which I also served on. Is he satisfied with the Bill in relation to disinformation? It was concerning that there was only one clause on disinformation, and we know the impact—particularly the democratic impact—that that has on our society at large. Is he satisfied that the Bill will address that?

[Damian Collins]

It was a pleasure to serve alongside the hon. Lady on the Joint Committee. There are clear new offences relating to knowingly false information that will cause harm. As she will know, that was a Law Commission recommendation; it was not in the draft Bill but it is now in the Bill. The Government have also said that as a consequence of the new National Security Bill, which is going through Parliament, we will bring in a new priority offence relating to disinformation spread by hostile foreign states. As she knows, one of the most common areas for organised disinformation has been at state level. As a consequence of the new national security legislation, that will also be reflected in schedule 7 of this Bill, and that is a welcome change.

The Bill requires all services to take robust action to tackle the spread of illegal content and activity. Providers must proactively reduce the risk on their services of illegal activity and the sharing of illegal content, and they must identify and remove illegal content once it appears on their services. That is a proactive responsibility. We have tabled several interrelated amendments to reinforce the principle that companies must take a safety-by-design approach to managing the risk of illegal content and activity on their services. These amendments require platforms to assess the risk of their services being used to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a priority offence and then to design and operate their services to mitigate that risk. This will ensure that companies put in place preventive measures to mitigate a broad spectrum of factors that enable illegal activity, rather than focusing solely on the removal of illegal content once it appears.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to his position. On harmful content, there are all too many appalling examples of animal abuse on the internet. What are the Government’s thoughts on how we can mitigate such harmful content, which is facilitating wildlife crime? Might similar online protections be provided for animals to the ones that clause 53 sets out for children?

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend raises an important point that deserves further consideration as the Bill progresses through its parliamentary stages. There is, of course, still a general presumption that any illegal activity that could also constitute illegal activity online—for example, promoting or sharing content that could incite people to commit violent acts—is within scope of the legislation. There are some priority illegal offences, which are set out in schedule 7, but the non-priority offences also apply if a company is made aware of content that is likely to be in breach of the law. I certainly think this is worth considering in that context.

In addition, the Bill makes it clear that platforms have duties to mitigate the risk of their service facilitating an offence, including where that offence may occur on another site, such as can occur in cross-platform child sexual exploitation and abuse—CSEA—offending, or even offline. This addresses concerns raised by a wide coalition of children’s charities that the Bill did not adequately tackle activities such as breadcrumbing—an issue my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), the Chair of the Select Committee, has raised in the House before—where CSEA offenders post content on one platform that leads to offences taking place on a different platform.

We have also tabled new clause 14 and a related series of amendments in order to provide greater clarity about how in-scope services should determine whether they have duties with regard to content on their services. The new regulatory framework requires service providers to put in place effective and proportionate systems and processes to improve user safety while upholding free expression and privacy online. The systems and processes that companies implement will be tailored to the specific risk profile of the service. However, in many cases the effectiveness of companies’ safety measures will depend on them making reasonable judgments about types of content. Therefore, it is essential to the effective functioning of the framework that there is clarity about how providers should approach these judgments. In particular, such clarity will safeguard against companies over-removing innocuous content if they wrongly assume mental elements are present, or under-removing content if they act only where all elements of an offence are established beyond reasonable doubt. The amendments make clear that companies must consider all reasonably available contextual information when determining whether content is illegal content, a fraudulent advert, content that is harmful to children, or content that is harmful to adults.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I was on the Bill Committee and we discussed lots of things, but new clause 14 was not discussed: we did not have conversations about it, and external organisations have not been consulted on it. Is the Minister not concerned that this is a major change to the Bill and it has not been adequately consulted on?

[Damian Collins]

As I said earlier, in establishing the threshold for priority illegal offences, the current threshold of laws that exist offline should provide good guidance. I would expect that as the codes of practice are developed, we will be able to make clear what those offences are. On the racial hatred that the England footballers received after the European championship football final, people have been prosecuted for what they posted on Twitter and other social media platforms. We know what race hate looks like in that context, we know what the regulatory threshold should look at and we know the sort of content we are trying to regulate. I expect that, in the codes of practice, Ofcom can be very clear with companies about what we expect, where the thresholds are and where we expect them to take enforcement action.

13:15

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on taking his new position; we rarely have a new Minister so capable of hitting the ground running. He makes a crucial point about clearness and transparency for both users and the social media providers and other platforms, because it is important that we make sure they are 100% clear about what is expected of them and the penalties for not fulfilling their commitments. Does he agree that opaqueness—a veil of secrecy—has been one of the obstacles, and that a whole raft of content has been taken down for the wrong reasons while other content has been left to proliferate because of the lack of clarity?

[Damian Collins]

That is entirely right, and in closing I say that the Bill does what we have always asked for it to do: it gives absolute clarity that illegal things offline must be illegal online as well, and be regulated online. It establishes clear responsibilities and liabilities for the platforms to do that proactively. It enables a regulator to hold the platforms to account on their ability to tackle those priority illegal harms and provide transparency on other areas of harmful content. At present we simply do not know about the policy decisions that companies choose to make: we have no say in it; it is not transparent; we do not know whether they do it. The Bill will deliver in those important regards. If we are serious about tackling issues such as fraud and abuse online, and other criminal offences, we require a regulatory system to do that and proper legal accountability and liability for the companies. That is what the Bill and the further amendments deliver.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

It is an honour to respond on the first group of amendments on behalf of the Opposition.

For those of us who have been working on this Bill for some time now, it has been extremely frustrating to see the Government take such a siloed approach in navigating this complex legislation. I remind colleagues that in Committee Labour tabled a number of hugely important amendments that sought to make the online space safer for us all, but the Government responded by voting against each and every one of them. I certainly hope the new Minister—I very much welcome him to his post—has a more open-minded approach than his predecessor and indeed the Secretary of State; I look forward to what I hope will be a more collaborative approach to getting this legislation right.

With that in mind, it must be said that time and again this Government claim that the legislation is world-leading but that is far from the truth. Instead, once again the Government have proposed hugely significant and contentious amendments only after line-by-line scrutiny in Committee; it is not the first time this has happened in this Parliament, and it is extremely frustrating for those of us who have debated this Bill for more than 50 hours over the past month.

I will begin by touching on Labour’s broader concerns around the Bill. As the Minister will be aware, we believe that the Government have made a fundamental mistake in their approach to categorisation, which undermines the very structure of the Bill. We are not alone in this view and have the backing of many advocacy and campaign groups including the Carnegie UK Trust, Hope Not Hate and the Antisemitism Policy Trust. Categorisation of services based on size rather than risk of harm will mean that the Bill will fail to address some of the most extreme harms on the internet.

We all know that smaller platforms such as 4chan and BitChute have significant numbers of users who are highly motivated to promote very dangerous content. Their aim is to promote radicalisation and to spread hate and harm.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Not only that: people migrate from one platform to another, a fact that just has not been reflected on by the Government.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and has touched on elements that I will address later in my speech. I will look at cross-platform harm and breadcrumbing; the Government have taken action to address that issue, but they need to go further.

[Damian Collins]

I am sorry to intervene so early in the hon. Lady’s speech, and thank her for her kind words. I personally agree that the question of categorisation needs to be looked at again, and the Government have agreed to do so. We will hopefully discuss it next week during consideration of the third group of amendments.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment, which is something that the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) also committed to in Committee. However, it should have been in the Bill to begin with, or been tabled as an amendment today so that we could discuss it on the Floor of the House. We should not have to wait until the Bill goes to the other place to discuss this fundamental, important point that I know colleagues on the Minister’s own Back Benches have been calling for. Here we are, weeks down the line, with nothing having been done to fix that problem, which we know will be a persistent problem unless action is taken. It is beyond frustrating that no indication was given in Committee of these changes, because they have wide-ranging consequences for the effects of the Bill. Clearly, the Government are distracted with other matters, but I remind the Minister that Labour has long called for a safer internet, and we are keen to get the Bill right.

Let us start with new clause 14, which provides clarification about how online services should determine whether content should be considered illegal, and therefore how the illegal safety duty should apply. The new clause is deeply problematic, and is likely to reduce significantly the amount of illegal content and fraudulent advertising that is correctly identified and acted on. First, companies will be expected to determine whether content is illegal or fraudulently based on information that is

“reasonably available to a provider”,

with reasonableness determined in part by the size and capacity of the provider. That entrenches the problems I have outlined with smaller, high-risk companies being subject to fewer duties despite the acute risks they pose. Having less onerous applications of the illegal safety duties will encourage malign actors to migrate illegal activity on to smaller sites that have less pronounced regulatory expectations placed on them. That has particularly concerning ramifications for children’s protections, which I will come on to shortly. On the other end of the scale, larger sites could use new clause 14 to argue that their size and capacity, and the corresponding volumes of material they are moderating, makes it impractical for them reliably and consistently to identify illegal content.

The second problem arises from the fact that the platforms will need to have

“reasonable grounds to infer that all elements necessary for the commission of the offence, including mental elements, are present or satisfied”.

That significantly raises the threshold at which companies are likely to determine that content is illegal. In practice, companies have routinely failed to remove content where there is clear evidence of illegal intent. That has been the case in instances of child abuse breadcrumbing, where platforms use their own definitions of what constitutes a child abuse image for moderation purposes. Charities believe it is inevitable that companies will look to use this clause to minimise their regulatory obligations to act.

Finally, new clause 14 and its resulting amendments do not appear to be adequately future-proofed. The new clause sets out that judgments should be made

“on the basis of all relevant information that is reasonably available to a provider.”

However, on Meta’s first metaverse device, the Oculus Quest product, that company records only two minutes of footage on a rolling basis. That makes it virtually impossible to detect evidence of grooming, and companies can therefore argue that they cannot detect illegal content because the information is not reasonably available to them. The new clause undermines and weakens the safety mechanisms that the Minister, his team, the previous Minister, and all members of the Joint Committee and the Public Bill Committee have worked so hard to get right. I urge the Minister to reconsider these amendments and withdraw them.

I will now move on to improving the children’s protection measures in the Bill. In Committee, it was clear that one thing we all agreed on, cross-party and across the House, was trying to get the Bill to work for children. With colleagues in the Scottish National party, Labour Members tabled many amendments and new clauses in an attempt to achieve that goal. However, despite their having the backing of numerous children’s charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, 5Rights, Save the Children, Barnardo’s, The Children’s Society and many more, the Government sadly did not accept them. We are grateful to those organisations for their insights and support throughout the Bill’s passage.

We know that children face significant risks online, from bullying and sexist trolling to the most extreme grooming and child abuse. Our amendments focus in particular on preventing grooming and child abuse, but before I speak to them, I associate myself with the amendments tabled by our colleagues in the Scottish National party, the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson). In particular, I associate myself with the sensible changes they have suggested to the Bill at this stage, including a change to children’s access assessments through amendment 162 and a strengthening of duties to prevent harm to children caused by habit-forming features through amendment 190.

Since the Bill was first promised in 2017, the number of online grooming crimes reported to the police has increased by more than 80%. Last year, around 120 sexual communication with children offences were committed every single week, and those are only the reported cases. The NSPCC has warned that that amounts to a

“tsunami of online child abuse”.

We now have the first ever opportunity to legislate for a safer world online for our children.

However, as currently drafted, the Bill falls short by failing to grasp the dynamics of online child abuse and grooming, which rarely occurs on one single platform or app, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). In well-established grooming pathways, abusers exploit the design features of open social networks to contact children, then move their communication across to other, more encrypted platforms, including livestreaming sites and encrypted messaging services. For instance, perpetrators manipulate features such as Facebook’s algorithmic friend suggestions to make initial contact with large numbers of children, who they then groom through direct messages before moving to encrypted services such as WhatsApp, where they coerce children into sending sexual images. That range of techniques is often referred to as child abuse breadcrumbing, and is a significant enabler of online child abuse.

I will give a sense of how easy it is for abusers to exploit children by recounting the words and experiences of a survivor, a 15-year-old girl who was groomed on multiple sites:

“I’ve been chatting with this guy online who’s…twice my age. This all started on Instagram but lately all our chats have been on WhatsApp. He seemed really nice to begin with, but then he started making me do these things to ‘prove my trust’ to him, like doing video chats with my chest exposed. Every time I did these things for him, he would ask for more and I felt like it was too late to back out. This whole thing has been slowly destroying me and I’ve been having thoughts of hurting myself.”

I appreciate that it is difficult listening, but that experience is being shared by thousands of other children every year, and we need to be clear about the urgency that is needed to change that.

It will come as a relief to parents and children that, through amendments 58 to 61, the Government have finally agreed to close the loophole that allowed for breadcrumbing to continue. However, I still wish to speak to our amendments 15, 16, and 17 to 19, which were tabled before the Government changed their mind. Together with the Government’s amendments, these changes will bring into scope tens of millions of interactions with accounts that actively enable the discovery and sharing of child abuse material.

Amendment 15 would ensure that platforms have to include in their illegal content risk assessment content that

“reasonably foreseeably facilitates or aids the discovery or dissemination of CSEA content.”

Amendment 16 would ensure that platforms have to maintain proportionate systems and processes to minimise the presence of such content on their sites. The wording of our amendments is tighter and includes aiding the discovery or dissemination of content, whereas the Government’s amendments cover only “commission or facilitation”. Can the Minister tell me why the Government chose that specific wording and opposed the amendments that we tabled in Committee, which would have done the exact same thing? I hope that in the spirit of collaboration that we have fostered throughout the passage of the Bill with the new Minister and his predecessor, the Minister will consider the merit of our amendments 15 and 16.

Labour is extremely concerned about the significant powers that the Bill in its current form gives to the Secretary of State. We see that approach to the Bill as nothing short of a shameless attempt at power-grabbing from a Government whose so-called world-leading Bill is already failing in its most basic duty of keeping people safe online. Two interlinked issues arise from the myriad of powers granted to the Secretary of State throughout the Bill: the first is the unjustified intrusion of the Secretary of State into decisions that are about the regulation of speech, and the second is the unnecessary levels of interference and threats to the independence of Ofcom that arise from the powers of direction to Ofcom in its day-to-day matters and operations. That is not good governance, and it is why Labour has tabled a range of important amendments that the Minister must carefully consider. None of us wants the Bill to place undue powers in the hands of only one individual. That is not a normal approach to regulation, so I fail to see why the Government have chosen to go down that route in this case.

[Chris Philp]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way—I will miss our exchanges across the Dispatch Box. She is making a point about the Secretary of State powers in, I think, clause 40. Is she at all reassured by the undertakings given in the written ministerial statement tabled by the Secretary of State last Thursday, in which the Government committed to amending the Bill in the Lords to limit the use of those powers to exceptional circumstances only, and precisely defined those circumstances as only being in connection with issues such as public health and public safety?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the former Minister for his intervention, and I am grateful for that clarification. We debated at length in Committee the importance of the regulator’s independence and the prevention of overarching Secretary of State powers, and of Parliament having a say and being reconvened if required. I welcome the fact that that limitation on the power will be tabled in the other place, but it should have been tabled as an amendment here so that we could have discussed it today. We should not have to wait for the Bill to go to the other place for us to have our say. Who knows what will happen to the Bill tomorrow, next week or further down the line with the Government in utter chaos? We need this to be done now. The Minister must recognise that this is an unparalleled level of power, and one with which the sector and Back Benchers in his own party disagree. Let us work together and make sure the Bill really is fit for purpose, and that Ofcom is truly independent and without interference and has the tools available to it to really create meaningful change and keep us all safe online once and for all.

13:30

I must put on record my support for amendments 11 and 12, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). In Committee, we heard multiple examples of racist, extremist and other harmful publishers, from holocaust deniers to white supremacists, who would stand to benefit from the recognised news publisher exemption as it stands, either overnight or by making minor administrative changes. As long as the exemption protects antisemites and extremists, it is not fit for purpose. That much should be clear to all of us. In Committee, in response to an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), the then Minister promised a concession so that Russia Today would be excluded from the recognised news publisher exemption. I welcome the Minister’s comments at the Dispatch Box today to confirm that. I am pleased that the Government have promised to exclude sanctioned news bodies such as Russia Today, but their approach does not go far enough. Disinformation outlets rarely have the profile of Russia Today.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

While the shadow Minister is on the subject of exemptions for antisemites, will she say where the Opposition are on the issue of search? Search platforms and search engines provide some of the most appalling racist, Islamophobic and antisemitic content.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. In Committee, we debated at length the impact search engines have, and they should be included in the Bill’s categorisation of difficult issues. In one recent example on a search engine, the imagery that comes up when we search for desk ornaments is utterly appalling and needs to be challenged and changed. If we are to truly tackle antisemitism, racism and extremist content online, then the provisions need to be included in the Bill, and journalistic exemptions should not apply to this type of content. Often, they operate more discretely and are less likely to attract sanctions. Furthermore, any amendment will provide no answer to the many extremist publishers who seek to exploit the terms of the exemption. For those reasons, we need to go further.

The amendments are not a perfect or complete solution. Deficiencies remain, and the amendments do not address the fact that the exemption continues to exclude dozens of independent local newspapers around the country on the arbitrary basis that they have no fixed address. The Independent Media Association, which represents news publishers, describes the news publisher criteria as

“punishing quality journalism with high standards”.

I hope the Minister will reflect further on that point. As a priority, we need to ensure that the exemption cannot be exploited by bad actors. We must not give a free pass to those propagating racist, misogynistic or antisemitic harm and abuse. By requiring some standards of accountability for news providers, however modest, the amendments are an improvement on the Bill as drafted. In the interests of national security and the welfare of the public, we must support the amendments.

Finally, I come to a topic that I have spoken about passionately in this place on a number of occasions and that is extremely close to my heart: violence against women and girls. Put simply, in their approach to the Bill the Government are completely failing and falling short in their responsibilities to keep women and girls safe online. Labour has been calling for better protections for some time now, yet still the Government are failing to see the extent of the problem. They have only just published an initial indicative list of priority harms to adults, in a written statement that many colleagues may have missed. While it is claimed that this will add to scrutiny and debate, the final list of harms will not be on the face of the Bill but will included in secondary legislation after the Bill has received Royal Assent. Non-designated content that is harmful will not require action on the part of service providers, even though by definition it is still extremely harmful. How can that be acceptable?

Many campaigners have made the case that protections for women and girls are not included in the draft Bill at all, a concern supported by the Petitions Committee in its report on online abuse. Schedule 7 includes a list of sexual offences and aggravated offences, but the Government have so far made no concessions here and the wider context of violence against women and girls has not been addressed. That is why I urge the Minister to carefully consider our new clause 3, which seeks to finally name violence against women and girls as a priority harm. The Minister’s predecessor said in Committee that women and girls receive “disproportionate” levels of abuse online. The Minister in his new role will likely be well briefed on the evidence, and I know this is an issue he cares passionately about. The case has been put forward strongly by hon. Members on all sides of the House, and the message is crystal clear: women and girls must be protected online, and we see this important new clause as the first step.

Later on, we hope to see the Government move further and acknowledge that there must be a code of practice on tackling violence against women and girls content online.

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady raises the issue of codes of practice. She will recall that in Committee we talked about that specifically and pressed the then Minister on that point. It became very clear that Ofcom would be able to issue a code of practice on violence against women and girls, which she talked about. Should we not be seeking an assurance that Ofcom will do that? That would negate the need to amend the Bill further.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the right hon. Lady’s comments. We did discuss this at great length in Committee, and I know she cares deeply and passionately about this issue, as do I. It is welcome that Ofcom can issue a code of practice on violence against women and girls, and we should absolutely be urging it to do that, but we also need to make it a fundamental aim of the Bill. If the Bill is to be truly world leading, if it is truly to make us all safe online, and if we are finally to begin to tackle the scourge of violence against women and girls in all its elements—not just online but offline—then violence against women and girls needs to be named as a priority harm in the Bill. We need to take the brave new step of saying that enough is enough. Words are not enough. We need actions, and this is an action the Minister could take.

[Damian Collins]

I think we would all agree that when we look at the priority harms set out in the Bill, women and girls are disproportionately the victims of those offences. The groups in society that the Bill will most help are women and girls in our community. I am happy to work with the hon. Lady and all hon. Members to look at what more we can do on this point, both during the passage of the Bill and in future, but as it stands the Bill is the biggest step forward in protecting women and girls, and all users online, that we have ever seen.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for the offer to work on that further, but we have an opportunity now to make real and lasting change. We talk about how we tackle this issue going forward. How can we solve the problem of violence against women and girls in our community? Three women a week are murdered at the hands of men in this country—that is shocking. How can we truly begin to tackle a culture change? This is how it starts. We have had enough of words. We have had enough of Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box saying, “This is how we are going to tackle violence against women and girls; this is our new plan to do it.” They have an opportunity to create a new law that makes it a priority harm, and that makes women and girls feel like they are being listened to, finally. I urge the Minister and Members in all parts of the House, who know that this is a chance for us finally to take that first step, to vote for new clause 3 today and make women and girls a priority by showing understanding that they receive a disproportionate level of abuse and harm online, and by making them a key component of the Bill.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I join everybody else in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), to the Front Bench. He is astonishingly unusual in that he is both well-intentioned and well-informed, a combination we do not always find among Ministers.

I will speak to my amendments to the Bill. I am perfectly willing to be in a minority of one—one of my normal positions in this House. To be in a minority of one on the issue of free speech is an honourable place to be. I will start by saying that I think the Bill is fundamentally mis-designed. It should have been several Bills, not one. It is so complex that it is very difficult to forecast the consequences of what it sets out to do. It has the most fabulously virtuous aims, but unfortunately the way things will be done under it, with the use of Government organisations to make decisions that, properly, should be taken on the Floor of the House, is in my view misconceived.

We all want the internet to be safe. Right now, there are too many dangers online—we have been hearing about some of them from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who made a fabulous speech from the Opposition Front Bench—from videos propagating terror to posts promoting self-harm and suicide. But in its well-intentioned attempts to address those very real threats, the Bill could actually end up being the biggest accidental curtailment of free speech in modern history.

There are many reasons to be concerned about the Bill. Not all of them are to be dealt with in this part of the Report stage—some will be dealt with later—and I do not have time to mention them all. I will make one criticism of the handling of the Bill at this point. I have seen much smaller Bills have five days on Report in the past. This Bill demands more than two days. That was part of what I said in my point of order at the beginning.

One of the biggest problems is the “duties of care” that the Bill seeks to impose on social media firms to protect users from harmful content. That is a more subtle issue than the tabloid press have suggested. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), the previous Minister, made that point and I have some sympathy with him. I have spoken to representatives of many of the big social media firms, some of which cancelled me after speeches that I made at the Conservative party conference on vaccine passports. I was cancelled for 24 hours, which was an amusing process, and they put me back up as soon as they found out what they had done. Nevertheless, that demonstrated how delicate and sensitive this issue is. That was a clear suppression of free speech without any of the pressures that are addressed in the Bill.

When I spoke to the firms, they made it plain that they did not want the role of online policemen, and I sympathise with them, but that is what the Government are making them do. With the threat of huge fines and even prison sentences if they consistently fail to abide by any of the duties in the Bill—I am using words from the Bill—they will inevitably err on the side of censorship whenever they are in doubt. That is the side they will fall on.

Worryingly, the Bill targets not only illegal content, which we all want to tackle—indeed, some of the practice raised by the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Pontypridd should simply be illegal full stop—but so-called “legal but harmful” content. Through clause 13, the Bill imposes duties on companies with respect to legal content that is “harmful to adults”. It is true that the Government have avoided using the phrase “legal but harmful” in the Bill, preferring “priority content”, but we should be clear about what that is.

The Bill’s factsheet, which is still on the Government’s website, states on page 1:

“The largest, highest-risk platforms will have to address named categories of legal but harmful material”.

This is not just a question of transparency—they will “have to” address that. It is simply unacceptable to target lawful speech in this way. The “Legal to Say, Legal to Type” campaign, led by Index on Censorship, sums up this point: it is both perverse and dangerous to allow speech in print but not online.

[Damian Collins]

As I said, a company may be asked to address this, which means that it has to set out what its policies are, how it would deal with that content and its terms of service. The Bill does not require a company to remove legal speech that it has no desire to remove. The regulator cannot insist on that, nor can the Government or the Bill. There is nothing to make legal speech online illegal.

[Mr Davis]

That is exactly what the Minister said earlier and, indeed, said to me yesterday when we spoke about this issue. I do not deny that, but this line of argument ignores the unintended consequences that the Bill may have. Its stated aim is to achieve reductions in online harm, not just illegal content. Page 106 of the Government’s impact assessment lists a reduction in the prevalence of legal but harmful content as a “key evaluation” question. The Bill aims to reduce that—the Government say that both in the online guide and the impact assessment. The impact assessment states that an increase in “content moderation” is expected because of the Bill.

A further concern is that the large service providers already have terms and conditions that address so-called legal but harmful content. A duty to state those clearly and enforce them consistently risks legitimising and strengthening the application of those terms and conditions, possibly through automated scanning and removal. That is precisely what happened to me before the Bill was even dreamed of. That was done under an automated system, backed up by somebody in Florida, Manila or somewhere who decided that they did not like what I said. We have to bear in mind how cautious the companies will be. That is especially worrying because, as I said, providers will be under significant pressure from outside organisations to include restrictive terms and conditions. I say this to Conservative Members, and we have some very well-intentioned and very well-informed Members on these Benches: beware of the gamesmanship that will go on in future years in relation to this.

Ofcom and the Department see these measures as transparency measures—that is the line. Lord Michael Grade, who is an old friend of mine, came to see me and he talked about this not as a pressure, but as a transparency measure. However, these are actually pressure measures. If people are made to announce things and talk about them publicly, that is what they become.

It is worth noting that several free speech and privacy groups have expressed scepticism about the provisions, yet they were not called to give oral evidence in Committee. A lot of other people were, including pressure groups on the other side and the tech companies, which we cannot ignore, but free speech advocates were not.

13:45

The clause is also part of the Bill where real democratic scrutiny is missing. Without being too pious about this, the simple truth is that the comparative power of Parliament has diminished over the past decade or two, with respect to Government, and this is another example. The decision on what counts as

“priority content that is harmful to adults”

will initially be made by the Secretary of State and then be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, in a whipped Statutory Instrument Committee. I have never, ever been asked to serve on an SI Committee and the Whips’ Office has never sought me to volunteer to do that—I wonder why. I hasten to add that I am not volunteering to do so now either, but the simple truth is this will be considered in a whipped, selected Committee. When we talked earlier about constraints on the power, we heard comments such as, “We will only do this in the case of security, and so on.” Heavens above, we have been through two years of ferocious controversy on matters of public health security. This is not something that should somehow be protected from free speech, I’m afraid.

We cannot allow such significant curtailments of free expression to take place without proper parliamentary debate or amendment. These questions need to be discussed and decided in the Chamber, if need be, annually. When I first came into the House of Commons, we had an annual Companies Act, because companies law and accounting law were going through change. They were not changing anything like as fast as the internet. The challenges were not coming up anything like as fast as they do with the internet, so why do we not have an annual Bill on this matter? I would be perfectly happy to see that, so that we can make decisions here. If we do not do that, we could do this on an ad hoc basis as the issues arise, including some that the hon. Member for Pontypridd raised. We could have been dealing with that before now on a simpler basis than that of the Bill.

If a category of speech is important enough to be censored, which is what we are really asking for, it is important enough to be debated in this Chamber and by the whole of Parliament—the Commons and the Lords. Otherwise, the Government’s claim that the Bill will protect free speech will appear absurd. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) has tabled some amendments relating to the press. Even there, it is incredibly difficult to get this right because of the sheer complexity of the Bill and the size of the problem that we are trying to address. That is why I have tabled amendment 151, which seeks to remove clause 13 entirely, because it introduces the authoritarian concept of “legal but harmful” content—decided by the Government. “Legal but harmful” is a perfectly reasonable concept, but if it is decided by the Government alone, that is authoritarian. This is described as “priority content”, but everybody knows what it actually means. The Government have run away from using “legal but harmful” in a public context, but they use it everywhere else.

My amendments are designed to protect free speech while making the internet a safer place for everyone. I do not want to see content relating to suicide, self-harm or abuse of women, or whatever it may be, and I tabled two amendments to make them explicitly illegal, and the House can decide on those. That is what we should do. That is where the power of the House and the proper judgment lies.

The Bill has significantly improved since it was in draft form and the new Minister has a very honourable history in that reform. I compliment and commend him on that and thank him for those actions. I also welcome the measures taken against such things as cyber-flashing, but more needs to be done. The Bill falls far short of what it needs to be, and it would be remiss of us, in our duty as MPs, to let it pass without serious alteration.

I say this to the Whip on the Front Bench, and I hope that I have his attention: the Bill needs many more days on Report. I hope that he will reflect that back to the Chief Whip at the end of this business, because only with more days can we get it right. This is probably one of the most important Bills to go through this House in this decade, and we have not quite got it right yet.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members. I welcome the Minister to his place after his much-deserved promotion; as other hon. Members have said, it is great to have somebody who is both passionate and informed as a Minister. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is sitting on the Back Benches: he worked incredibly hard on the Bill, displayed a mastery of detail throughout the process and was extremely courteous in his dealings with us. I hope that he will be speedily reshuffled back to the Front Bench, which would be much deserved—but obviously not that he should replace the Minister, who I hope will remain in his current position or indeed be elevated from it.

But enough of all this souking, as we say north of the border. As one can see from the number of amendments tabled, the Bill is not only an enormous piece of legislation but a very complex one. Its aims are admirable—there is no reason why this country should not be the safest place in the world to be online—but a glance through the amendments shows how many holes hon. Members think it still has.

The Government have taken some suggestions on board. I welcome the fact that they have finally legislated outright to stop the wicked people who attempt to trigger epileptic seizures by sending flashing gifs; I did not believe that such cruelty was possible until I was briefed about it in preparation for debates on the Bill. I pay particular tribute to wee Zach, whose name is often attached to what has been called Zach’s law.

The amendments to the Bill show that there has been a great deal of cross-party consensus on some issues, on which it has been a pleasure to work with friends in the Labour party. The first issue is addressed, in various ways, by amendments 44 to 46, 13, 14, 21 and 22, which all try to reduce the Secretary of State’s powers under the Bill. In all the correspondence that I have had about the Bill, and I have had a lot, that is the area that has most aggrieved the experts. A coalition of groups with a broad range of interests, including child safety, human rights, women and girls, sport and democracy, all agree that the Secretary of State is granted too many powers under the Bill, which threatens the independence of the regulator. Businesses are also wary of the powers, in part because they cause uncertainty.

The reduction of ministerial powers under the Bill was advised by the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill and by the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, on both of which I served. In Committee, I asked the then Minister whether any stakeholder had come forward in favour of these powers. None had.

Even DCMS Ministers do not agree with the powers. The new Minister was Chair of the Joint Committee, and his Committee’s report said:

“The powers for the Secretary of State to a) modify Codes of Practice to reflect Government policy and b) give guidance to Ofcom give too much power to interfere in Ofcom’s independence and should be removed.”

The Government have made certain concessions with respect to the powers, but they do not go far enough. As the Minister said, the powers should be removed.

We should be clear about exactly what the powers do. Under clause 40, the Secretary of State can

“modify a draft of a code of practice”.

That allows the Government a huge amount of power over the so-called independent communications regulator. I am glad that the Government have listened to the suggestions that my colleagues and I made on Second Reading and in Committee, and have committed to using the power only in “exceptional circumstances” and by further defining “public policy” motives. But “exceptional circumstances” is still too opaque and nebulous a phrase. What exactly does it mean? We do not know. It is not defined—probably intentionally.

The regulator must not be politicised in this way. Several similar pieces of legislation are going through their respective Parliaments or are already in force. In Germany, Australia, Canada, Ireland and the EU, with the Digital Services Act, different Governments have grappled with the issue of making digital regulation future-proof and flexible. None of them has added political powers. The Bill is sadly unique in making such provision.

When a Government have too much influence over what people can say online, the implications for freedom of speech are particularly troubling, especially when the content that they are regulating is not illegal. There are ways to future-proof and enhance the transparency of Ofcom in the Bill that do not require the overreach that these powers give. When we allow the Executive powers over the communications regulator, the protections must be absolute and iron-clad, but as the Bill stands, it gives leeway for abuse of those powers. No matter how slim the Minister feels the chance of that may be, as parliamentarians we must not allow it.

Amendment 187 on human trafficking is an example of a relatively minor change to the Bill that could make a huge difference to people online. Our amendment seeks to deal explicitly with what Meta and other companies refer to as domestic servitude, which is very newsworthy, today of all days, and which we know better as human trafficking. Sadly, this abhorrent practice has been part of our society for hundreds if not thousands of years. Today, human traffickers are aided by various apps and platforms. The same platforms that connect us with old friends and family across the globe have been hijacked by the very worst people in our world, who are using them to create networks of criminal enterprise, none more cruel than human trafficking.

Investigations by the BBC and The Wall Street Journal have uncovered how traffickers use Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp to advertise, sell and co-ordinate the trafficking of young women. One would have thought that the issue would be of the utmost importance to Meta—Facebook, as it was at the time—yet, as the BBC reported, The Wall Street Journal found that

“the social media giant only took ‘limited action’ until ‘Apple Inc. threatened to remove Facebook’s products from the App Store, unless it cracked down on the practice’.”

I and my friends across the aisle who sat on the DCMS Committee and the Joint Committee on the draft Bill know exactly what it is like to have Facebook’s high heid yins before us. They will do absolutely nothing to respond to legitimate pressure. They understand only one thing: the force of law and of financial penalty. Only when its profits were in danger did Meta take the issue seriously.

The omission of human trafficking from schedule 7 is especially worrying, because if human trafficking is not directly addressed as priority illegal content, we can be certain that it will not be prioritised by the platforms. We know from their previous behaviour that the platforms never do anything that will cost them money unless they are forced to do so. We understand that it is difficult to regulate in respect of human trafficking on platforms: it requires work across borders and platforms, with moderators speaking different languages. It is not cheap or easy, but it is utterly essential. The social media companies make enormous amounts of money, so let us shed no tears for them and for the costs that will be entailed. If human trafficking is not designated as a priority harm, I fear that it will fall by the wayside.

In Committee, the then Minister said that the relevant legislation was covered by other parts of the Bill and that it was not necessary to incorporate offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 into priority illegal content. He referred to the complexity of offences such as modern slavery, and said how illegal immigration and prostitution priority offences might cover that already. That is simply not good enough. Human traffickers use platforms as part of their arsenal at every stage of the process, from luring in victims to co-ordinating their movements and threatening their families. The largest platforms have ample capacity to tackle these problems and must be forced to be proactive. The consequences of inaction will be grave.

[Chris Philp]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson).

Let me begin by repeating my earlier congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on assuming his place on the Front Bench. Let me also take this opportunity to extend my thanks to those who served on the Bill Committee with me for some 50 sitting hours—it was, generally speaking, a great pleasure—and, having stepped down from the Front Bench, to thank the civil servants who have worked so hard on the Bill, in some cases over many years.

13:59

It would be strange if I did not broadly support the Government amendments, given that I have spent most of the last three or months concocting them. I will touch on one or two of them, and then mention some areas in which I think the House might consider going further when the Bill proceeds to the other end of the building. I certainly welcome new clause 19, which gives specific protection to content generated by news media publishers by ensuring that there is a right of appeal before it can be removed. I take the view—and I think the Government do as well—that protecting freedom of the press is critical, but as we grant news media publishers this special protection, it is important for us to ensure that we are granting it to organisations that actually deserve it.

That, I think, is the purpose of amendments 11 and 12, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). The amendments apply to clause 50, which defines the term “recognised news publisher”. During the evidence sessions in Committee, some concern was expressed that the definition was too wide, and that some organisations—"bad actors”, as the Minister put it—might manage to organise themselves in such a way that they would benefit from this exemption. My right hon. and learned Friend’s amendments are designed to tighten that definition a little bit. There is some concern that the drafting of the amendments might effectively give rise to back-door press regulation because determining whether news publishers’ terms and conditions are “suitable and sufficient” constitutes a value judgment, but I certainly agree that clause 50 needs tightening up.

I welcome—unsurprisingly—the reference in the written ministerial statement to tabling an amendment in the House of Lords providing that sanctioned organisations cannot benefit from this exemption. I suggest, however, that their lordships might like to consider going even further, for example by saying that where content amounts to a foreign interference offence as defined by the National Security Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena)—the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, who is in his place on the Front Bench—the organisation propagating it should not be able to benefit from the “recognised news publisher” exemption. Their lordships may wish to consider that, along with any other ideas for tightening the definition in clause 50.

Let me now say a word about free speech. It has been widely misreported that the Bill mandates censorship of speech that is legal but harmful. As I said in my intervention on the Minister earlier, that is categorically untrue. While the large social media platforms will have to address such content as part of their terms and conditions, they are not compelled in the actions that they have to take in relation to it; they simply have to risk-assess it, adopt a policy—what that policy is will be up to them—and then apply that policy consistently. They are not obliged to take any action, and they are certainly not obliged to remove the content entirely. Lest there should be any doubt about that, Government amendment 71 to clause 13 makes it explicit that it is reasonable to take no action if the platform sees fit.

[Joanna Cherry]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he will have heard the speech made by his colleague, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Does he not accept that it is correct to say that there is a risk of an increase in content moderation, and does he therefore see the force of my amendment, which we have previously discussed privately and which is intended to ensure that Twitter and other online service providers are subject to anti-discrimination law in the United Kingdom under the Equality Act 2010?

[Chris Philp]

I did of course hear what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). To be honest, I think that increased scrutiny of content which might constitute abuse of harassment, whether of women or of ethnic minorities, is to be warmly welcomed. The Bill provides that the risk assessors must pay attention to the characteristics of the user. There is no cross-reference to the Equality Act—I know the hon. and learned Lady has submitted a request on that, to which my successor Minister will now be responding—but there are references to characteristics in the provisions on safety duties, and those characteristics do of course include gender and race.

In relation to the risk that these duties are over-interpreted or over-applied, for the first time ever there is a duty for social media firms to have regard to freedom of speech. At present these firms are under no obligation to have regard to it, but clause 19(2) imposes such a duty, and anyone who is concerned about free speech should welcome that. Clauses 15 and 16 go further: clause 15 creates special protections for “content of democratic importance”, while clause 16 does the same for content of journalistic importance. So while I hugely respect and admire my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, I do not agree with his analysis in this instance.

I would now like to ask a question of my successor. He may wish to refer to it later or write to me, but if he feels like intervening, I will of course give way to him. I note that four Government amendments have been tabled; I suppose I may have authorised them at some point. Amendments 72, 73, 78 and 82 delete some words in various clauses, for example clauses 13 and 15. They remove the words that refer to treating content “consistently”. The explanatory note attached to amendment 72 acknowledges that, and includes a reference to new clause 14, which defines how providers should go about assessing illegal content, what constitutes illegal content, and how content is to be determined as being in one of the various categories.

As far as I can see, new clause 14 makes no reference to treating, for example, legal but harmful content “consistently”. According to my quick reading—without the benefit of highly capable advice—amendments 72, 73, 78 and 82 remove the obligation to treat content “consistently”, and it is not reintroduced in new clause 14. I may have misread that, or misunderstood it, but I should be grateful if, by way of an intervention, a later speech or a letter, my hon. Friend the Minister could give me some clarification.

[Damian Collins]

I think that the codes of practice establish what we expect the response of companies to be when dealing with priority illegal harm. We would expect the regulator to apply those methods consistently. If my hon. Friend fears that that is no longer the case, I shall be happy to meet him to discuss the matter.

[Chris Philp]

Clause 13(6)(b), for instance, states that the terms of service must be

“applied consistently in relation to content”,

and so forth. As far as I can see, amendment 72 removes the word “consistently”, and the explanatory note accompanying the amendment refers to new clause 14, saying that it does the work of the previous wording, but I cannot see any requirement to act consistently in new clause 14. Perhaps we could pick that up in correspondence later.

[Damian Collins]

If there is any area of doubt, I shall be happy to follow it up, but, as I said earlier, I think we would expect that if the regulator establishes through the codes of practice how a company will respond proactively to identify illegal priority content on its platform, it is inherent that that will be done consistently. We would accept the same approach as part of that process. As I have said, I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend and discuss any gaps in the process that he thinks may exist, but that is what we expect the outcome to be.

[Chris Philp]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I merely observe that the “consistency” requirements were written into the Bill, and, as far as I can see, are not there now. Perhaps we could discuss it further in correspondence.

Let me turn briefly to clause 40 and the various amendments to it—amendments 44, 45, 13, 46 and others—and the remarks made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), about the Secretary of State’s powers. I intervened on the hon. Lady earlier on this subject. It also arose in Committee, when she and many others made important points on whether the powers in clause 40 went too far and whether they impinged reasonably on the independence of the regulator, in this case Ofcom. I welcome the commitments made in the written ministerial statement laid last Thursday—coincidentally shortly after my departure—that there will be amendments in the Lords to circumscribe the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can exercise those powers to exceptional circumstances. I heard the point made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire that it was unclear what “exceptional” meant. The term has a relatively well defined meaning in law, but the commitment in the WMS goes further and says that the bases upon which the power can be exercised will be specified and limited to certain matters such as public health or matters concerning international relations. That will severely limit the circumstances in which those powers can be used, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect Ofcom, as a telecommunications regulator, to have expertise in those other areas that I have just mentioned. I think that the narrowing is reasonable, for the reasons that I have set out.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Those areas are still incredibly broad and open to interpretation. Would it not be easier just to remove the Secretary of State from the process and allow this place to take directly from Ofcom the code of standards that we are talking about so that it can be debated fully in the House?

[Chris Philp]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Through his work as the Chairman of the Select Committee he has done fantastic work in scrutinising the Bill. There might be circumstances where one needed to move quickly, which would make the parliamentary intervention he describes a little more difficult, but he makes his point well.

[Julian Knight]

So why not quicken up the process by taking the Secretary of State out of it? We will still have to go through the parliamentary process regardless.

[Chris Philp]

The Government are often in possession of information—for example, security information relating to the UK intelligence community—that Ofcom, as the proposer of a code or a revised code, may not be in possession of. So the ability of the Secretary of State to propose amendments in those narrow fields, based on information that only the Government have access to, is not wholly unreasonable. My hon. Friend will obviously comment further on this in his speech, and no doubt the other place will give anxious scrutiny to the question as well.

I welcome the architecture in new clause 14 in so far as it relates to the definition of illegal content; that is a helpful clarification. I would also like to draw the House’s attention to amendment 16 to clause 9, which makes it clear that acts that are concerned with the commission of a criminal offence or the facilitation of a criminal offence will also trigger the definitions. That is a very welcome widening.

I do not want to try the House’s patience by making too long a speech, given how much the House has heard from me already on this topic, but there are two areas where, as far as I can see, there are no amendments down but which others who scrutinise this later, particularly in the other place, might want to consider. These are areas that I was minded to look at a bit more over the summer. No doubt it will be a relief to some people that I will not be around to do so. The first of the two areas that might bear more thought is clause 137, which talks about giving academic researchers access to social media platforms. I was struck by Frances Haugen’s evidence on this. The current approach in the Bill is for Ofcom to do a report that will takes two years, and I wonder if there could be a way of speeding that up slightly.

The second area concerns the operation of algorithms promoting harmful content. There is of course a duty to consider how that operates, but when it comes algorithms promoting harmful content, I wonder whether we could be a bit firmer in the way we treat that. I do not think that would restrain free speech, because the right of free speech is the right to say something; it is not the right to have an algorithm automatically promoting it. Again, Frances Haugen had some interesting comments on that.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I agree that there is scope for more to be done to enable those in academia and in broader civil society to understand more clearly what the harm landscape looks like. Does my hon. Friend agree that if they had access to the sort of information he is describing, we would be able to use their help to understand more fully and more clearly what we can do about those harms?

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right, as always. We can only expect Ofcom to do so much, and I think inviting expert academic researchers to look at this material would be welcome. There is already a mechanism in clause 137 to produce a report, but on reflection it might be possible to speed that up. Others who scrutinise the Bill may also reach that conclusion. It is important to think particularly about the operation of algorithmic promotion of harmful content, perhaps in a more prescriptive way than we do already. As I have said, Frances Haugen’s evidence to our Committee in this area was particularly compelling.

14:15

[Damian Collins]

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. I discussed the point about researcher access with him last week, when our roles were reversed, so I am sympathetic to that. There is a difference between that and the researcher access that the Digital Services Act in Europe envisages, which will not have the legal powers that Ofcom will have to compel and demand access to information. It will be complementary but it will not replace the primary powers that Ofcom will have, which will really set our regime above those elsewhere. It is certainly my belief that the algorithmic amplification of harmful content must be addressed in the transparency reports and that, where it relates to illegal activities, it must absolutely be within the scope of the regulator to state that actively promoting illegal content to other people is an offence under this legislation.

[Chris Philp]

On my hon. Friend’s first point, he is right to remind the House that the obligations to disclose information to Ofcom are absolute; they are hard-edged and they carry criminal penalties. Researcher access in no way replaces that; it simply acts as a potential complement to it. On his second point about algorithmic promotion, of course any kind of content that is illegal is prohibited, whether algorithmically promoted or otherwise. The more interesting area relates to content that is legal but perceived as potentially harmful. We have accepted that the judgments on whether that content stays up or not are for the platforms to make. If they wish, they can choose to allow that content simply to stay up. However, it is slightly different when it comes to algorithmically promoting it, because the platform is taking a proactive decision to promote it. That may be an area that is worth thinking about a bit more.

[Damian Collins]

On that point, if a platform has a policy not to accept a certain sort of content, I think the regulators should expect it to say in its transparency report what it is doing to ensure that it is not actively promoting that content through a newsfeed, on Facebook or “next up” on YouTube. I expect that to be absolutely within the scope of the powers we have in place.

[Chris Philp]

In terms of content that is legal but potentially harmful, as the Bill is drafted, the platforms will have to set out their policies, but their policies can say whatever they like, as we discussed earlier. A policy could include actively promoting content that is harmful through algorithms, for commercial purposes. At the moment, the Bill as constructed gives them that freedom. I wonder whether that is an area that we can think about making slightly more prescriptive. Giving them the option to leave the content up there relates to the free speech point, and I accept that, but choosing to algorithmically promote it is slightly different. At the moment, they have the freedom to choose to algorithmically promote content that is toxic but falls just on the right side of legality. If they want to do that, that freedom is there, and I just wonder whether it should be. It is a difficult and complicated topic and we are not going to make progress on it today, but it might be worth giving it a little more thought.

I think I have probably spoken for long enough on this Bill, not just today but over the last few months. I broadly welcome these amendments but I am sure that, as the Bill completes its stages, in the other place as well, there will be opportunities to slightly fine-tune it that all of us can make a contribution to.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

First, congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). I think his is one of the very few appointments in these latest shenanigans that is based on expertise and ability. I really welcome him, and the work he has done on the Bill this week has been terrific. I also thank the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). When he held the position, he was open to discussion and he accepted a lot of ideas from many of us across the House. As a result, I think we have a better Bill before us today than we would have had. My gratitude goes to him as well.

I support much of the Bill, and its aim of making the UK the safest place to be online is one that we all share. I support the systems-based approach and the role of Ofcom. I support holding the platforms to account and the importance of protecting children. I also welcome the cross-party work that we have done as Back Benchers, and the roles played by both Ministers and by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I thank him for his openness and his willingness to talk to us. Important amendments have been agreed on fraudulent advertising, bringing forward direct liability so there is not a two-year wait, and epilepsy trolling—my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) promoted that amendment.

I also welcome the commitment to bring forward amendments in the Lords relating to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam—I think those amendments are on the amendment paper but it is difficult to tell. It is important that the onus on platforms to be subject to regulation should be based not on size and functionality but on risk of harm. I look forward to seeing those amendments when they come back from the other place. We all know that the smallest platforms can present the greatest risk. The killing of 51 people in the mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand is probably the most egregious example, as the individual concerned had been on 8chan before committing that crime.

I am speaking to amendments 156 and 157 in my name and in the names of other hon. and right hon. Members. These amendments would address the issue of anonymous abuse. I think we all accept that anonymity is hugely important, particularly to vulnerable groups such as victims of domestic violence, victims of child abuse and whistleblowers. We want to retain anonymity for a whole range of groups and, in framing these amendments, I was very conscious of our total commitment to doing so.

Equally, freedom of speech is very important, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said, but freedom of speech has never meant freedom to harm, which is not a right this House should promote. It is difficult to define, and it is difficult to get the parameters correct, but we should not think that freedom of speech is an absolute right without constraints.

[Joanna Cherry]

I agree with the right hon. Lady that freedom of speech is not absolute. As set out in article 10 of the European convention on human rights, there have to be checks and balances. Nevertheless, does she agree freedom of speech is an important right that this House should promote, with the checks and balances set out in article 10 of the ECHR?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Absolutely. I very much welcome the hon. and learned Lady’s amendment, which clarifies the parameters under which freedom of speech can be protected and promoted.

Equally, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. The police and other enforcement agencies can pursue unlawful abuse, assuming they have the resources, which we have not discussed this afternoon. I know the platforms have committed to providing the finance for such resources, but I still question whether the resources are there.

The problem with the Bill and the Government amendments, particularly Government amendment 70, is that they weaken the platforms’ duty on legal but harmful abuse. Such abuse is mainly anonymous and the abusers are clever. They do not break the law; they avoid the law with the language they use. It might be best if I give an example. People do not say, in an antisemitic way, “I am going to kill all Jews.” We will not necessarily find that online, but we might find, “I am going to harm all globalists.” That is legal but harmful and has the same intent. We should think about that, without being beguiled by the absolute right to freedom of speech that I am afraid the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is promoting, otherwise we will find that the Bill does not meet the purposes we all want.

Much of the abuse is anonymous. We do not know how much, but much of it is. When there was racist abuse at the Euros, Twitter claimed that 99% of postings of racist abuse were identifiable. Like the Minister, I wrote to Twitter to challenge that claim and found that Twitter was not willing to share its data with me, claiming GDPR constraints.

It is interesting that, in recent days, the papers have said that one reason Elon Musk has given for pulling out of his takeover is that he doubts Twitter’s claim that fake and spam accounts represent less than 5% of users. There is a lack of understanding and knowledge of the extent of anonymous abuse.

In the case I have shared with the Minister on other occasions, I received 90,000 posts in the two months from the publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report to the shenanigans about the position of the previous leader of the Labour party—from October to Christmas. The posts were monitored for me by the Community Security Trust. When I asked how many of the posts were anonymous, I was told that it had been unable to do that analysis. I wish there were the resources to do so, but I think most of the posts were anonymous and abusive.

There is certainly public support for trying to tackle abusive posts. A June 2021 YouGov poll found that 78% of the public are in favour of revealing the identity of those who post online, and we should bear that in mind. If people feel strongly about this, and the poll suggests that they do, we should respond and not put it to one side.

The Government have tried to tackle this with a compromise following the very good work by the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). The Bill places a duty on the platforms to give users the option to verify their identity. If a user chooses to remain unverified, they may not be able to interact with verified accounts. Although I support the motives behind that amendment, I have concerns.

First, the platform itself would have to verify who holds the account, which gives the platforms unprecedented access to personal details. Following Cambridge Analytica, we know how such data can be abused. Data on 87 million identities was stolen, and we know it was used to influence the Trump election in 2016, and it may have been a factor in the Brexit referendum.

Secondly, the police have been very clear on how I should deal with anonymous online abuse. They say that the last thing I should do is remove it, as they need it to be able to judge whether there is a real threat within the abuse that they should take seriously. So individuals having that right does not diminish the real harm they could face if the online abuse is removed.

Thirdly, one of the problems with a lot of online abuse is not just that it is horrible or can be dangerous in particular circumstances, but that it prevents democracy. It inhibits freedom of speech by inhibiting engagement in free, democratic discourse. Online abuse is used to undermine an individual’s credibility. A lot of the abuse I receive seeks to undermine my credibility. It says that I am a bad woman, that I abuse children, that I break tax law and that I do this, that and the other. Building that picture of me as someone who cannot be believed undermines my ability to enter into legitimate democratic debate on issues I care about. Simply removing anonymous online abuse from my account does not stop the circulation of abusive, misleading content that undermines my democratic right to free speech. Therefore, in its own way, it undermines free speech.

Amendments 156 and 157, in my name and in the name of other colleagues, are based on a strong commitment to protecting anonymity, especially for vulnerable groups. We seek to tackle anonymous abuse not by denying anonymity but by ensuring traceability. It is quite simple. The Government recognise the feasibility and importance of that with age verification; they have now accepted the argument on age verification, and I urge them to take it further. Although I have heard that various groups are hostile to what we are suggesting, in a meeting I held last week with HOPE not hate there was agreement that what we are proposing made sense, and therefore we and the Government should pursue it.

14:30

Under our proposed scheme, any individual who chooses to go on a platform would have to have their identity verified, not by the platform but by a third party. We would thus remove the platform’s ability to access the individual’s data, which it could use in an inappropriate way. Such a scheme is perfectly feasible, particularly now that the Government have introduced the age verification mechanism. More than 99% of us have bank accounts, so there is a simple way of verifying someone’s identity through a third-party mechanism without giving platforms the powers I have described. Everybody would be able to enter any platform and have total anonymity, and only if and when an individual posts something that breaks the law will they lose their right to anonymity.

To go back to a point I made in an intervention on the Minister, that would also involve having minimum standards on harmful but legal abuse. Under a minimum standards platform, only if someone posted abuse that is harmful—this would mainly be illegal abuse, but it would also be harmful but legal abuse—would they lose their right to anonymity. I think that is good, because one could name and shame. Most importantly, this would be the most effective tool for preventing a lot of online abuse from happening in the first place, and we should all be focusing our energies on doing so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), our Front Bencher, has talked about women who are particularly vulnerable, and I think our measure would be very important—my experience justifies that. It would be a powerful deterrent. I hope that our Front-Bench team will support the proposition we are putting before the House. I will not press it to a vote if they do not, although I would regret the fact that they did not support it.

I regret that the Government do not feel able to support our proposition, but I think its time will come. A lot of the stuff that we are doing in this Bill is innovative, and we are not sure where everything will land. We are likely to get some things wrong and others right. I say to all Members, from across this House, that if we really want to reduce the amount of harmful abuse online, tackling anonymous abuse, rather than anonymity, must be central to our concerns. I urge my Front-Bench team and the Government to think carefully about this.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

I rise to speak on amendments 50, 51 and 55, and I share the free speech concerns that I think lie behind amendment 151. As I said in Committee to the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who knew this Bill inside out—it was amazing to watch him do it—I have deep concerns about how the duty on “legal but harmful” content will affect freedom of speech. I do not want people to be prevented from saying what they think. I am known for saying what I think, and I believe others should be allowed the same freedom, offline and online. What is harmful can be a subjective question, and many of us in this House might have different answers. When we start talking about restricting content that is perfectly legal, we should be very careful.

This Bill is very complex and detailed, as I know full well, having been on the Committee. I support the Bill—it is needed—but when it comes to legal but harmful content, we need to make sure that free speech is given enough protection. We have to get the right balance, but clause 19 does not do that. It says only that social media companies have

“a duty to have regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law.”

There is no duty to do anything about freedom of speech; it just says, “You have to think about the importance of it”. That is not enough.

I know that the Bill does not state that social media companies have to restrict content—I understand that—but in the real world that is what will happen. If the Government define certain content as harmful, no social media company will want to be associated with it. The likes of Meta will want to be seen to get tough on legally defined harmful content, so of course it will be taken down or restricted. We have to counterbalance that instinct by putting stronger free speech duties in the Bill if we insist on it covering legal but harmful.

The Government have said that we cannot have stronger free speech obligations on private companies, and, in general, I agree with that. However, this Bill puts all sorts of other obligations on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, because they are not like other private companies. These companies and their chief executive officers are household words all around the world, and their power and influence is incredible. In 2021, Facebook’s revenue was $117 billion, which is higher than the GDP—

[Andrew Percy]

Is that not exactly why there has to be action on legal but harmful content? The cross-boundary, cross-national powers of these organisations mean that we have to insist that they take action against harm, whether lawful or unlawful. We are simply asking those organisations to risk assess and ensure that appropriate warnings are provided, just as they are in respect of lots of harms in society; the Government require corporations and individuals to risk assess those harms and warn about them. The fact that these organisations are so transnational and huge is absolutely why we must require them to risk assess legal but harmful content.

[Nick Fletcher]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but the list of what is legal but harmful will be set by the Secretary of State, not by Parliament. All we ask is for that to be discussed on the Floor of the House before we place those duties on the companies. That is all I am asking us to do.

Facebook has about 3 billion active users globally. That is more than double the population of China, the world’s most populous nation, and it is well over half the number of internet users in the entire world. These companies are unlike any others we have seen in history. For hundreds of millions of people around the world, they are the public square, which is how the companies have described themselves: Twitter founder Jack Dorsey said in 2018:

“We believe many people use Twitter as a digital public square. They gather from all around the world to see what’s happening, and have a conversation about what they see.”

In 2019, Mark Zuckerberg said:

“Facebook and Instagram have helped people connect with friends, communities, and interests in the digital equivalent of a town square.”

Someone who is blocked from these platforms is blocked from the public square, as we saw when the former President of the United States was blocked. Whatever we might think about Donald Trump, it cannot be right that he was banned from Twitter. We have to have stronger protection for free speech in the digital public square than clause 19 gives. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to define what is legal but harmful by regulations. As I have said, this is an area where free speech could easily be affected—

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for the powerful speech he is making. It seems to many of us here that if anyone is going to be setting the law or a regulation, it should really be done in the Chamber of this House. I would be very happy if we had annual debates on what may be harmful but is currently lawful, in order to make it illegal. I very much concur with what he is saying.

[Nick Fletcher]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution, which deals with what I was going to finish with. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to have to consult Ofcom; there should be public consultation too. I support amendment 55, which my hon. Friend has tabled.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Not too long ago, the tech industry was widely looked up to and the internet was regarded as the way forward for democracy and freedoms. Today that is not the case. Every day we read headlines about data leaks, racist algorithms, online abuse, and social media platforms promoting, and becoming swamped in, misinformation, misogyny and hate. These problems are not simply the fault of those platforms and tech companies; they are the result of a failure to govern technology properly. That has resulted from years of muddled thinking and a failure to bring forward this Bill, and now, a failure to ensure that the Bill is robust enough.

Ministers have talked up the Bill, and I welcome the improvements that were made in Committee. Nevertheless, Ministers had over a decade in which to bring forward proposals, and in that time online crime exploded. Child sexual abuse online has become rife; the dark web provides a location for criminals to run rampant and scams are widespread.

Delay has also allowed disinformation to spread, including state-sponsored propaganda and disinformation, such as from Russia’s current regime. False claims and fake fact checks are going viral. That encourages other groups to adopt such tactics, in an attempt to undermine democracy, from covid deniers to climate change deniers—it is rampant.

Today I shall speak in support of new clause 3, to put violence against women and girls on the face of the Bill. As a female MP, I, along with my colleagues, have faced a torrent of abuse online, attacking me personally and professionally. I have been sent images such as that of a person with a noose around their neck, as well as numerous messages containing antisemitic and misogynistic abuse directed towards both me and my children. It is deeply disturbing, but also unsurprising, that one in five women across the country have been subjected to abuse; I would guess that that figure is actually much higher.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am really sorry to hear about the abuse that the hon. Lady and her family have received. Many women inside and without this Chamber, such as myself, receive terrible abuse on Twitter, including repeated threats to shoot us if we do not shut the f-u-c-k up. Twitter refuses to take down memes of a real human hand pointing a gun at me and other feminists and lesbians, telling us to shut the f-u-c-k up. Does she see the force of my amendment to ensure that Twitter apply its moderation policy evenly across society with regard to all protected characteristics, including sex?

[Anna McMorrin]

The hon. and learned Lady makes a very good point, and that illustrates what I am talking about in my speech—the abuse that women face online. We need this legislation to ensure that tech companies take action.

There is a very dark side to the internet, deeply rooted in misogyny. The End Violence Against Women organisation released statistics last year, stating that 85% of women who experienced online abuse from a partner or ex-partner also received abuse online. According to the latest Office for National Statistics figures, 92% of women who were killed in the year ending March 2021 were killed by men. Just yesterday, a woman was stabbed in the back by a male cyclist in east London, near to where Zara Aleena was murdered just two weeks ago. And in the year 2021, nearly 41,000 women were victims of sexual assault—and those were just the ones who reported it. We know that the actual figure was very much higher. That was the highest number of sexual offences ever recorded within a 12-month period. It is highly unlikely that any of those women will ever see their perpetrator brought to justice, because of the current 1.3% prosecution rate of rape cases. Need I continue?

14:45

Violence against women and girls is an ever-growing epidemic, and time is running out. This Government are more concerned with piecemeal actions that fail to tackle the root causes of the issue. Although the introduction of new criminal offences such as cyber-flashing and rape threats is a welcome first step, there are significant concerns about their enforceability. The cyber-flashing offence requires the police to prove a perpetrator’s intent to cause harm, which is incredibly difficult to evidence. That is the loophole through which perpetrators avoid consequences.

I doubt there are many women who have not been sent unsolicited images of male genitals online. There are accounts of women being airdropped images on public transport while on their way to work. What does that leave them feeling? Violated—scared, not knowing who in their train carriage or on their bus has sent those unsolicited images. The online dating platform Bumble conducted research on cyber-flashing and found that of its users, nearly half of women aged 18 to 24 had received a sexual photo that they did not ask for in the last year alone.

So, considering the scale of this issue and the Government’s appalling record on prosecuting sexual assault offences, why would this new offence be any different? Acts of violence towards women are not merely isolated incidents. We know that, unfortunately, there is systemic misogyny within our society that results in a shocking number of women losing their lives, but we refuse to see it. Failing to name violence against women and girls on the face of the Bill is putting the lives of countless women at risk, and will leave behind a dangerous and damning legacy, even by this Government’s standards.

I welcome the new Minister to his place and hope that he will look at this issue in a new light. I hope that the Government can put politics to one side for just a moment, match their words with deeds and commit to protecting women across the country by supporting new clause 3.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House will see that a great many people still wish to speak. May I explain that there are two groups of amendments? We will finish debating this group at 4.30 pm, after which there will be some votes, and debate on the next group of amendments will last until 7 o’clock. By my calculations, there might be more time for speeches during the debate on the next group, so if anyone wishes to speak on that group rather than the current group, I would be grateful if they came and indicated that to me. Meanwhile, if everyone takes about eight minutes and no longer, everyone will have the opportunity to speak. I call Sir Jeremy Wright.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I shall speak to the amendments in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members, to whom I am grateful for their support. I am also grateful to the organisations that helped me to work through some of the problems I am about to identify, including the Carnegie Trust, Reset and the Antisemitism Policy Trust.

On the first amendments I shall talk about, amendments 42 and 43, I have been able to speak to Lego, so I can honestly say that these amendments were put together with Lego. Let me explain. The focus of the Bill, quite rightly, is on safety, and there is no safety more important than the safety of children. In that respect, the Bill is clear: platforms must give the safety of children the utmost priority and pay close attention to ways to enhance it. In other parts of the Bill, however, there are countervailing duties—for example, in relation to freedom of speech and privacy—where, predominantly in relation to adults, we expect platforms to conduct a balancing exercise. It seems right to me to think about that in the context of children, too.

As I said, the emphasis is rightly on children’s safety, but the safest approach would be to prohibit children from any online activity at all. We would not regard such an approach as sensible, because there are benefits to children in being able to engage—safely, of course—in online activity and to use online products and services. It seems to me that we ought to recognise that in the language of the Bill. Amendment 42 would do that when consideration is given to the safety duties designed to protect children set out in clause 11, which requires that “proportionate measures” must be taken to protect children’s safety and goes on to explain what factors might be taken into account when deciding what is proportionate, by adding

“the benefits to children’s well-being”

of the product or service in that list of factors. Amendment 43 would do the same when consideration is given to the online safety objectives set out in schedule 4. Both amendments are designed to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck when judgments are taken by platforms.

Others have spoken about journalistic content, and I am grateful for what the Minister said about that, but my amendment 10 is aimed at the defect that I perceive in clause 16. The Bill gives additional protections and considerations to journalists, which is entirely justifiable, given the important role that journalism plays in our society, but those extra protections mean that it will be harder for platforms to remove potentially harmful content that is also journalistic content. We should be sure, therefore, that the right people get the benefit of that protection.

It is worth having look at what clause 16 says and does. It sets out that a platform—a user-to-user service—in category 1 will have

“A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes designed to ensure that the importance of the free expression of journalistic content is taken into account when making decisions about…how to treat such content (especially decisions about whether to take it down or restrict users’ access to it), and…whether to take action against a user generating, uploading or sharing such content.”

So it is important, because of the significance of those protections, that we get right the definitions of those who should benefit from them. Amendment 10 would amend clause 16(8), which states that:

“For the purposes of this section content is “journalistic content”, in relation to a user-to-user service, if…the content is”

either

“news publisher content in relation to that service”—

the definition of which I will return to—

“or…regulated user-generated content in relation to that service”.

That is the crucial point. The content also has to be

“generated for the purposes of journalism”

and be linked to the UK.

The first problem here is that journalism is not defined in the Bill. There are definitions of journalism, but none appears in the text of this Bill. “UK-linked” does not narrow it down much, and “regulated user-generated content” is a very broad category indeed. Clause 16 as drafted offers the protection given to journalistic content not just to news publishers, but to almost everybody else who chooses to define themselves as a journalist, whether or not that is appropriate. I do not think that that is what the Bill is intended to do, or an approach that this House should endorse. Amendment 10 would close the loophole by removing the second limb, regulated user-generated content that is not news publisher content. Let me be clear: I do not think that that is the perfect answer to the question I have raised, but it is better than the Bill as it stands, and if the Government can come up with a way of reintroducing protections of this kind for types of journalistic content beyond news publisher content that clearly deserve them, I will be delighted and very much open to it. Currently, however, the Bill is defective and needs to be remedied.

That brings us to the definition of news publisher content, because it is important that if we are to give protection to that category of material, we are clear about what we mean by it. Amendments 11 and 12 relate to the definition of news publisher content that arises from the definition of a recognised news publisher in clauses 49 and 50. That matters for the same reason as I just set out: we should give these protections only to those who genuinely deserve them. That requires rigorous definition. Clause 50 states that if an entity is not named in the Bill, as some are, it must fulfil a set of conditions set out in subsection (2), which includes having a standards code and policies and procedures for handling and resolving complaints. The difficulty here is that in neither case does the Bill refer to any quality threshold for those two things, so having any old standards code or any old policy for complaints will apparently qualify. That cannot be right.

I entirely accept that inserting a provision that the standards code and the complaints policies and procedures should be both “suitable and sufficient” opens the question whose job it becomes to decide what is suitable and sufficient. I am familiar with all the problems that may ensue, so again, I do not say that the amendment is the final word on the subject, but I do say that the Government need to look more carefully at what the value of those two items on the list really is if the current definition stands. If we are saying that we want these entities to have a standards code and a complaints process that provide some reassurance that they are worthy of the protections the Bill gives, it seems to me that meaningful criteria must apply, which currently they do not.

The powers of the Secretary of State have also been discussed by others, but I perhaps differ from their view in believing that there should be circumstances in which the Secretary of State should hold powers to act in genuine emergency situations. However, being able to direct Ofcom, as the Bill allows the Secretary of State to do, to modify a code of practice

“for reasons of public policy”

is far too broad. Amendment 13 would simply remove that capacity, with amendment 14 consequential upon it.

I accept that on 7 July the Secretary of State issued a written statement that helps to some extent on that point—it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South South (Chris Philp). First, it states that the Secretary of State would act only in “exceptional circumstances”, although it does not say who defines what exceptional circumstances are, leaving it likely that the Secretary of State would do so, which does not help us much. Secondly, it states the intention to replace the phrase

“for reasons of public policy”

with a list of circumstances in which the Secretary of State might act. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) that that is still too broad. The proposed list comprises

“national security, public safety, public health, the UK’s international relations and obligations, economic policy and burden to business.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2022; Vol. 717, c. 69WS.]

The platforms we are talking about are businesses. Are we really saying that a burden on them would give the Secretary of State reason to say to Ofcom, the independent regulator, that it must change a code of practice? That clearly cannot be right. This is still too broad a provision. The progress that has been made is welcome, but I am afraid that there needs to be more to further constrain this discretion. That is because, as others have said, the independence of the regulator is crucial not just to this specific part of the Bill but to the credibility of the whole regulatory and legislative structure here, and therefore we should not undermine it unless we have to.

15:00

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also say something very briefly about new clause 14. This is the Government’s additional new clause, which is designed to assist platforms in understanding some of the judgments that they have to make and how to make them, particularly in relation to illegal content. When people first look at this Bill, they will assume that everyone knows what illegal content is and therefore it should be easy to identify and take it down, or take the appropriate action to avoid its promotion. But, as new clause 14 makes clear, what the platform has to do is not just identify content but have reasonable grounds to infer that all elements of an offence, including the mental elements, are present or satisfied, and, indeed, that the platform does not have reasonable grounds to infer that the defence to the offence may be successfully relied upon. That is right, of course, because criminal offences very often are not committed just by the fact of a piece of content; they may also require an intent, or a particular mental state, and they may require that the individual accused of that offence does not have a proper defence to it. The question of course is how on earth a platform is supposed to know either of those two things in each case. This is helpful guidance, but the Government will have to think carefully about what further guidance they will need to give—or Ofcom will need to give—in order to help a platform to make those very difficult judgments.

[Julian Knight]

Although this is not contained within these measures, it is pertaining to them. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, down the line, Ofcom will want to look at a regime of compliance officers in order to give the guidance that he seeks?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes, that is a possible way forward. Ofcom will need to produce a code of practice in this area. I am sure my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will say that that is a suitable way to deal with the problem that I have identified. It may well be, but at this stage, it is right for the House to recognise that the drafting of the Bill at the moment seeks to offer support to platforms, for which I am sure they will be grateful, but it will need to offer some more in order to allow these judgments to be made.

I restate the point that I have made in previous debates on this subject: there is little point in this House passing legislation aimed to make the internet a safer place if the legislation does not work as it is intended to. If our regime does not work, we will keep not a single person any safer. It is important, therefore, that we think about this Bill not in its overarching statements and principles but, particularly at this stage of consideration, in terms of how it will actually work.

You will not find a bigger supporter of the Bill in this House than me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to see it work well and be effective. That means that some of the problems that I am highlighting must be addressed. Because humility is a good way to approach debates on something as ground-breaking and complex as this, I do not pretend that I have all the right answers. These amendments have been tabled because the Bill as it stands does not quite yet do the job that we want it to do. It is a good Bill—it needs to pass—but it can be better, and I very much hope that this process will improve it.

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to speak to new clause 24 and amendments 193 and 191 tabled in my name. I also want to specifically give my support to new clause 6 and amendments 33 and 34 in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

The purpose of my amendments, as I have indicated in a number of interventions, is to ensure that, when moderating content, category 1 service providers such as Twitter abide by the anti-discrimination law of our domestic legal systems—that is to say the duties set out in the Equality Act 2010 not to discriminate against, harass or victimise their users on the grounds of a protected characteristic.

I quickly want to say a preliminary word about the Bill. Like all responsible MPs, I recognise the growing concern about online harms, and the need to protect service users, especially children, from harmful and illegal content online. That said, the House of Lords’ Communication and Digital Committee was correct to note that the internet is not currently the unregulated Wild West that some people say it is, and that civil and criminal law already applies to activities online as well as offline.

The duty of care, which the Bill seeks to impose on online services, will be a significant departure from existing legislation regulating online content. It will allow for a more preventative approach to regulating illegal online content and will form part of a unified regulatory framework applying to a wide range of online services. I welcome the benefits that this would represent, especially with respect to preventing the proliferation of child sexual and emotional abuse online.

Before I became an MP, I worked for a number of years as a specialist sex crimes prosecutor, so I am all too aware of how children are targeted online. Sadly, there are far too many people in our society, often hiding in plain sight, who seek to exploit children. I must emphasise that child safeguarding should be a No. 1 priority for any Government. In so far as this Bill does that, I applaud it. However, I do have some concerns that there is a significant risk that the Bill will lead to censorship of legal speech by online platforms. For the reasons that were set out by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I am also a bit worried that it will give the Government unacceptable controls over what we can and cannot say online, so I am keen to support any amendments that would ameliorate those aspects of the Bill. I say this to those Members around the Chamber who might be looking puzzled: make no mistake, when the Bill gives greater power to online service providers to regulate content, there is a very real risk that they will be lobbied by certain groups to regulate what is actually legal free speech by other groups. That is partly what my amendment is designed to avoid.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

What the hon. and learned Lady says is sensible, but does she accept—this is a point the Minister made earlier—that, at the moment, the platforms have almost unfettered control over what they take down and what they leave up? What this Bill does is present a framework for the balancing exercise that they ought to apply in making those decisions.

[Joanna Cherry]

That is why I am giving the Bill a cautious welcome, but I still stand by my very legitimate concerns about the chilling effect of aspects of this Bill. I will give some examples in a moment about the problems that have arisen when organisations such as Twitter are left to their own devices on their moderation of content policy.

As all hon. Members will be aware, under the Equality Act there are a number of protected characteristics. These include: age; gender reassignment; being married or in a civil partnership; being pregnant or on maternity leave; disability; race, including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin; religion or belief; sex and sexual orientation. It is against the law to discriminate, victimise or harass anyone because of any of those protected characteristics, but Twitter does discriminate against some of the protected characteristics. It often discriminates against women in the way that I described in an intervention earlier. It takes down expressions of feminist belief, but refuses to take down expressions of the utmost violent intent against women. It also discriminates against women who hold gender-critical beliefs. I remind hon. Members that, in terms of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in the case of Maya Forstater, the belief that sex matters is worthy of respect in a democratic society and, under the Equality Act, people cannot lawfully discriminate against women, or indeed men, who hold those views.

Twitter also sometimes discriminates against lesbians, gay men and bisexual people who assert that their sexual orientation is on the basis of sex, not gender, despite the fact that same-sex orientation, such as I hold, is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.

At present, Twitter claims not to be covered by the Equality Act. I have seen correspondence from its lawyers that sets out the purported basis for that claim, partly under reference to schedule 25 to the Equality Act, and partly because it says:

“Twitter UK is included in an Irish Company and is incorporated in the Republic of Ireland. It does pursue economic activity through a fixed establishment in the UK but that relates to income through sales and marketing with the main activity being routed through Ireland.”

I very much doubt whether that would stand up in court, since Twitter is clearly providing a service in the United Kingdom, but it would be good if we took the opportunity of this Bill to clarify that the Equality Act applies to Twitter, so that when it applies moderation of content under the Bill, it will not discriminate against any of the protected characteristics.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am currently the acting Chair, looked at this three years ago. We had a Twitter executive before our Committee and I questioned her at length about some of the content that Twitter was content to support in relation to violent threats against women and girls and, on the other hand, some of the content that Twitter took down because it did not like the expression of certain beliefs by feminists or lesbians.

We discovered on the Joint Committee on Human Rights that Twitter’s hateful conduct policy does not include sex as a protected characteristic. It does not reflect the domestic law of the United Kingdom in relation to anti-discrimination law. Back in October 2019, in the Committee’s report on democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, we recommended that Twitter should include sex as a protected characteristic in its hateful conduct policy, but Twitter has not done that. It seems Twitter thinks it is above the domestic law of the United Kingdom when it comes to anti-discrimination.

At that Committee, the Twitter executive assured me that certain violent memes that often appear on Twitter directed against women such as me and against many feminists in the United Kingdom, threatening us with death by shooting, should be removed. However, just in the past 48 hours I have seen an example of Twitter’s refusing to remove that meme. Colleagues should be assured that there is a problem here, and I would like us to direct our minds to it, as the Bill gives us an opportunity to do.

Whether or not Twitter is correctly praying in aid the loophole it says there is in the Equality Act—I think that is questionable—the Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to clarify matters. Clause 3 of clearly brings Twitter and other online service providers within the regulatory scheme of the Bill as a service with

“a significant number of United Kingdom users”.

The Bill squarely recognises that Twitter provides a service in the United Kingdom to UK users, so it is only a very small step to amend the Bill to make it absolutely clear that when it does so it should be subject to the Equality Act. That is what my new clause 24 seeks to do.

I have also tabled new clauses 193 and 191 to ensure that Twitter and other online platforms obey non-discrimination law regarding Ofcom’s production of codes of practice and guidance. The purpose of those amendments is to ensure that Ofcom consults with persons who have expertise in the Equality Act before producing those codes of conduct.

I will not push the new clauses to a vote. I had a very productive meeting with the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who expressed a great deal of sympathy when I explained the position to him. I have been encouraged by the cross-party support for the new clauses, both in discussions before today with Members from all parties and in some of the comments made by various hon. Members today.

I am really hoping that the Government will take my new clauses away and give them very serious consideration, that they will look at the Joint Committee’s report from October 2019 and that either they will adopt these amendments or perhaps somebody else will take them forward in the other place.

[Damian Collins]

I can assure the hon. and learned Lady that I am happy to carry on the dialogue that she had with my predecessor and meet her to discuss this at a further date.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am delighted to hear that. I must tell the Minister that I have had a huge number of approaches from women, from lesbians and from gay men across the United Kingdom who are suffering as a result of Twitter’s moderation policy. There is a lot of support for new clause 24.

Of course, it is important to remember that the Equality Act protects everyone. Gender reassignment is there with the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation. It is really not acceptable for a company such as Twitter, which provides a service in the United Kingdom, to seek to flout and ignore the provisions of our domestic law on anti-discrimination. I am grateful to the Minister for the interest he has shown and for his undertaking to meet me, and I will leave it at that for now.

15:15

[Julian Knight]

We live in the strangest of times, and the evidence of that is that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who has knowledge second to none in this area, has ended up in charge of it. I have rarely seen such an occurrence. I hope he is able to have a long and happy tenure and that the blob does not discover that he knows what he is doing.

I backed the Bill on Second Reading and I will continue to back it. I support most of the content within it and, before I move on to speak to the amendments I have tabled, I want to thank the Government for listening to the recommendations of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair. The Government have accepted eight of the Committee’s key recommendations, demonstrating that the Committee is best placed to provide Parliamentary scrutiny of DCMS Bills as they pass through this House and after they are enacted.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe chaired, and the Public Bill Committee, which has improved this piece of legislation during its consideration. The Government have rightfully listened to the Select Committee’s established view that it would be inappropriate to establish a permanent joint committee on digital regulation. I also welcome the news that the Government are set to bring forward amendments in the House of Lords to legislate for a new criminal offence for epilepsy trolling, which was recommended by both the Joint Committee and the Select Committee.

That said, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee continues to have concerns around some aspects of the Bill, particularly the lack of provision for funding digital literacy, a key area where we are falling behind in and need to make some progress. However, my primary concern and that of my colleagues on the Committee relates to the powers within this Bill that would, in effect, give the Secretary of State the opportunity to interfere with Ofcom’s role in the issuing of codes of practice to service providers.

It is for that reason that I speak to amendments 44 to 46 standing in my name on the amendment paper. Clause 40, in my view, gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers and would bring into question the future integrity of Ofcom itself. Removing the ability to exercise those powers in clause 39 would mean we could lose clauses 40 and 41, which outline the powers granted and how they would be sent to the House for consideration.

Presently, Ofcom sets out codes of practice under which,

“companies can compete fairly, and businesses and customers benefit from the choice of a broad range of services”.

Under this Bill Ofcom, which, I remind the House, is an independent media regulator, will be required to issue codes of practice to service providers, for example codes outlining measures that would enable services to comply with duties to mitigate the presence of harmful content.

Currently, codes of practice from Ofcom are presented to the House for consideration “as soon as practicable”, something I support. My concern is the powers given in this Bill that allow the Secretary of State to reject the draft codes of practice and to send them back to Ofcom before this House knows the recommendations exist, let alone having a chance to consider or debate them.

I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who is not in his place but who was a very fine Minister during his time in the Department. To answer his query on the written ministerial statement and the letter written to my Committee on this matter, I say to him and to those on the Front Bench that if the Government disagree with what Ofcom is saying, they can bring the matter to the House and explain that disagreement. That would allow things to be entirely transparent and open, allow greater scrutiny rather than less, and allow for less delay than would be the case if there is forever that ping-pong between the Secretary of State and Ofcom until it gets its work right.

I want to make it clear that the DCMS Committee and I believe that this is nothing more than a power grab by the Executive. I am proud that in western Europe we have a free press without any interference from Government, and I believe that the Bill, if constituted in this particular form, has the potential to damage that relationship—I say potential, because I do not believe that is the intention of what is being proposed here, but there is the potential for the Bill to jeopardise that relationship in the long term. That is why I hope that Members will consider supporting my amendments, and I will outline why they should do so.

As William Perrin, a trustee of the Carnegie Trust UK, made clear in evidence to my Committee,

“the underpinning convention of regulation of media in Western Europe is that there is an independent regulator and the Executive does not interfere in their day to day decision-making for very good reason.” Likewise, Dr Edina Harbinja, a senior lecturer at Aston University, raised concerns that the Bill made her

“fear that Ofcom’s independence may be compromised”

and that

“similar powers are creeping into other law reform pieces and proposals, such as…data protection”.

My amendments seek to cut red tape, bureaucracy and endless recurring loops that in some cases may result in significant delays in Ofcom managing to get some codes of practice approved. The amendments will allow the codes to come directly to this House for consideration by Members without another level of direct interference from the Secretary of State. Let me make it very clear that this is not a comment on any Secretary of State, at any time in the past, but in some of these cases I expect that Ofcom will require a speedy turnaround to get these codes of practices approved—for instance, measures that it wishes to bring forward to better safeguard children online. In addition, the Secretary of State has continually made it clear in our Select Committee hearings that she is a great supporter of more parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore hope that the Government will support my amendment so that we do not end up in a position where future Secretaries of State could potentially prevent draft codes coming before the House due to endless delays and recurring loops.

I also want to make it abundantly clear that my amendment does not seek to prevent the Secretary of State from having any involvement in the formulation of new codes of practice from Ofcom. Indeed, as Ofcom has rightly pointed out, the Secretary of State is already a statutory consultee when Ofcom wishes to draft new codes of practice or amend those that already exist. She can also, every three years, set out guidelines that Ofcom would have to follow when creating such codes of practice. The Government therefore already play a crucial role in influencing the genesis and the direction of travel in this area.

On Friday the Secretary of State wrote to my office outlining some of the concerns shared by Members of this House and providing steps on how her Department would address those concerns. In her letter, she recognises that the unprecedented powers awarded to the Secretary of State are of great concern to Members and goes on to state that

“regulatory independence is vital to the success of the framework”.

I have been informed that in order to appease some of these concerned Members, the Government intend to bring forward amendments around the definitions of “exceptional circumstances” and “public policy”, as referenced earlier. These definitions, including “economic policy” and “business interests”, are so broad that I cannot think of anything that would not be covered by these exceptional circumstances.

If the Secretary of State accepts our legitimate concerns, surely Ministers should accept my amendments becoming part of the Bill today, leaving a cleaner process rather than an increasingly complex system of unscrutinised ministerial interference with the regulator. The DCMS Committee and I are very clear that clause 40 represents a power grab by the Government that potentially threatens the independence of Ofcom, which is a fundamental principle of ensuring freedom of speech and what should be a key component of this legislation. The Government must maintain their approach to ensuring independent, effective, and trustworthy regulation.

I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I hope my concerns will spark not just thoughts and further engagement from Ministers but legislative action in another place as the Bill progresses, because I really do think that this could hole the Bill under the waterline and has the potential for real harm to our democratic way of life going forward as we tackle this whole new area.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to my new clause 8, which would place a duty on all internet site providers regulated by this Bill to prevent individuals from encountering adverts for cosmetic procedures that do not contain disclaimers as to health risks of the procedure or include certified service quality indicators.

I have been campaigning for a number of years for better regulation of the non-surgical and cosmetic surgery industry, which is frankly a wild west in terms of lack of regulation, only made worse by the internet. I pay tribute to my constituent Dawn Knight, who has been a fierce campaigner in this area. We are slowly making progress. I thank the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for his work in bringing amendments on licensing to the Bill that became the Health and Care Act 2022. That is now out for consultation. It is a first, welcome step in legislation to tame the wild west that is the cosmetic surgery sector. My amendment would enhance and run parallel to that piece of legislation.

Back in 2013, Sir Bruce Keogh first raised the issue of advertising in his recommendations on regulation of the cosmetic surgery industry, saying that cosmetic and aesthetic procedures adverts should be provided with a disclaimer or kitemark in a manner similar to that around alcohol or gambling regulation. Years ago, adverts were in newspapers and magazines. Now, increasingly, the sector’s main source of advertising revenue is the internet.

People will say, “Why does this matter?” Well, it links to some of the other things that have been raised in this debate. The first is safety. We do not have any data, for which I have been calling for a while, on how many surgical and non-surgical aesthetic procedures in the UK go wrong, but I know who picks up the tab for it—it is us as taxpayers as the NHS has to put a lot of those procedures right. The horrendous cases that I have seen over the years provide just cause for why people need to be in full control of the facts before they undertake these procedures.

This is a boom industry. It is one where decisions on whether to go ahead with a procedure are not usually made with full information on the potential risks. It is sold, certainly online, as something similar to buying any other service. As we all know, any medical procedure has health risks connected to it, and people should be made aware of them in the adverts that are now online. I have tried writing to Facebook and others to warn them about some of the more spurious claims that some of the providers are making, but have never got a reply from Facebook. This is about patient safety. My amendment would ensure that these adverts at least raise in people’s minds the fact that there is a health risk to these procedures.

Again, people will say, “Why does this matter?” Well, the target for this sector is young people. As I said, a few years ago these adverts were in newspapers and magazines; now they are on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and so on, and we know what they are selling: they are bombarding young people with the perfect body image.

We only have to look at the Mental Health Foundation’s report on this subject to see the effect the industry is having on young people, with 37% feeling upset and 31% feeling ashamed of their own body image. That is causing anxiety and mental health problems, but it is also forcing some people to go down the route of cosmetic surgery—both surgical and non-surgical—when there is nothing wrong with their body. It is the images, often photoshopped and sadly promoted by certain celebrities, that force them down that route.

Someone has asked me before, “Do you want to close down the cosmetic surgery industry?” I am clear that I do not; what I want is for anyone going forward for these procedures to be in full control of the facts. Personally, if I had a blank sheet of paper, I would say that people should have mental health assessments before they undertake these procedures. If we had a kitemark on adverts, as Sir Bruce Keogh recommended, or something that actually said, “This is not like buying any other service. This is a medical procedure that could go wrong”, people would be in full awareness of the facts before they went forward.

15:30

It is a modest proposal for the Bill, but it could have a major impact on the industry out there at the moment, which for many years has been completely unregulated. I do not propose pressing my new clause to a vote, but will the Minister work with his Department of Health and Social Care colleagues? Following the Health and Care Act 2022, there is a consultation on the regulations, and we could make a real difference for those I am worried about and concerned for—the more and more young people who are being bombarded with these adverts. In some cases, dangerous and potentially life-threatening procedures are being sold to them as if they are just like any other service, and they are not.

[Damian Collins]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point and, as he knows, there is a wider ongoing Government review related to advertising online, which is a very serious issue. I assure him that we will follow up with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to discuss the points he has raised.

[Mr Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister and I will be keeping a beady eye to see how far things go. The proposal would make a difference. It is a simple but effective way of protecting people, especially young people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Very good, that was wonderfully brief.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

May I join others in welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) to his place on the Front Bench? He brings a considerable amount of expertise. I also, although it is a shame he is not here to hear me say nice things about him, pay tribute, as others have, to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). I had the opportunity to work with him, his wonderful team of officials and wonderful officials at the Home Office on some aspects of this Bill, and it was a great pleasure to do so. As we saw again today, his passion for this subject is matched only by his grasp of its fine detail.

I particularly echo what my hon. Friend said about algorithmic promotion, because if we address that, alongside what the Government have rightly done on ID verification options and user empowerment, we would address some of the core wiring and underpinnings at an even more elemental level of online harm.

I want to talk about two subjects briefly. One is fraud, and the other is disinformation. Opposition amendment 20 refers to disinformation, but that amendment is not necessary because of the amendments that the Government are bringing to the National Security Bill to address state-sponsored disinformation. I refer the House in particular to Government amendment 9 to that Bill. That in turn amends this Bill—it is the link, or so-called bridge, between the two. Disinformation is a core part of state threat activity and it is one of the most disturbing, because it can be done at huge volume and at very low cost, and it can be quite hard to detect. When someone has learned how to change the way people think, that makes that part of their weaponry look incredibly valuable to them.

We often talk about this in the context of elections. I think we are actually pretty good—when I say “we”, I mean our country, some other countries and even the platforms themselves—at addressing disinformation in the context of the elections themselves: the process of voting, eligibility to vote and so on. However, first, that is often not the purpose of disinformation at election time and, secondly, most disinformation occurs outside election times. Although our focus on interference with the democratic process is naturally heightened coming up to big democratic events, it is actually a 365-day-a-year activity.

There are multiple reasons and multiple modes for foreign states to engage in that activity. In fact, in many ways, the word “disinformation” is a bit unsatisfactory because a much wider set of things comes under the heading of information operations. That can range from simple untruths to trying to sow many different versions of an event, particularly a foreign policy or wartime event, to confuse the audience, who are left thinking, “Oh well, whatever story I’m being told by the BBC, my newspaper, or whatever it is, they are all much of a muchness.” Those states are competing for truth, even though in reality, of course, there is one truth. Sometimes the aim is to big up their own country, or to undermine faith in a democracy like ours, or the effectiveness of free societies.

Probably the biggest category of information operations is when there is not a particular line to push at all, but rather the disinformer is seeking to sow division or deepen division in our society, often by telling people things that they already believe, but more loudly and more aggressively to try to make them dislike some other group in society more. The purpose, ultimately, is to destabilise a free and open society such as ours and that has a cancerous effect. We talk sometimes of disinformation being spread by foreign states. Actually, it is not spread by foreign states; it is seeded by foreign states and then spread usually by people here. So they create these fake personas to plant ideas and then other people, seeing those messages and personas, unwittingly pick them up and pass them on themselves. It is incredibly important that we tackle that for the health of our democracy and our society.

The other point I want to mention briefly relates to fraud and the SNP amendments in the following group, but also Government new clause 14 in this group. I strongly support what the Government have done, during the shaping of the Bill, on fraud; there have been three key changes on fraud. The first was to bring user-generated content fraud into the scope of the Bill. That is very important for a particularly wicked form of fraud known as romance fraud. The second was to bring fraudulent advertising into scope, which is particularly important for categories of fraud such as investment fraud and e-commerce. The third big change was to make fraud a priority offence in the Bill, meaning that it is the responsibility of the platforms not just to remove that content when they are made aware of it, but to make strenuous efforts to try to stop it appearing in front of their users in the first place. Those are three big changes that I greatly welcome.

There are three further things I think the Government will need to do on fraud. First, there is a lot of fraudulent content beyond categories 1 and 2A as defined in the Online Safety Bill, so we are going to have to find ways—proportionate ways—to make sure that that fraudulent content is suppressed when it appears elsewhere, but without putting great burdens on the operators of all manner of community websites, village newsletters and so on. That is where the DCMS online advertising programme has an incredibly important part to play.

The second thing is about the huge variety of channels and products. Telecommunications are obviously important, alongside online content, but even within online, as the so-called metaverse develops further, with the internet of things and the massive potential for defrauding people through deep fakes and so on, we need to be one step ahead of these technologies. I hope that in DCMS my hon. Friends will look to create a future threats unit that seeks to do that.

Thirdly, we need to make sure everybody’s incentives are aligned on fraud. At present, the banks reimburse people who are defrauded and I hope that rate of reimbursement will shortly be increasing. They are not the only ones involved in the chain that leads to people being defrauded and often they are not the primary part of that chain. It is only right and fair, as well as economically efficient, to make sure the other parts of the chain that are involved share in that responsibility. The Bill makes sure their incentives are aligned because they have to take proportionate steps to stop fraudulent content appearing in front of customers, but we need to look at how we can sharpen that up to make sure everybody’s incentives are absolutely as one.

This is an incredibly important Bill. It has been a long time coming and I congratulate everybody, starting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and others who have been closely involved in creating it. I wish my hon. Friend the Minister the best of luck.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now introduce a six-minute limit on speeches. It may come down but, if Members can take less than six minutes, please do so. I intend to call the Minister at 4.20 pm.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

May I, on behalf of my party, welcome the Minister to his place?

I have been reflecting on the contributions made so far and why we are here. I am here because I know of a female parliamentary candidate who pulled out of that process because of the online abuse. I also know of somebody not in my party—it would be unfair to name her or her party—who stood down from public life in Scotland mostly because of online abuse. This is something that threatens democracy, which we surely hold most dear.

Most of us are in favour of the Bill. It is high time that we had legislation that keeps users safe online, tackles illegal content and seeks to protect freedom of speech, while also enforcing the regulation of online spaces. It is clear to me from the myriad amendments that the Bill as it currently stands is not complete and does not go far enough. That is self-evident. It is a little vague on some issues.

I have tabled two amendments, one of which has already been mentioned and is on media literacy. My party and I believe Ofcom should have a duty to promote and improve the media literacy of the public in relation to regulated user-to-user services and search services. That was originally in the Bill but it has gone. Media literacy is mentioned only in the context of risk assessments. There is no active requirement for internet companies to promote media literacy.

The pandemic proved that a level of skill is needed to navigate the online world. I offer myself as an example. The people who help me out in my office here and in my constituency are repeatedly telling me what I can and cannot do and keeping me right. I am of a certain age, but that shows where education is necessary.

My second amendment is on end-to-end encryption. I do not want anything in this Bill to prevent providers of online services from protecting their users’ privacy through end-to-end encryption. It does provide protection to individuals and if it is circumvented or broken criminals and hostile foreign states can breach security. Privacy means security.

There are also concerns about the use of the word “harm” in the Bill. It remains vague and threatens to capture a lot of unintended content. I look forward to seeing what comes forward from the Government on that front. It focuses too much on content as opposed to activity and system design. Regulation of social media must respect the rights to privacy and free expression of those who use it. However, as the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) said, that does not mean a laissez-faire approach: bullying and abuse prevent people from expressing themselves and must at all costs be stamped out, not least because of the two examples I mentioned at the start of my contribution.

As I have said before, the provisions on press exemption are poorly drafted. Under the current plans, the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today, on which I have said quite a bit in this place in the past, would qualify as a recognised news publisher and would therefore be exempt from regulation. That cannot be right. It is the same news channel that had its licence revoked by Ofcom.

I will help you by being reasonably brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, and conclude by saying that as many Members have said, the nature of the Bill means that the Secretary of State will have unprecedented powers to decide crucial legislation later. I speak—I will say it again—as a former chair of the Scottish Parliament’s statutory instruments committee, so I know from my own experience that all too often, instruments that have far-reaching effects are not given the consideration in this place that they should receive. Such instruments should be debated by the rest of us in the Commons.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the myriad amendments to the Bill make it clear that the rest of us are not willing to allow it to remain so inherently undemocratic. We are going in the right direction, but a lot can be done to improve it. I wait with great interest to see how the Minister responds and what is forthcoming in the period ahead.

15:45

[Andrew Percy]

This has been an interesting debate on a Bill I have followed closely. I have been particularly struck by some of the arguments that claim the Bill is an attack on freedom of speech. I always listen intently to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), but I think they are wrong in the conclusions they have reached about legal but harmful content. Indeed, many of the criticisms that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West made of the various platforms were criticisms of the present situation, and that is exactly why I think this legislation will improve the position. However, those Members raised important points that I am sure will be responded to. I have also been a strong advocate of the inclusion of small but high-harm platforms, as the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), both know—we have all had those discussions.

In the time I have, I want to focus principally on the issue of search and on new clauses 9 and 10, which stand in my name. As the shadow Minister has highlighted, last week we were—like many people in this place, perhaps—sent the most remarkable online prompt, which was to simply search Google for the words “desk ornament”. The top images displayed in response to that very mundane and boring search were of swastikas, SS bolts and other Nazi memorabilia presented as desk ornaments. Despite there having been awareness of that fact since, I believe, the previous weekend, and even though Google is making millions of pounds in seconds from advertising, images promoting Nazism were still available for all to see as a result of those searches.

When he gave evidence to the Bill Committee recently, Danny Stone, the Antisemitism Policy Trust’s very capable chief executive, pointed out that Amazon’s Alexa had used just one comment posted by one individual on Amazon’s website to inform potentially millions of users who cared to ask that George Soros was responsible for all of the world’s evils, and that Alexa had used a comment from another website to inform those who searched for it that the humanitarian group the White Helmets was an illicit operation founded by a British spy.

As we have seen throughout the covid pandemic, similar results come up in response to other searches, such as those around vaccines and covid. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has previously demonstrated that Microsoft Bing, the platform that lies behind Alexa, was directing users to hateful searches such as “Jews are bastards” through autocompletes, as well as pointing people to homophobic stories. We even had the sickening situation of Google’s image carousel highlighting Jewish baby strollers in response to people searching for portable barbecues.

Our own Alexa searches highlighted the issue some time ago. Users who asked Alexa “Do Jews control the media?” were responded to with a quote from a website called Jew Watch—that should tell Members all they need to know about the nature of the platform—saying that Jews control not only the media, but the financial system too. The same problem manifests itself across search platforms in other languages, as we highlighted not so long ago with Siri in Spanish. When asked, “Do the Jews control the media?” she responds with an article that states that Jews do indeed control international media. This goes on and on, irrespective of whether the search is voice or text-based.

The largest search companies in the world are falling at the first hurdle when it comes to risk assessing for harms on their platform. That is the key point when we ask for lawful but harmful content to be responded to. It is about risk assessment—requiring companies that do not respect borders, operate globally and are in many ways more powerful than Governments to risk assess and warn about lawful but deeply harmful content that all of us in the House would be disgusted by.

At present, large traditional search services including Google and Microsoft Bing, and voice search assistants including Alexa and Siri, will be exempted from having to risk assess their systems and address harm to adults, despite the fact that other large user-to-user services will have to do so. How can it be possible that Google does not have to act, when Meta—Facebook—and Twitter do? That does not seem consistent with the aims of the Bill.

There is a lot more that I would like to have said on the Bill. I welcome the written ministerial statement last week in relation to small but high-harm platforms. I hope that as the Bill progresses to the other place, we can look again at search. Some of the content generated is truly appalling, even though it may very well be considered lawful.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I join everyone else in the House in welcoming the Minister to his place.

I rise to speak in support of amendments 15 and 16. At the core of this issue is the first duty of any Government: to keep people safe. Too often in debates, which can become highly technical, we lose sight of that fact. We are not just talking about technology and regulation; we are talking about real lives and real people. It is therefore incumbent on all of us in this place to have that at the forefront of our minds when discussing such legislation.

Labelling social media as the wild west of today is hardly controversial—that is plain and obvious for all to see. There has been a total failure on the part of social media companies to make their platforms safe for everyone to use, and that needs to change. Regulation is not a dirty word, but a crucial part of ensuring that as the internet plays a bigger role in every generation’s lives, it meets the key duty of keeping people safe. It has been a decade since we first heard of this Bill, and almost four years since the Government committed to it, so I am afraid that there is nothing even slightly groundbreaking about the Bill as it is today. We have seen progress being made in this area around the world, and the UK is falling further and further behind.

Of particular concern to me is the impact on children and young people. As a mother, I worry for the world that my young daughter will grow up in, and I will do all I can in this place to ensure that children’s welfare is at the absolute forefront. I can see no other system or institution that children are allowed to engage with that has such a wanting lack of safeguards and regulation. If there was a faulty slide in a playground, it would be closed off and fixed. If a sports field was covered with glass or litter, that would be reported and dealt with. Whether we like it or not, social media has become the streets our children hang out in, the world they grow up in and the playground they use. It is about time we started treating it with the same care and attention.

There are far too many holes in the Bill that allow for the continued exploitation of children. Labour’s amendments 15 and 16 tackle the deeply troubling issue of “breadcrumbing”. That is where child abusers use social networks to lay trails to illegal content elsewhere online and share videos of abuse edited to fall within content moderation guidelines. The amendments would give the regulators powers to tackle that disgusting practice and ensure that there is a proactive response to it. They would bring into regulatory scope the millions of interactions with accounts that actively enable child abuse. Perhaps most importantly, they would ensure that social media companies tackled child abuse at the earliest possible stage.

In its current form, even with Government amendment 14, the Bill merely reinforces companies’ current focus only on material that explicitly reaches the criminal threshold. That is simply not good enough. Rather than acknowledging that issue, Government amendments 71 and 72 let social media companies off the hook. They remove the requirement for companies to apply their terms and conditions “consistently”. That was addressed very eloquently by the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who highlighted that Government amendment 14 simply does not go far enough.

[Damian Collins]

On the amendments that the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), spoke to, the word “consistently” has not been removed from the text. There is new language that follows the use of “consistently”, but the use of that word will still apply in the context of the companies’ duties to act against illegal content.

[Feryal Clark]

I welcome the Minister’s clarification and look forward to the amendments being made to the Bill. Other than tying one of our hands behind our back in relation to trying to keep children safe, however, the proposals as they stand do not achieve very much. This will undermine the entire regulatory system, practically rendering it completely ineffective.

Although I welcome the Bill and some of the Government amendments, it still lacks a focus on ensuring that tech companies have the proper systems in place to fulfil their duty of care and keep our children safe. The children of this country deserve better. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and urge Government Members to support them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We will stick with a time limit of six minutes, but I put everybody on notice that we may have to move that down to five.

[Adam Afriyie]

I very much welcome the Bill, which has been a long time in the making. It has travelled from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and now to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins); I say a huge thank you to them for their work. The Bill required time because this is a very complex matter. There are huge dangers and challenges in terms of committing offences against freedom of speech. I am glad that Ministers have recognised that and that we are very close to an outcome.

The Bill is really about protection—it is about protecting our children and our society from serious harms—and nobody here would disagree that we want to protect children from harm online. That is what 70% to 80% of the Bill achieves. Nobody would disagree that we need to prevent acts of terror and incitement to violence. We are all on the same page on that across the House. What we are talking about today, and what we have been talking about over the past several months, are nips and tucks to try to improve elements of the Bill. The framework appears to be generally correct. We need to drill down into some of the details to ensure that the areas that each of us is concerned about are dealt with in the Bill we finally produce, as it becomes an Act of Parliament.

There are several amendments tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members. I can only canter through them cursorily in the four minutes and 30 seconds remaining to me, but I will put these points on the record in the hope that the Minister will respond positively to many of them.

Amendments 48 and 49 would ensure that providers can decide to keep user-generated content online, taking no action if that content is not harmful. In effect, the Government have accepted those amendments by tabling amendment 71, so I thank the Minister for that.

My amendment 50 says that the presumption should be tipped further in favour of freedom of expression and debate by ensuring that under their contractual terms of service, except in particular circumstances, providers are obliged to leave content online. I emphasise that I am not talking about harmful or illegal content; amendment 50 seeks purely to address content that may be controversial but does not cross the line.

16:00

I turn to amendment 51. It appears that the Bill protects the media, journalists, Governments and us politicians, while providers have some protections against being fined unjustly. In many ways, the only people who are not protected are the public—the users with user-generated legal content. It seems to me that we need to increase the powers for citizens to get an outcome if their content is taken down inaccurately, incorrectly or inappropriately. We would do well to look at ensuring, as amendment 51 would, that citizens can also seek compensation. Tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions, are about to go to the regulator and to the Government in a form of quasi-taxation, so there needs to be a mechanism for a judge to decide that if somebody has been harmed by the inappropriate removal of legal content, they can get some redress.

Government amendment 94 is quite interesting. I can certainly see the reason for it and the purpose that it seeks to achieve, but it will require providers to take into account the entire criminal code. Effectively, they will have to act as a policeman, policing all internet content against all legislation. I am sure that that is not the intent behind amendment 94. I simply urge the Government to take a look at my amendment 52, which would ensure that relevant offences include only those specified, so that providers do not need to understand the entire criminal code.

The primary area of concern, which many other hon. Members have voiced, is that it looks as if the Secretary of State will be given the power to specify priority harms without that decision necessarily being passed on the Floor of the House. It seems to me that it is Parliament that should primarily be making regulations and legislation, so I really urge the Government to take another look and ensure that if a Secretary of State seeks to modify the priority harms or specify certain content as harmful or illegal, it is debated in the Chamber of the House of Commons. That is the primary function of this place.

Technology moves very quickly, so personally I would welcome an annual debate on areas that may need improvement. Now that we are outside the European Union and have autonomy, those are the kinds of things that we must decide in this Chamber.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 25 and 26 in my name. The Government rightly seek to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online, especially for our children, and some of their amendments will start to address previous gaps in the Bill. However, I believe that the Bill still falls short in its aim not only to protect children from harm and abuse, but, importantly, to empower and enable young people to make the most of the online world.

I welcome the comments that the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) made about how we achieve the balance between rights and protecting children from harm. I also welcome his amendments on children’s wellbeing, which seek to achieve that balance.

With one in five children going online, keeping them safe is more difficult but more important than ever. I speak not only as the mother of two very young children who are growing up with iPads in their hands, but as—like everyone else in the Chamber—a constituency Member of Parliament who speaks regularly to school staff and parents who are concerned about the harms caused by social media in particular, but also those caused by games and other services to which children have access.

The Bill proffers a broad and vague definition of content that is legal yet harmful. As many have already said, it should not be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, in secondary legislation, to make decisions about how and where to draw the line; Parliament should set clear laws that address specific, well-defined harms, based on strong evidence. The clear difficulty that the Government have in defining what content is harmful could have been eased had the Bill focused less on removing harmful content and more on why service providers allow harmful content to spread so quickly and widely. Last year, the 5Rights Foundation conducted an experiment in which it created several fake Instagram profiles for children aged between 14 and 17. When the accounts were searched for the term “skinny”, while a warning pop-up message appeared, among the top results were

“accounts promoting eating disorders and diets, as well as pages advertising appetite-suppressant gummy bears.”

Ultimately, the business models of these services profit from the spread of such content. New clause 26 requires the Government and Ofcom to focus on ensuring that internet services are safe by design. They should not be using algorithms that give prominence to harmful content. The Bill should focus on harmful systems rather than on harmful content.

[Damian Collins]

It does focus on systems as well as content. We often talk about content because it is the exemplar for the failure of the systems, but the systems are entirely within the scope of the Bill.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, but there are still many organisations out there, not least the Children’s Charities Coalition, that feel that the Bill does not go far enough on safety by design. Concerns have rightly been expressed about freedom of expression, but if we focus on design rather than content, we can protect freedom of expression while keeping children safe at the same time. New clause 26 is about tackling harms downstream, safeguarding our freedoms and, crucially, expanding participation among children and young people. I fear that we will always be on the back foot when trying to tackle harmful content. I fear that regulators or service providers will become over-zealous in taking down what they consider to be harmful content, removing legal content from their platforms just in case it is harmful, or introducing age gates that deny children access to services outright.

Of course, some internet services are clearly inappropriate for children, and illegal content should be removed—I think we all agree on that—but let us not lock children out of the digital world or let their voices be silenced. Forty-three per cent. of girls hold back their opinions on social media for fear of criticism. Children need a way to exercise their rights. Even the Children’s Commissioner for England has said that heavy-handed parental controls that lock children out of the digital world are not the solution.

I tabled new clause 25 because the Bill’s scope, focusing on user-to-user and search services, is too narrow and not sufficiently future-proof. It should cover all digital technology that is likely to be accessed by children. The term

“likely to be accessed by children”

appears in the age-appropriate design code to ensure that the privacy of children’s data is protected. However, that more expansive definition is not included in the Bill, which imposes duties on only a subset of services to keep children safe. Given rapidly expanding technologies such as the metaverse—which is still in its infancy—and augmented reality, as well as addictive apps and games that promote loot boxes and gambling-type behaviour, we need a much more expansive definition

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for keeping her powder dry and deferring her speech until the next group of amendments, so Members now have five minutes each.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 15 to 19 in the names of my hon. Friends and, later, amendments 11 and 12 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright).

As we discussed at great length in Committee—my first Bill Committee; a nice simple one to get me started—the Bill has a number of critical clauses to address the atrocious incidence of child sexual expectation online. Amendments 15 to 19 are aimed at strengthening those protections and helping to ensure that the internet is a safer place for every young person. Amendments 15 and 16 will bring into scope tens of millions of interactions with accounts that actively enable the discovery and sharing of child abuse material. Amendments 17 to 19 will tackle the issue of cross-platform abuse, where abuse starts on one platform and continues on another. These are urgent measures that children’s charities and advocacy groups have long called for, and I seriously hope this House will support them.

Last week, along with the shadow Minister and the then Minister, I attended an extremely moving reception hosted by one of those organisations, the NSPCC. It included a speech by Rachel, a mother of a victim of online grooming and child sexual exploitation. She outlined in a very powerful way how her son Ben was forced from the age of 13 to take and share photos of himself that he did not want to, and to enter Skype chats with multiple men. He was then blackmailed with those images and subjected to threats of violence to his family. Rachel said to us:

“We blamed ourselves and I thought we had failed…I felt like I hadn’t done enough to protect our children”.

I want to say to you, Rachel, that you did not fail Ben. Responsibility for what happened to Ben lies firmly with the perpetrators of these heinous crimes, but what did fail Ben and has failed our young people for far too long is the lack of urgency and political will to regulate the wild west of the internet. No one is pretending that this is an easy task, and we are dealing with a highly complex piece of legislation, but if we are to protect future Bens we have to strengthen this Bill as much as possible.

Another young woman, Danielle, spoke during the NSPCC event. She had been a victim of online CSE that had escalated into horrific real-world physical and sexual abuse. She told us how she has to live with the fear that her photos may appear online and be shared without her knowledge or control. She is a strong young woman who is moving on with her life with huge resilience, but her trauma is very real. Amendment 19 would ensure that proportionate measures are in place to prevent the encountering or dissemination of child abuse content—for example, through intelligence sharing of new and emerging threats. This will protect Danielle and people like her, giving them some comfort that measures are in place to stop the spread of these images and to place far more onus on the platforms to get on top of this horrific practice.

Amendments 11 and 12, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, will raise the threshold for non-broadcast media outlets to benefit from the recognised news publisher exemption by requiring that such publishers are subject to complaints procedures that are both suitable and sufficient. I support those amendments, which, while not perfect, are a step forward in ensuring that this exception is protected from abuse.

I am also pleased that the Government have listened to some of my and other Members’ concerns and have now agreed to bring forward amendments at a later stage to exclude sanctioned publishers such as Russia Today from accessing this exemption. However, there are hundreds if not thousands of so-called news publishers across the internet that pose a serious threat, from the far right and also from Islamist, antisemitic and dangerous conspiratorial extremism. We must act to ensure that journalistic protections are not abused by those wishing to spread harm. Let us be clear that this is as much about protecting journalism as it is about protecting users from harm.

We cannot overstate the seriousness of getting this right. Carving out protections within the Bill creates a risk that if we do not get the criteria for this exemption right, harmful and extremist websites based internationally will simply establish offices in the UK, just so that they too can access this powerful new protection. Amendments 11 and 12 will go some way towards ensuring that news publishers are genuine, but I recognise that the amendments are not the perfect solution and that more work is needed as the Bill progresses in the other place.

In closing, I hope that we can find consensus today around the importance of protecting children online and restricting harmful content. It is not always easy, but I know we can find common ground in this place, as we saw during the Committee stage of the Bill when I was delighted to gain cross-party support to secure the introduction of Zach’s law, inspired by my young constituent Zach Eagling, which will outlaw the dreadful practice of epilepsy trolling online.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

You will resume your seat no later than 4.20 pm. We will therefore not put the clock on you.

16:14

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will try to avoid too much preamble, but I thank the former Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for all his work in Committee and for listening to my nearly 200 contributions, for which I apologise. I welcome the new Minister to his place.

As time has been short today, I am keen to meet the Minister to discuss my new clauses and amendments. If he cannot meet me, I would be keen for him to meet the NSPCC, in particular, on some of my concerns.

Amendment 196 is about using proactive technology to identify CSEA content, which we discussed at some length in Committee. The hon. Member for Croydon South made it very clear that we should use scanning to check for child sexual abuse images. My concern is that new clause 38, tabled by the Lib Dems, might exclude proactive scanning to look for child sexual abuse images. I hope that the Government do not lurch in that direction, because we need proactive scanning to keep children protected.

New clause 18 specifically addresses child user empowerment duties. The Bill currently requires that internet service providers have user empowerment duties for adults but not for children, which seems bizarre. Children need to be able to say yes or no. They should be able to make their own choices about excluding content and not receiving unsolicited comments or approaches from anybody not on their friend list, for example. Children should be allowed to do that, but the Bill explicitly says that user empowerment duties apply only to adults. New clause 18 is almost a direct copy of the adult user empowerment duties, with a few extra bits added. It is important that children have access to user empowerment.

Amendment 190 addresses habit-forming features. I have had conversations about this with a number of organisations, including The Mix. I regularly accessed its predecessor, The Site, more than 20 years ago, and it is concerned that 42% of young people surveyed by YoungMinds show addiction-like behaviour in what they are accessing on social media. There is nothing on that in this Bill. The Mix, the Mental Health Foundation, the British Psychological Society, YoungMinds and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are all unhappy about the Bill’s failure to regulate habit-forming features. It is right that we provide support for our children, and it is right that our children are able to access the internet safely, so it is important to address habit-forming behaviour.

Amendment 162 addresses child access assessments. The Bill currently says that providers need to do a child access assessment only if there is a “significant” number of child users. I do not think that is enough and I do not think it is appropriate, and the NSPCC agrees. The amendment would remove the word “significant.” OnlyFans, for example, should not be able to dodge the requirement to child risk assess its services because it does not have a “significant” number of child users. These sites are massively harmful, and we need to ensure changes are made so they cannot wriggle out of their responsibilities.

Finally, amendment 161 is about live, one-to-one oral communications. I understand why the Government want to exempt live, one-to-one oral communications, as they want to ensure that phone calls continue to be phone calls, which is totally fine, but they misunderstand the nature of things like Discord and how people communicate on Fortnite, for example. People are having live, one-to-one oral communications, some of which are used to groom children. We cannot explicitly exempt them and allow a loophole for perpetrators of abuse in this Bill. I understand what the Government are trying to do, but they need to do it in a different way so that children can be protected from the grooming behaviour we see on some online platforms.

Once again, if the Minister cannot accept these amendments, I would be keen to meet him. If he cannot meet me, will he please meet the NSPCC? We cannot explicitly exempt those and allow a loophole for perpetrators of abuse in this Bill. I understand what the Government are trying to do, but they need to do it in a different way, in order that children can be protected from that grooming behaviour that we see on some of those platforms that are coming online. Once again, if the Minister cannot accept these amendments, I would be keen to meet him. If he cannot do that, I ask that the NSPCC have a meeting with him.

[Damian Collins]

We have had a wide-ranging debate of passion and expert opinion from Members in all parts of the House, which shows the depth of interest in this subject, and the depth of concern that the Bill is delivered and that we make sure we get it right. I speak as someone who only a couple of days ago became the Minister for online safety, although I was previously involved in engaging with the Government on this subject. As I said in my opening remarks, this has been an iterative process, where Members from across the House have worked successfully with the Government to improve the Bill. That is the spirit in which we should complete its stages, both in the Commons and in the Lords, and look at how we operate this regime when it has been created.

I wish to start by addressing remarks made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the shadow Minister, and by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) about violence against women and girls. There is a slight assumption that if the Government do not accept an amendment that writes, “Violence against women and girls” into the priority harms in the Bill, somehow the Bill does not address that issue. I think we would all agree that that is not the case. The provisions on harmful content that is directed at any individual, particularly the new harms offences approved by the Law Commission, do create offences in respect of harm that is likely to lead to actual physical harm or severe psychological harm. As the father of a teenage girl, who was watching earlier but has now gone to do better things, I say that the targeting of young girls, particularly vulnerable ones, with content that is likely to make them more vulnerable is one of the most egregious aspects of the way social media works. It is right that we are looking to address serious levels of self-harm and suicide in the Bill and in the transparency requirements. We are addressing the self-harm and suicide content that falls below the illegal threshold but where a young girl who is vulnerable is being sent content and prompted with content that can make her more vulnerable, could lead her to harm herself or worse. It is absolutely right that that was in the scope of the Bill.

New clause 3, perfectly properly, cites international conventions on violence against women and girls, and how that is defined. At the moment, with the way the Bill is structured, the schedule 7 offences are all based on existing areas of UK law, where there is an existing, clear criminal threshold. Those offences, which are listed extensively, will all apply as priority areas of harm. If there is, through the work of the Law Commission or elsewhere, a clear legal definition of misogyny and violence against women and girls that is not included, I think it should be included within scope. However, if new clause 3 was approved, as tabled, it would be a very different sort of offence, where it would not be as clear where the criminal threshold applied, because it is not cited against existing legislation. My view, and that of the Government, is that existing legislation covers the sorts of offences and breadth of offences that the shadow Minister rightly mentioned, as did other Members. We should continue to look at this—

[Anna McMorrin]

The Minister is not giving accurate information there. Violence against women and girls is defined by article 3 of the Council of Europe convention on preventing violence against women and domestic violence—the Istanbul convention. So there is that definition and it would be valid to put that in the Bill to ensure that all of that is covered.

[Damian Collins]

I was referring to the amendment’s requirement to list that as part of the priority illegal harms. The priority illegal harms set out in the Bill are all based on existing UK Acts of Parliament where there is a clear established criminal threshold—that is the difference. The spirit of what that convention seeks to achieve, which we would support, is reflected in the harm-based offences written into the Bill. The big change in the structure of the Bill since the draft Bill was published—the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill and I pushed for this at the time—is that far more of these offences have been clearly written into the Bill so that it is absolutely clear what they apply to. The new offences proposed by the Law Commission, particularly those relating to self-harm and suicide, are another really important addition. We know what the harms are. We know what we want this Bill to do. The breadth of offences that the hon. Lady and her colleagues have set out is covered in the Bill. But of course as law changes and new offences are put in place, the structure of the Bill, through the inclusion of new schedule 7 on priority offences, gives us the mechanism in the future, through instruments of this House, to add new offences to those primary illegal harms as they occur. I expect that that is what would happen. I believe that the spirit of new clause 3 is reflected in the offences that are written into the Bill.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned Government new clause 14. It is not true that the Government came up with it out of nowhere. There has been extensive consultation with Ofcom and others. The concern is that some social media companies, and some users of services, may have sought to interpret the criminal threshold as being based on whether a court of law has found that an offence has been committed, and only then might they act. Actually, we want them to pre-empt that, based on a clear understanding of where the legal threshold is. That is how the regulatory codes work. So it is an attempt, not to weaken the provision but to bring clarity to the companies and the regulator over the application.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) raised an important point with regard to the Modern Slavery Act. As the Bill has gone along, we have included existing migration offences and trafficking offences. I would be happy to meet him further to discuss that aspect. Serious offences that exist in law should have an application, either as priority harms or as non-priority legal harms, and we should consider how we do that. I do not know whether he intends to press the amendment, but either way, I would be happy to meet him and to discuss this further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, raised an important matter with regard to the power of the Secretary of State, which was a common theme raised by several other Members. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire rightly quoted me, or my Committee’s report, back to me—always a chilling prospect for a politician. I think we have seen significant improvement in the Bill since the draft Bill was published. There was a time when changes to the codes could be made by the negative procedure; now they have to be by a positive vote of both Houses. The Government have recognised that they need to define the exceptional circumstances in which that provision might be used, and to define specifically the areas that are set out. I accept from the Chair of the Select Committee and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam that those things could be interpreted quite broadly—maybe more broadly than people would like—but I believe that progress has been made in setting out those powers.

I would also say that this applies only to the period when the codes of practice are being agreed, before they are laid before Parliament. This is not a general provision. I think sometimes there has been a sense that the Secretary of State can at any time pick up the phone to Ofcom and have it amend the codes. Once the codes are approved by the House they are fixed. The codes do not relate to the duties. The duties are set out in the legislation. This is just the guidance that is given to companies on how they comply. There may well be circumstances in which the Secretary of State might look at those draft codes and say, “Actually, we think Ofcom has given the tech companies too easy a ride here. We expected the legislation to push them further.” Therefore it is understandable that in the draft form the Secretary of State might wish to have the power to raise that question, and not dictate to Ofcom but ask it to come back with amendments.

I take on board the spirit of what Members have said and the interest that the Select Committee has shown. I am happy to continue that dialogue, and obviously the Government will take forward the issues that they set out in the letter that was sent round last week to Members, showing how we seek to bring in that definition.

A number of Members raised the issue of freedom of speech provisions, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) at the end of his excellent speech. We have sought to bring, in the Government amendments, additional clarity to the way the legislation works, so that it is absolutely clear what the priority legal offences are. Where we have transparency requirements, it is absolutely clear what they apply to. The amendment that the Government tabled reflects the work that he and his colleagues have done, setting out that if we are discussing the terms of service of tech companies, it should be perfectly possible for them to say that this is not an area where they intend to take enforcement action and the Bill does not require them to do so.

The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) mentioned Zach’s law. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire raised that before the Joint Committee. So, too, did my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell); he and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire are great advocates on that. It is a good example of how a clear offence, something that we all agree to be wrong, can be tackled through this legislation; in this case, a new offence will be created, to prevent the pernicious targeting of people with epilepsy with flashing images.

Finally, in response to the speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), I certainly will continue dialogue with the NSPCC on the serious issues that she has raised. Obviously, child protection is foremost in our mind as we consider the legislation. She made some important points about the ability to scan for encrypted images. The Government have recently made further announcements on that, to be reflected as the Bill progresses through the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To assist the House, I anticipate two votes on this first section and one vote immediately on the next, because it has already been moved and debated.

16:30

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 3

Priority illegal content: violence against women and girls

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, any provision applied to priority illegal content should also be applied to any content which—

(a) constitutes,

(b) encourages, or

(c) promotes

(2) “Violence against women and girls” is defined by Article 3 of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (“the Istanbul Convention”).”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause applies provisions to priority illegal content to content which constitutes, encourages or promotes violence against women and girls.

Brought up,

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

16:30

Division 35

Ayes: 226

Noes: 292

Clause 5

Overview of Part 3

Amendment made: 57, page 4, line 36, at beginning insert ““priority offence”,”.—(Damian Collins.)

This is a technical amendment providing for a signpost to the definition of “priority offence” in the clause giving an overview of Part 3.

Clause 6

Providers of user-to-user services: duties of care

Amendment made: 163, page 5, line 30, at end insert—

“(da) the duties to protect news publisher content set out in section (Duties to protect news publisher content),”. —(Damian Collins.)

This amendment is consequential on NC19.

Clause 8

Illegal content risk assessment duties

Amendments made: 58, page 6, line 45, at end insert—

“(ba) the level of risk of the service being used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence;”

This amendment adds another matter to the matters that should be included in a provider’s risk assessment regarding illegal content on a user-to-user service, so that the risks around use of a service for the commission or facilitation of priority offences are included.

Amendment 59, page 7, line , at end insert

“or by the use of the service for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence”.

This amendment ensures that providers’ risk assessments about illegal content on a user-to-user service must consider the risk of harm from use of the service for the commission or facilitation of priority offences.

Amendment 60, page 7, line 4, after “content” insert

“or the use of the service for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence”.—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment ensures that providers’ risk assessments about illegal content on a user-to-user service must consider the risk of functionalities of the service facilitating the use of the service for the commission or facilitation of priority offences.

Clause 9

Safety duties about illegal content

Amendments made: 61, page 7, line 24, leave out from “measures” to the end of line 26 and insert

“relating to the design or operation of the service to—

(a) prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content by means of the service,

(b) effectively mitigate and manage the risk of the service being used for the commission or facilitation of a priority offence, as identified in the most recent illegal content risk assessment of the service, and

(c) effectively mitigate and manage the risks of harm to individuals, as identified in the most recent illegal content risk assessment of the service (see section 8(5)(f)).”

The substantive changes made by this amendment are: (1) making it clear that compliance with duties to mitigate risks as mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) is to be achieved by the way a service is designed or operated, and (2) paragraph (b) is a new risk mitigation duty on providers to deal with the risks around use of a user-to-user service for the commission or facilitation of priority offences.

Amendment 62, page 7, line 29, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment omits the provision that now appears in subsection (2) of this clause: see paragraph (a) of the provision inserted by Amendment 61.

Amendment 63, page 7, line 37, after “is” insert “designed”.

This adds a reference to design to clause 9(4) which provides for the illegal content duties for user-to-user services to apply across all areas of a service.

Amendment 64, page 8, line 5, leave out “paragraphs (a) and (b)” and insert “paragraph (b)”.

This amendment is a technical change consequential on Amendment 62.

Amendment 65, page 8, line 9, leave out from “consistently” to end of line 10.—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment omits words from a provision imposing a duty to apply the terms of service of a user-to-user service consistently. The omitted words relate to the material now dealt with in NC14.

Clause 11

Safety duties protecting children

Amendments made: 66, page 10, line 5, after “measures” insert

“relating to the design or operation of the service”.

This amendment makes it clear that compliance with duties to mitigate risks of harm from content harmful to children on user-to-user services is to be achieved by the way a service is designed or operated.

Amendment 67, page 10, line 9, after “service” insert “(see section 10(6)(g))”.

This is a technical amendment to put beyond doubt the meaning of a provision about risks identified in a risk assessment relating to content that is harmful to children on user-to-user services.

Amendment 68, page 10, line 22, after “is” insert “designed”.

This adds a reference to design to clause 11(4) which provides for the children’s safety duties for user-to-user services to apply across all areas of a service.

Amendment 69, page 11, line 2, leave out from “consistently” to end of line 4.—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment omits words from a provision imposing a duty to apply the terms of service of a user-to-user service consistently. The omitted words relate to the material now dealt with in NC14.

Clause 13

Safety duties protecting adults

Amendments made: 70, page 13, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) If a provider decides to treat a kind of priority content that is harmful to adults in a way described in subsection (4), a duty to include provisions in the terms of service specifying how that kind of content is to be treated (separately covering each kind of priority content that is harmful to adults which a provider decides to treat in one of those ways).”

This amendment ensures that a provider must state in the terms of service how priority content that is harmful to adults is to be treated, if the provider decides to treat it in one of the ways listed in clause 13(4).

Amendment 71, page 13, line 12, at end insert—

“(e) allowing the content without treating it in a way described in any of paragraphs (a) to (d).”

This amendment expands the list in clause 13(4) with the effect that if a provider decides to treat a kind of priority content that is harmful to adults by not recommending or promoting it, nor taking it down or restricting it etc, the terms of service must make that clear.

Amendment 72, page 13, line 23, leave out from “consistently” to end of line 25.—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment omits words from a provision imposing a duty to apply the terms of service of a Category 1 service consistently. The omitted words relate to the material now dealt with in NC14.

Clause 15

Duties to protect content of democratic importance

Amendment made: 73, page 15, line 4, leave out from “consistently” to end of line 5.—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment omits words from a provision imposing a duty to apply the terms of service of a Category 1 service consistently. The omitted words relate to the material now dealt with in NC14.

Clause 16

Duties to protect journalistic content

Amendments made: 164, page 15, line 44, at end insert—

“(5A) Subsections (3) and (4) do not require a provider to make a dedicated and expedited complaints procedure available to a recognised news publisher in relation to a decision if the provider has taken the steps set out in section (Duties to protect news publisher content)(3) in relation to that decision.”

This amendment ensures that where a recognised news publisher has a right to make representations about a proposal to take action in relation to news publisher content or against the recognised news publisher under the new clause introduced by NC19, a provider is not also required to offer that publisher a complaints procedure under clause 16.

Amendment 74, page 16, line 11, leave out from “consistently” to end of line 12.

This amendment omits words from a provision imposing a duty to apply the terms of service of a Category 1 service consistently. The omitted words relate to the material now dealt with in NC14. —(Damian Collins.)

Amendment 165, page 16, line 13, leave out “section” and insert “Part”.—(Damian Collins.)

This is a technical amendment ensuring that the definition of “journalistic content” applies for the purposes of Part 3 of the Bill.

Clause 18

Duties about complaints procedures

Amendment made: 166, page 19, line 14, at end insert—

“(iiia) section (Duties to protect news publisher content) (news publisher content)”.

This amendment ensures that users and affected persons can complain if a provider is not complying with a duty set out in NC19.—(Damian Collins.)

Clause 19

Duties about freedom of expression and privacy

Amendments made: 167, page 20, line 18, at end insert—

“(5A) An impact assessment relating to a service must include a section which considers the impact of the safety measures and policies on the availability and treatment on the service of content which is news publisher content or journalistic content in relation to the service.”

This amendment requires a provider of a Category 1 service to include a section in their impact assessments considering the effect of the provider’s measures and policies on the availability on the service of news publisher content and journalistic content.

Amendment 168, page 20, line 37, at end insert—

“(10) See—

section 16 for the meaning of “journalistic content”;

section 49 for the meaning of “news publisher content”.” —(Damian Collins.)

This amendment inserts a signpost to definitions of terms used in the new subsection inserted by Amendment 167.

Clause 20

Record-keeping and review duties

Amendment made: 169, page 21, line 45, at end insert

“and for the purposes of subsection (6), also includes the duties set out in section (Duties to protect news publisher content) (news publisher content).”—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment ensures that providers have a duty to review compliance with the duties set out in NC19 regularly, and after making any significant change to the design or operation of the service.

Clause 24

Safety duties about illegal content

Amendments made: 75, page 23, line 43, after “measures” insert

“relating to the design or operation of the service”.

This amendment makes it clear that compliance with duties to mitigate risks of harm from illegal content on search services is to be achieved by the way a service is designed or operated.

Amendment 76, page 23, line 45, at end insert “(see section 23(5)(c))”.

This is a technical amendment to put beyond doubt the meaning of a provision about risks identified in a risk assessment relating to illegal content on search services.

Amendment 77, page 24, line 8, after “is” insert “designed”.

This adds a reference to design to clause 24(4) which provides for the illegal content duties for search services to apply across all areas of a service.

Amendment 78, page 24, line 23, leave out from “consistently” to end of line 24.—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment omits words from a provision imposing a duty to apply a search service’s publicly available statement consistently. The omitted words relate to the material now dealt with in NC14.

Clause 26

Safety duties protecting children

Amendments made: 79, page 26, line 5, after “measures” insert

“relating to the design or operation of the service”.

This amendment makes it clear that compliance with duties to mitigate risks of harm from content that is harmful to children on search services is to be achieved by the way a service is designed or operated.

Amendment 80, page 26, line 9, after “service” insert “(see section 25(5)(d))”.

This is a technical amendment to put beyond doubt the meaning of a provision about risks identified in a risk assessment relating to content that is harmful to children on search services.

Amendment 81, page 26, line 20, after “is” insert “designed”.

This adds a reference to design to clause 26(4) which provides for the children’s safety duties for search services to apply across all areas of a service.

Amendment 82, page 26, line 40, leave out from “consistently” to end of line 42.—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment omits words from a provision imposing a duty to apply a search service’s publicly available statement consistently. The omitted words relate to the material now dealt with in NC14.

Clause 37

Codes of practice about duties

Amendments made: 85, page 35, line 32, at end insert “or offences within Schedule 5 (terrorism offences)”.

This amendment ensures that a code of practice under clause 37(1) encompasses duties to deal with the use of a service in connection with terrorism offences as well as terrorism content.

Amendment 86, page 35, line 36, at end insert “or offences within Schedule 6 (child sexual exploitation and abuse offences)”.

This amendment ensures that a code of practice under clause 37(2) encompasses duties to deal with the use of a service in connection with child sexual exploitation and abuse offences as well as CSEA content.

Amendment 87, page 36, line 21, leave out “content” and insert “matters”. —(Damian Collins.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 85 and 86.

Clause 47

Duties and the first codes of practice

Amendments made: 88, page 44, line 32, at end insert “or offences within Schedule 5 (terrorism offences)”.

This amendment ensures that a reference to the illegal content duties on providers encompasses a reference to terrorism offences as well as terrorism content.

Amendment 89, page 44, line 35, after “content” insert “or offences within Schedule 6 (child sexual exploitation and abuse offences)”.—(Damian Collins.)

Clause 48

OFCOM’s guidance: record-keeping duties and children’s access assessments

Amendments made: 170, page 45, line 4, at end insert—

‘(A1) OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of Category 1 services to assist them in complying with their duties set out in section (Duties to protect news publisher content) (news publisher content).”

This amendment requires Ofcom to produce guidance for providers of Category 1 services to assist them with complying with their duties under NC19.

Amendment 171, page 45, line 9, leave out “the guidance” and insert “guidance under subsection (1)”.

This amendment means that the consultation requirements in clause 48 would not apply to guidance required to be produced as a result of Amendment 170.

Amendment 172, page 45, leave out “the guidance” and insert “guidance under this section”. —(Damian Collins.)

This amendment requires Ofcom to publish guidance required to be produced as a result of Amendment 170.

Clause 49

“Regulated user-generated content”, “user-generated content”, “news publisher content”

Amendments made: 90, page 46, line 1, leave out “operated” and insert “controlled”.

This amendment uses the term “control ” in relation to a person responsible for a bot, which is the language used in NC14.

Amendment 173, page 46, line 11, leave out “on, or reviews of,” and insert “or reviews relating to”. —(Damian Collins.)

This amendment ensures that the wording in this provision is consistent with the wording in paragraph 4(1)(a) of Schedule 1.

Clause 52

“Illegal content” etc

Amendments made: 91, page 49, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment leaves out material which is now dealt with in NC14.

Amendment 92, page 49, line 9, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) a priority offence, or”

This is a technical amendment to insert a defined term, a “priority offence” (see Amendment 95).

Amendment 93, page 49, line 10, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment is consequential on the new approach of referring to a “priority offence”.

Amendment 94, page 49, line 13, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

“(d) an offence within subsection (4A).

‘(4A) An offence is within this subsection if—

(a) it is not a priority offence,

(b) the victim or intended victim of the offence is an individual (or individuals), and

(c) the offence is created by this Act or, before or after this Act is passed, by—

(i) another Act,

(ii) an Order in Council,

(iii) an order, rules or regulations made under an Act by the Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown, including such an instrument made jointly with a devolved authority, or

(iv) devolved subordinate legislation made by a devolved authority with the consent of the Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown.”

New subsection (4A), inserted by this amendment, describes offences which are relevant for the purposes of the concept of “illegal content”, but which are not priority offences as defined by new subsection (4B) (see amendment ). Subsection (4A)(c) requires there to have been some involvement of HMG in relation to the creation of the offence.

Amendment 95, page 49, line 14, at end insert—

‘(4B) “Priority offence” means—

(a) an offence specified in Schedule 5 (terrorism offences),

(b) an offence specified in Schedule 6 (offences related to child sexual exploitation and abuse), or

(c) an offence specified in Schedule 7 (other priority offences).”

This amendment inserts a definition of “priority offence” into clause 52.

Amendment 96, page 49, line 23, that subsection (8) of clause 52 be transferred to the end of line 14 on page 49.

This is a technical amendment moving provision to a more appropriate position in clause 52.

Amendment 97, page 49, leave out line 23 and insert “But an offence is not within subsection (4A)”.

This is a technical amendment consequential on the changes to clause 52 made by Amendment 94.

Amendment 98, page 49, line 35, at end insert—

‘(9A) References in subsection (3) to conduct of particular kinds are not to be taken to prevent content generated by a bot or other automated tool from being capable of amounting to an offence (see also section (Providers’ judgements about the status of content)(7) (providers’ judgements about the status of content)).”

This amendment ensures that content generated by bots is capable of being illegal content (so that the duties about dealing with illegal content may apply to such content).

Amendment 99, page 50, line 1, leave out subsection (12) and insert—

‘(12) In this section—

“devolved authority” means—

(a) the Scottish Ministers,

(b) the Welsh Ministers, or

(c) a Northern Ireland department;

“devolved subordinate legislation” means—

(a) an instrument made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament,

(b) an instrument made under an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or

(c) an instrument made under Northern Ireland legislation;

“Minister of the Crown” has the meaning given by section 8 of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 and also includes the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;

“offence” means an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment inserts definitions into clause 52 that are needed as a result of Amendment 94.

Amendment 100, page 50, line 2, at end insert—

‘(13) See also section (Providers’ judgements about the status of content) (providers’ judgements about the status of content).” —(Damian Collins.)

This amendment inserts a signpost into clause 52 pointing to the NC about Providers’ judgements inserted by NC14.

Schedule 3

Timing of providers’ assessments

Amendments made: 147, page 175, line 23, leave out the definition of “illegal content risk assessment guidance”.

This technical amendment is consequential on Amendment 107.

Amendment 148, page 175, line 30, leave out from second “to” to end of line 31 and insert “OFCOM’s guidance under section 85(1).”

Schedule 3 is about the timing of risk assessments etc. This amendment ensures that the provisions about guidance re risk assessments work with the changes made by Amendment 107.

Amendment 149, page 175, line 36, leave out from second “to” to end of line 37 and insert “OFCOM’s guidance under section 85(1A).” —(Damian Collins.)

Schedule 3 is about the timing of risk assessments etc. This amendment ensures that the provisions about guidance re risk assessments work with the changes made by Amendment 107.

Schedule 7

Priority offences

Amendment proposed: 187, page 186, line 32, at end insert—

“Human trafficking

22A An offence under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.” —(John Nicolson.)

This amendment includes Human Trafficking as a priority offence.

16:45

Division 36

Ayes: 229

Noes: 294

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am anticipating another Division, as I said, and then I understand there may be some points of order, which I will hear after that Division.

That concludes proceedings on new clauses, new schedules and amendments to those parts of the Bill that have to be concluded by 4.30 pm.

It has been pointed out to me that, in this unusually hot weather, Members should please remember to drink more water. I tried it myself once. [Laughter.]

In accordance with the programme (No. 2) order of today, we now come to new clauses, new schedules and amendments relating to those parts of the Bill to be concluded by 7 pm. We begin with new clause 14, which the House has already debated. I therefore call the Minister to move new clause 14 formally.

New Clause 14

Providers’ judgements about the status of content

“(1) This section sets out the approach to be taken where—

(a) a system or process operated or used by a provider of a Part 3 service for the purpose of compliance with relevant requirements, or

(b) a risk assessment required to be carried out by Part 3, involves a judgement by a provider about whether content is content of a particular kind.

(2) Such judgements are to be made on the basis of all relevant information that is reasonably available to a provider.

(3) In construing the reference to information that is reasonably available to a provider, the following factors, in particular, are relevant—

(a) the size and capacity of the provider, and

(b) whether a judgement is made by human moderators, by means of automated systems or processes or by means of automated systems or processes together with human moderators.

(4) Subsections (5) to (7) apply (as well as subsection (2)) in relation to judgements by providers about whether content is—

(a) illegal content, or illegal content of a particular kind, or

(b) a fraudulent advertisement.

(5) In making such judgements, the approach to be followed is whether a provider has reasonable grounds to infer that content is content of the kind in question (and a provider must treat content as content of the kind in question if reasonable grounds for that inference exist).

(6) Reasonable grounds for that inference exist in relation to content and an offence if, following the approach in subsection (2), a provider—

(a) has reasonable grounds to infer that all elements necessary for the commission of the offence, including mental elements, are present or satisfied, and

(b) does not have reasonable grounds to infer that a defence to the offence may be successfully relied upon.

(7) In the case of content generated by a bot or other automated tool, the tests mentioned in subsection (6)(a) and (b) are to be applied in relation to the conduct or mental state of a person who may be assumed to control the bot or tool (or, depending what a provider knows in a particular case, the actual person who controls the bot or tool).

(8) In considering a provider’s compliance with relevant requirements to which this section is relevant, OFCOM may take into account whether providers’ judgements follow the approaches set out in this section (including judgements made by means of automated systems or processes, alone or together with human moderators).

(9) In this section—

“fraudulent advertisement” has the meaning given by section 34 or 35 (depending on the kind of service in question);

“illegal content” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 52);

“relevant requirements” means—

(a) duties and requirements under this Act, and

(b) requirements of a notice given by OFCOM under this Act.”—(Damian Collins.)

This new clause clarifies how providers are to approach judgements (human or automated) about whether content is content of a particular kind, and in particular, makes provision about how questions of mental state and defences are to be approached when considering whether content is illegal content or a fraudulent advertisement.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

16:59

Division 37

Ayes: 288

Noes: 229

New clause 14 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

Guidance about illegal content judgements

“(1) OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of Part 3 services about the matters dealt with in section (Providers’ judgements about the status of content) so far as relating to illegal content judgements.

(2) “Illegal content judgements” means judgements of a kind mentioned in subsection (4) of that section.

(3) Before producing the guidance (including revised or replacement guidance), OFCOM must consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

(4) OFCOM must publish the guidance (and any revised or replacement guidance).”—(Damian Collins.)

This new clause requires OFCOM to give guidance to providers about how they should approach judgements about whether content is illegal content or a fraudulent advertisement.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Despite over 50 members of the Government resigning last week and many more Tory MPs submitting letters of no confidence in their own leader, the Conservative party continues to prop up this failed Prime Minister until September. They are complicit. They know—indeed, they have said—he is not fit to govern. They told the public so just days ago. Now they seem to be running scared and will not allow the Opposition to table a vote of no confidence. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] Yes. This is yet another outrageous breach of the conventions that govern our country from a man who disrespected the Queen and illegally prorogued Parliament. Now he is breaking yet another convention. Every single day he is propped up by his Conservative colleagues, he is doing more damage to this country.

Mr Deputy Speaker, are you aware of any other instances where a Prime Minister has so flagrantly ignored the will of this House by refusing to grant time to debate a motion of no confidence in the Government, despite the fact that even his own party does not believe he should be Prime Minister any more? Do you agree with me that this egregious breach of democratic convention only further undermines confidence in this rotten Government?

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recognise that under the present Prime Minister, this Government have specialised in constitutional innovation. Nevertheless, it certainly seems to me, and I hope it does to you and to the House authorities, that this is stretching the boundaries of what is permissible into the outrageous and beyond, and threatening the democracy of this House.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The convention is that if the Leader of the Opposition tables a motion of no confidence, it is taken as the next available business. That is what has been done, yet even though we know that large swathes of the party in Government have no confidence in their Prime Minister, they are refusing to acknowledge and honour a time-honoured convention that is the only way to make a debate on that possible. Do you not agree that it is for this House of Commons to test whether any given Prime Minister has its confidence and that his or her Prime Ministership is always based on that? One of the prerequisites for being appointed Prime Minister of this country by the Queen is that that person shall have the confidence of the House of Commons. If we are not allowed to test that now, when on earth will be allowed to test it?

17:15

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, “Erskine May” says very clearly:

“By established convention, the Government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition”

in regard to a no-confidence motion. There has been a very long tradition of all sorts of different kinds of votes of no confidence. Baldwin, Melbourne, Wellington and Salisbury all resigned after a vote on an amendment to the Loyal Address; they considered that to be a vote of no confidence. Derby and Gladstone resigned after an amendment to the Budget; they considered that to be a vote of no confidence. Neville Chamberlain resigned after a motion to adjourn the House, even though he won the vote, because he saw that as a motion of no confidence. So it is preposterous that the Government are trying to say that the motion that is being tabled for tomorrow somehow does not count.

Let me remind Government Members that on 2 August 1965, the motion tabled by the Conservatives was:

“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government and deplores the Prime Minister’s conduct of the nation’s affairs.”

I think this House agrees with that today.

Of course, we briefly had the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which set in statute that there was only one way of having a motion of no confidence, but this Government overturned and repealed that Act. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), came on behalf of the Government to tell the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act:

“It seems to us to be cleaner and clearer to have a return to a more classical understanding of what a vote of confidence involves.”

It is simple: the Prime Minister is disgraced, he does not enjoy the confidence of the House, and if he simply tries to prevent the House from coming to that decision, it is because he is a coward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will only allow three more points of order, because this is eating into time for very important business. [Interruption.] They are all similar points of order and we could carry on with them until 7 o’clock, but we are not going to do so.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee this morning, Sir John Major presented evidence to us about propriety and ethics. In that very sombre presentation, he talked about being

“at the top of a slope”

down towards the loss of democracy in this country. Ultimately, the will of Parliament is all we have, so if we do not have Parliament to make the case, what other option do we have?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I ask the final Members please to show restraint as far as language is concerned, because I am not happy with some of the language that has been used.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There have been 50 resignations of Ministers; the Government are mired in controversy; people are acting up as Ministers who are not quite Ministers, as I understand it; and legislation is being delayed. When was there ever a better time for the House to table a motion of no confidence in a Government? This is a cowardly act not by the Prime Minister, but by the Conservative party, which does not want a vote on this issue. Conservative Members should support the move to have a vote of no confidence and have the courage to stand up for their convictions.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. How can the Conservative party have no confidence in and write letters about the Prime Minister one week yet refuse to come to Parliament the following week to declare that in front of the public?

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you inform the House of whether Mr Speaker has received any explanation from the Government for this craven and egregious breach of parliamentary convention? If someone were to table a motion under Standing Order No. 24 for tomorrow, has he given any indication of what his attitude would be towards such a motion?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will answer the question about Standing Order No. 24 first, because I can deal with it immediately: clearly, if an application is made, Mr Speaker will determine it himself.

The principles concerning motions of no confidence are set out at paragraph 18.44 of “Erskine May”, which also gives examples of motions that have been debated and those that have not. “May” says:

“By established convention, the Government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition to allot a day for the discussion of a motion tabled by the official Opposition which, in the Government’s view, would have the effect of testing the confidence of the House.”

I can only conclude, therefore, that the Government have concluded that the motion, as tabled by the official Opposition, does not have that effect. That is a matter for the Government, though, rather than for the Chair.

May I say that there are seven more sitting days before recess? As Deputy Speaker, I would anticipate that there will be further discussions.

We now have to move on with the continuation of business on the Bill.

New Clause 7

Duties regarding user-generated pornographic content: regulated services

“(1) This section sets out the duties which apply to regulated services in relation to user-generated pornographic content.

(2) A duty to verify that each individual featuring in the pornographic content has given their permission for the content in which they feature to be published or made available by the service.

(3) A duty to remove pornographic content featuring a particular individual if that individual withdraws their consent, at any time, to the pornographic content in which they feature remaining on the service.

(4) For the meaning of ‘pornographic content’, see section 66(2).

(5) In this section, ‘user-generated pornographic content’ means any content falling within the meaning given by subsection (4) and which is also generated directly on the service by a user of the service, or uploaded to or shared on the service by a user of the service, may be encountered by another user, or other users, of the service.

(6) For the meaning of ‘regulated service’, see section 2(4).”—(Dame Diana Johnson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 33—Meaning of “pornographic content”—

“(1) In this Act ‘pornographic content’ means any of the following—

(a) a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued an R18 certificate;

(b) content that was included in a video work to which paragraph (a) applies, if it is reasonable to assume from its nature that its inclusion was among the reasons why the certificate was an R18 certificate;

(c) any other content if it is reasonable to assume from its nature that any classification certificate issued in respect of a video work including it would be an R18 certificate;

(d) a video work in respect of which the video works authority has issued an 18 certificate, and that it is reasonable to assume from its nature was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal;

(e) content that was included in a video work to which paragraph (d) applies, if it is reasonable to assume from the nature of the content—

(i) that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and

(ii) that its inclusion was among the reasons why the certificate was an 18 certificate;

(f) any other content if it is reasonable to assume from its nature—

(i) that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and

(ii) that any classification certificate issued in respect of a video work including it would be an 18 certificate;

(g) a video work that the video works authority has determined not to be suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it, if—

(i) it includes content that it is reasonable to assume from its nature was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and

(ii) it is reasonable to assume from the nature of that content that its inclusion was among the reasons why the video works authority made that determination;

(h) content that was included in a video work that the video works authority has determined not to be suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it, if it is reasonable to assume from the nature of the content—

(i) that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and

(ii) that its inclusion was among the reasons why the video works authority made that determination;

(i) any other content if it is reasonable to assume from the nature of the content—

(i) that it was produced solely or principally for the purposes of sexual arousal, and

(ii) that the video works authority would determine that a video work including it was not suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.

(2) In this section—

‘18 certificate’ means a classification certificate which—

(a) contains, pursuant to section 7(2)(b) of the Video Recordings Act 1984, a statement that the video work is suitable for viewing only by persons who have attained the age of 18 and that no video recording containing that work is to be supplied to any person who has not attained that age, and

(b) does not contain the statement mentioned in section 7(2)(c) of that Act that no video recording containing the video work is to be supplied other than in a licensed sex shop;

‘classification certificate’ has the same meaning as in the Video Recordings Act 1984 (see section 7 of that Act);

‘content’ means—

(a) a series of visual images shown as a moving picture, with or without sound;

(b) a still image or series of still images, with or without sound; or

(c) sound;

‘R18 certificate’ means a classification certificate which contains the statement mentioned in section 7(2)(c) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 that no video recording containing the video work is to be supplied other than in a licensed sex shop;

‘the video works authority’ means the person or persons designated under section 4(1) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 as the authority responsible for making arrangements in respect of video works other than video games;

‘video work’ means a video work within the meaning of the Video Recordings Act 1984, other than a video game within the meaning of that Act.”

This new clause defines pornographic content for the purposes of the Act and would apply to user-to-user services and commercial pornographic content.

Amendment 205, in clause 34, page 33, line 23, at end insert—

“(3A) But an advertisement shall not be regarded as regulated user-generated content and precluded from being a ‘fraudulent advertisement’ by reason of the content constituting the advertisement being generated directly on, uploaded to, or shared on a user-to-user service before being modified to a paid-for advertisement.”

Amendment 206, page 33, line 30, after “has” insert

“or may reasonably be expected to have”.

Amendment 207, in clause 36, page 35, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) An offence under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006 (fraudulent trading).”

Amendment 208, page 35, line 18, after “(3)” insert “, 3(A)”.

Amendment 209, page 35, line 20, after “(3)” insert “, 3(A)”

Amendment 210, page 35, line 23, after “(3)” insert “, 3(A)”

Amendment 201, in clause 66, page 59, line 8, leave out from “Pornographic content” to end of line 10 and insert

“has the same meaning as section [meaning of pornographic content]”.

This amendment defines pornographic content for the purposes of the Part 5. It is consequential on NC33.

Amendment 56, page 59, line 8, after “content” insert “, taken as a whole,”

This amendment would require that content is considered as a whole before being defined as pornographic content.

Amendment 33, in clause 68, page 60, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) A duty to verify that every individual featured in regulated provider pornographic content is an adult before the content is published on the service.

(2B) A duty to verify that every individual featured in regulated provider pornographic content that is already published on the service when this Act is passed is an adult and, where that is not the case, remove such content from the service.

(2C) A duty to verify that each individual appearing in regulated provider pornographic content has given their permission for the content in which they appear to be published or made available by the internet service.

(2D) A duty to remove regulated provider pornographic content featuring an individual if that individual withdraws their consent, at any time, to the pornographic content in which they feature remaining on the service.”

This amendment creates a duty to verify that each individual featured in pornographic content is an adult and has agreed to the content being uploaded before it is published. It would also impose a duty to remove content if the individual withdraws consent at any time.

Amendment 34, page 60, line 37, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “subsections (2) to (2D)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.

Amendment 31, in clause 182, page 147, line 16, leave out from “unless” to end of line 17 and insert—

“(a) a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament,

“(b) the Secretary of State has made a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the draft instrument, and

(c) the draft instrument has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This amendment would require a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under sections 53 or 54 to be debated on the floor of the House of Commons, rather than in a delegated legislation committee (as part of the affirmative procedure).

Amendment 158, in clause 192, page 155, line 26, after “including” insert “but not limited to”.

This amendment clarifies that the list of types of content in clause 192 is not exhaustive.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

May I welcome the Minister to his place, as I did not get an opportunity to speak on the previous group of amendments?

New clause 7 and amendments 33 and 34 would require online platforms to verify the age and consent of all individuals featured in pornographic videos uploaded to their site, as well as enabling individuals to withdraw their consent to the footage remaining on the website. Why are the amendments necessary? Let me read a quotation from a young woman:

“I sent Pornhub begging emails. I pleaded with them. I wrote, ‘Please, I’m a minor, this was assault, please take it down.’”

She received no reply and the videos remained live. That is from a BBC article entitled “I was raped at 14, and the video ended up on a porn site”.

This was no one-off. Some of the world’s biggest pornography websites allow members of the public to upload videos without verifying that everyone in the film is an adult or that everyone in the film gave their permission for it to be uploaded. As a result, leading pornography websites have been found to be hosting and profiting from filmed footage of rape, sex trafficking, image-based sexual abuse and child sexual abuse.

In 2020, The New York Times documented the presence of child abuse videos on Pornhub, one of the most popular pornography websites in the world, prompting Mastercard, Visa and Discover to block the use of their cards for purchases on the site. The New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof wrote about Pornhub:

“Its site is infested with rape videos. It monetizes child rapes, revenge pornography, spy cam videos of women showering, racist and misogynist content, and footage of women being asphyxiated in plastic bags.”

Even before that, in 2019, PayPal took the decision to stop processing payments for Pornhub after an investigation by The Sunday Times revealed that the site contained child abuse videos and other illegal content. The newspaper reported:

“Pornhub is awash with secretly filmed ‘creepshots’ of schoolgirls and clips of men performing sex acts in front of teenagers on buses. It has also hosted indecent images of children as young as three.

The website says it bans content showing under-18s and removes it swiftly. But some of the videos identified by this newspaper’s investigation had 350,000 views and had been on the platform for more than three years.”

One of the women who is now being forced to take legal action against Pornhub’s parent company, MindGeek, is Crystal Palace footballer Leigh Nicol. Leigh’s phone was hacked and private content was uploaded to Pornhub without her knowledge. She said in an interview:

“The damage is done for me so this is about the next generation. I feel like prevention is better than someone having to react to this. I cannot change it alone but if I can raise awareness to stop it happening to others then that is what I want to do…The more that you dig into this, the more traumatising it is because there are 14-year-old kids on these websites and they don’t even know about it. The fact that you can publish videos that have neither party’s consent is something that has to be changed by law, for sure.”

Leigh Nicol is spot on.

Unfortunately, when this subject was debated in Committee, the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), argued that the content I have described—including child sexual abuse images and videos—was already illegal, and there was therefore no need for the Government to introduce further measures. However, that misses the point: the Minister was arguing against the very basis of his own Government’s Bill. At the core of the Bill, as I understand it, is a legal duty placed on online platforms to combat and remove content that is already illegal, such as material relating to terrorism. ln keeping with that, my amendments would place a legal duty on online platforms hosting pornographic content to combat and remove illegal content through the specific and targeted measure of verifying the age and consent of every individual featured in pornographic content on their sites. The owners and operators of pornography websites are getting very rich from hosting footage of rape, trafficking and child sexual abuse, and they must be held to account under the law and required to take preventive action.

The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which leads action to combat human trafficking across 57 member states, recommends that Governments require age and consent verification on pornography websites in order to combat exploitation. The OSCE told me:

“These sites routinely feature sexual violence, exploitation and abuse, and trafficking victims. Repeatedly these sites have chosen profits over reasonable prevention and protection measures. At the most basic level, these sites should be required to ensure that each person depicted is a consenting adult, with robust age verification and the right to withdraw consent at any time. Since self- regulation hasn’t worked, this will only work through strong, state-led regulation”.

Who else supports that? Legislation requiring online platforms to verify the age and consent of all individuals featured in pornographic content on their sites is backed by leading anti-sexual exploitation organisations including CEASE—the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—UK Feminista and the Traffickinghub movement, which has driven the global campaign to expose the abuses committed by, in particular, Pornhub.

New clause 7 and amendments 33 and 34 are minimum safety measures that would stop the well-documented practice of pornography websites hosting and profiting from videos of rape, trafficking and child sexual abuse. I urge the Government to reconsider their position, and I will seek to test the will of the House on new clause 7 later this evening.

[Adam Afriyie]

I echo the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Some appalling abuses are taking place online, and I hope that the Bill goes some way to address them, to the extent that that is possible within the framework that it sets up. I greatly appreciate the right hon. Lady’s comments and her contribution to the debate.

I have a tight and narrow point for the Minister. In amendment 56, I seek to ensure that only pornographic material is caught by the definition in the Bill. My concern is that we catch these abuses online, catch them quickly and penalise them harshly, but also that sites that may display, for example, works of art featuring nudes—or body positivity community sites, of which there are several—are not inadvertently caught in our desire to clamp down on illegal pornographic sites. Perhaps the Minister will say a few words about that in his closing remarks.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to this small group of amendments on behalf of the Opposition. Despite everything that is going on at the moment, we must remember that this Bill has the potential to change lives for the better. It is an important piece of legislation, and we cannot miss the opportunity to get it right. I would like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) in welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) to his role. His work as Chair of the Joint Committee on this Bill was an important part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process, and I look forward to working in collaboration with him to ensure that this legislation does as it should in keeping us all safe online. I welcome the support of the former Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), on giving access to data to academic researchers and on looking at the changes needed to deal with the harm caused by the way in which algorithmic prompts work. It was a pity he was not persuaded by the amendments in Committee, but better late than never.

17:34

Earlier we debated new clause 14, which will reduce the amount of illegal content and fraudulent advertising that is identified and acted upon. In our view, this new clause undermines and weakens the safety mechanisms that members of the Joint Committee and the Public Bill Committee worked so hard to get right. I hope the Government will reconsider this part of the Bill when it goes through its stages in the House of Lords. Even without new clause 14, though, there are problems with the provisions around fraudulent advertising. Having said that, we were pleased that the Government conceded to our calls in Committee to ensure that major search engines and social media sites would be subject to the same duties to prevent fraudulent advertising from appearing on their sites.

However, there are other changes that we need to see if the Bill is to be successful in reducing the soaring rates of online fraud and changing the UK’s reputation as the

“scam capital of the world”,

according to Which? The Government voted against other amendments tabled in Committee by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd that would have tackled the reasons why people become subject to online fraud. Our amendments would have ensured that customers had better protection against scams and a clearer understanding of which search results were paid-for ads. In rejecting our amendments, the Government have missed an opportunity to tackle the many forms of scamming that people experience online.

One of those forms of scamming is in the world of online ticketing. In my role as shadow Minister for the Arts and Civil Society, I have worked on this issue and been informed by the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on ticket abuse. I would like to thank her and those who have worked with the APPG on the anti-ticket touting campaign for their insights. Ticket reselling websites have a well-documented history of breaching consumer protection laws. These breaches include cases of fraud such as the sale of non-existent tickets. If our amendment had been passed, secondary ticketing websites such as Viagogo would have had to be members of a regulatory body responsible for secondary ticketing such as the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers, and they would have had to comply with established standards.

I have used ticket touting as an example, but the repercussions of this change go wider to include scamming by holiday websites, debt services and fraudulent passport renewal companies. Our amendments, together with amendments 205 to 210, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), would improve protection against scams and close loopholes in the definitions of fraudulent advertising. I hope the Minister recognises how many more scams these clauses would prevent if the amendments were accepted.

Part 5 of the Bill includes provisions that relate to pornographic content, which we have already heard about in this debate. For too long, we have seen a proliferation of websites with illegal and harmful content rife with representations of sexual violence, incest, rape and exploitation, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for the examples she has just given us. We welcomed the important changes made to the Bill before the Committee stage, which meant that all pornographic content, not just user-generated content, would now be included within the duties in part 5.

Other Members have tabled important amendments to this part of the Bill. New clause 33 and new schedule 1, tabled by the hon. Members for Ochil and South Perthshire and for Aberdeen North, will ensure parity between online and offline content standards for pornography. New clause 33 is important in specifying that content that fails to obtain an R18 certificate has to be removed, just as happens in the offline world under the Video Recordings Act 1984. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North tabled amendment 33 and new clause 7, which place new duties on user-generated commercial pornography sites to verify the age and obtain consent of people featured in pornographic content, and to remove content should that consent be withdrawn. These are safeguards that should have been put in place by pornography platforms from the very start.

I would like to raise our concern about how quickly these duties can be brought into force. Clause 196 lays out that the only clauses in part 5 to be enacted once the Bill receives Royal Assent will be those covering the definitions—clauses 66 and 67(4)—and not those covering the duties. Children cannot wait another three years for protections from harm, having been promised this five years ago under part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which was never implemented. I hope the Minister appreciates the need for speed in regulating this particularly high harm part of the internet.

Part 11 clarifies companies’ liability and outlines the type of information offences contained in the Bill. It is important that liability is at the heart of discussions about the practical applications of the Bill, because we know that big internet companies have got away with doing nothing for far too long. However, the current focus on information offences means that criminal liability for repeated and systematic failures resulting in serious harm to users remains a crucial omission from the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd was vocal in making the point, but it needs to be made again, that we are very concerned about the volume of last-minute amendments tabled by the Government, and particularly their last-ditch attempt at power grabbing through amendment 144. The Secretary of State should not have the ability to decide what constitutes a priority offence without appropriate scrutiny, and our amendments would bring appropriate parliamentary oversight.

Amendment 31, in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend, would require that any changes to clauses 53 or 54, on harmful content, are debated on the Floor of the House rather than in a Delegated Legislation Committee. Without this change, the Secretary of State of the day will have the power to make decisions about priority content quietly through secondary legislation, which could have real-life consequences. Any changes to priority content are worthy of proper debate. If the Minister is serious about proper scrutiny of the online safety regime, he should carefully consider amendment 31. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

Finally, part 12 includes clarifications and definitions. The hon. Members for Ochil and South Perthshire and for Aberdeen North tabled amendment 158, which would expand the definition of content in the Bill. This is an important future-proofing measure.

As I mentioned, we are concerned about the delays to the implementation of certain duties set out in part 12. We are now in a situation in which many children who need protection will no longer even be children by the time this legislation and its protections come into effect. Current uncertainty about the running of Government will compound the concerns of many charities and children’s advocacy groups. I hope the Minister will agree that we cannot risk further delays.

At its core, the Online Safety Bill should be about reducing harm, and we are all aligned on that aim. I am disappointed that the Government have reversed some of the effectiveness of the scrutiny in Committee by now amending the Bill to such a degree. I hope the Minister considers our amendments in the collaborative spirit in which they are intended, and recognises their potential to make this Bill stronger and more effective for all.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I think it is extraordinarily important that this Bill does what the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has just described. As the Bill moves from this place to the other place, we must debate what the right balance is between what the Secretary of State must do—in the previous group of amendments, we heard that many of us believe that is too extensive as the Bill stands—what the regulator, Ofcom, must do and what Parliament must do. There is an important judgment call for this House to make on whether we have that balance right in the Bill as it stands.

These amendments are very interesting. I am not convinced that the amendments addressed by the hon. Lady get the balance exactly right either, but there is cause for further discussion about where we in this House believe the correct boundary is between what an independent regulator should be given authority to do under this legislative and regulatory structure and what we wish to retain to ourselves as a legislature.

[Adam Afriyie]

My right hon. and learned Friend is highlighting, and I completely agree, that there is a very sensitive balance between different power bases and between different approaches to achieving the same outcome. Does he agree that as even more modifications are made—the nipping and tucking I described earlier—this debate and future debates, and these amendments, will contribute to those improvements over the weeks and months ahead?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I hope it is some comfort to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South when I say that if the House does not support her amendment, it should not be taken that she has not made a good point that needs further discussion—probably in the other place, I fear. We are going to have think carefully about that balance. It is also important that we do not retain to ourselves as a legislature those things that the regulator ought to have in its own armoury. If we want Ofcom to be an effective and independent regulator in this space, we must give it sufficient authority to fulfil that role. She makes interesting points, although I am not sure I can go as far as supporting her amendments. I know that is disappointing, but I do think that what she has done is prompted a further debate on exactly this balance between Secretary of State, Executive, legislature and regulator, which is exactly where we need to be.

I have two other things to mention. The first relates to new clause 7 and amendment 33, which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) tabled. She speaks powerfully to a clear need to ensure that this area is properly covered. My question, however, is about practicalities. I am happy to take an intervention if she can answer it immediately. If not, I am happy to discuss it with her another time. She has heard me speak many times about making sure that this Bill is workable. The challenge in what she has described in her amendments may be that a platform needs to know how it is to determine and “verify”—that is the word she has used—that a participant in a pornographic video is an adult and a willing participant. It is clearly desirable that the platform should know both of those things, but the question that will have to be answered is: by what mechanism will it establish that? Will it ask the maker of the pornographic video and be prepared to accept the assurances it is given? If not, by what other mechanism should it do this? For example, there may be a discussion to be had on what technology is available to establish whether someone is an adult or is not—that bleeds into the discussion we have had about age assurance. It may be hard for a platform to establish whether someone is a willing participant.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

This has been quite topical this week. When we have things on any platform that is on our television, people absolutely have to have signed forms to say that they are a willing participant. It is completely regular within all other broadcast media that people sign consent forms and that people’s images are not allowed to be used without their consent.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that useful addition to this debate, but it tends to clarify the point I was seeking to clarify, which is whether or not what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has in mind is to ensure that a platform would be expected to make use of those mechanisms that already exist in order to satisfy itself of the things that she rightly asks it to be satisfied of or whether something beyond that would be required to meet her threshold. If it is the former, that is manageable for platforms and perfectly reasonable for us to expect of them. If it is the latter, we need to understand a little more clearly how she expects a platform to achieve that greater assurance. If it is that, she makes an interesting point.

Finally, let me come to amendment 56, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). Again, I have a practical concern. He seeks to ensure that the pornographic content is “taken as a whole”, but I think it is worth remembering why we have included pornographic content in the context of this Bill. We have done it to ensure that children are not exposed to this content online and that where platforms are capable of preventing that from happening, that is exactly what they do. There is a risk that if we take this content as a whole, it is perfectly conceivable that there may be content online that is four hours long, only 10 minutes of which is pornographic in nature. It does not seem to me that that in any way diminishes our requirement of a platform to ensure that children do not see those 10 minutes of pornographic content.

[Adam Afriyie]

I am very sympathetic to that view. I am merely flagging up for the Minister that if we get the opportunity, we need to have a look at it again in the Lords, to be absolutely certain that we are not ruling out certain types of art, and certain types of community sites that we would all think were perfectly acceptable, that are probably not accessible to children, just to ensure that we are not creating further problems down the road that we would have to correct.

17:45

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I follow that point. I will channel, with some effort, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who I suspect would say that these things are already up for debate and discussed in other contexts—the ability to distinguish between art and pornography is something that we have wrestled with in other media. Actually, in relation to the Bill, I think that one of our guiding principles ought to be that we do not reinvent the wheel where we do not have to, and that we seek to apply to the online world the principles and approaches that we would expect in all other environments. That is probably the answer to my hon. Friend’s point.

I think it is very important that we recognise the need for platforms to do all they can to ensure that the wrong type of material does not reach vulnerable users, even if that material is a brief part of a fairly long piece. Those, of course, are exactly the principles that we apply to the classification of films and television. It may well be that a small portion of a programme constitutes material that is unsuitable for a child, but we would still seek to put it the wrong side of the 9 o’clock watershed or use whatever methods we think the regulator ought to adopt to ensure that children do not see it.

Good points are being made. The practicalities are important; it may be that because of a lack of available time and effort in this place, we have to resolve those elsewhere.

[John Nicolson]

I wish to speak to new clause 33, my proposed new schedule 1 and amendments 201 to 203. I notice that the Secretary of State is off again. I place on record my thanks to Naomi Miles of CEASE—the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—and Ceri Finnegan of Barnardos for their support.

The UK Government have taken some steps to strengthen protections on pornography and I welcome the fact that young teenagers will no longer be able to access pornography online. However, huge quantities of extreme and harmful pornography remain online, and we need to address the damage that it does. New clause 33 would seek to create parity between online and offline content—consistent legal standards for pornography. It includes a comprehensive definition of pornography and puts a duty on websites not to host content that would fail to attain the British Board of Film Classification standard for R18 classification.

The point of the Bill, as the Minister has repeatedly said, is to make the online world a safer place, by doing what we all agree must be done—making what is illegal offline, illegal online. That is why so many Members think that the lack of regulation around pornography is a major omission in the Bill.

The new clause stipulates age and consent checks for anyone featured in pornographic content. It addresses the proliferation of pornographic content that is both illegal and harmful, protecting women, children and minorities on both sides of the camera.

The Bill presents an opportunity to end the proliferation of illegal and harmful content on the internet. Representations of sexual violence, animal abuse, incest, rape, coercion, abuse and exploitation—particularly directed towards women and children—are rife. Such content can normalise dangerous and abusive acts and attitudes, leading to real-world harm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said in her eloquent speech earlier, we are seeing an epidemic of violence against women and girls online. When bile and hatred is so prolific online, it bleeds into the offline space. There are real-world harms that flow from that.

The Minister has said how much of a priority tackling violence against women and girls is for him. Knowing that, and knowing him, he will understand that pornography is always harmful to children, and certain kinds of pornographic content are also potentially harmful to adults. Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the BBFC has responsibility for classifying pornographic content to ensure that it is not illegal, and that it does not promote an interest in abusive relationships, such as incest. Nor can it promote acts likely to cause serious physical harm, such as breath restriction or strangulation. In the United Kingdom, it is against the law to supply pornographic material that does not meet this established BBFC classification standard, but there is no equivalent standard in the online world because the internet evolved without equivalent regulatory oversight.

I know too that the Minister is determined to tackle some of the abusive and dangerous pornographic content online. The Bill does include a definition of pornography, in clause 66(2), but that definition is inadequate; it is too brief and narrow in scope. In my amendment, I propose a tighter and more comprehensive definition, based on that in part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which was debated in this place and passed into law. The amendment will remove ambiguity and prevent confusion, ensuring that all websites know where they stand with regard to the law.

The new duty on pornographic websites aligns with the UK Government’s 2020 legislation regulating UK-established video-sharing platforms and video-on-demand services, both of which appeal to the BBFC’s R18 classification standards. The same “high standard of rules in place to protect audiences”, as the 2020 legislation put it, and “certain content standards” should apply equally to online pornography and offline pornography, UK-established video-sharing platforms and video-on-demand services.

Let me give some examples sent to me by Barnardo’s, the children’s charity, which, with CEASE, has done incredibly important work in this area. The names have been changed in these examples, for obvious reasons.

“There are also children who view pornography to try to understand their own sexual abuse. Unfortunately, what these children find is content that normalises the most abhorrent and illegal behaviours, such as 15-year-old Elizabeth, who has been sexually abused by a much older relative for a number of years. The content she found on pornography sites depicted older relatives having sex with young girls and the girls enjoying it. It wasn’t until she disclosed her abuse that she realised that it was not normal.

Carrie is a 16-year-old who was being sexually abused by her stepfather. She thought this was not unusual due to the significant amount of content she had seen on pornography sites showing sexual relationships within stepfamilies.”

That is deeply disturbing evidence from Barnardo’s.

Although in theory the Bill will prevent under-18s from accessing such content, the Minister knows that under-18s will be able to bypass regulation through technology like VPNs, as the DCMS Committee and the Bill Committee—I served on both—were told by experts in various evidence sessions. The amendment does not create a new law; it merely moves existing laws into the online space. There is good cause to regulate and sometimes prohibit certain damaging offline content; I believe it is now our duty to provide consistency with legislation in the online world.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to talk about several things, but particularly new clause 7. I am really pleased that the new clause has come back on Report, as we discussed it in the Bill Committee but unfortunately did not get enough support for it there—as was the case with everything we proposed—so I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for tabling it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for his lobbying and for providing us with lots of background information. I agree that it is incredibly important that new clause 7 is agreed, particularly the provisions on consent and making sure that participants are of an appropriate age to be taking part. We have heard so many stories of so many people whose videos are online—whose bodies are online—and there is nothing they can do about it because of the lack of regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) has covered new clause 33 in an awful lot of detail—very good detail—so I will not comment on that.

The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) mentioned how we need to get the balance right, and specifically talked about the role of the regulator. In many ways, this Bill has failed to get the balance right in its attempts to protect children online. Many people who have been involved in writing this Bill, talking about this Bill, scrutinising this Bill and taking part in every piece of work that we have done around it do not understand how children use the internet. Some people do, absolutely, but far too many of the people who have had any involvement in this Bill do not. They do not understand the massive benefits to children of using the internet, the immense amount of fun they can have playing Fortnite, Fall Guys, Minecraft, or whatever it is they happen to be playing online and how important that is to them in today’s crazy world with all of the social media pressures. Children need to decompress. This is a great place for children to have fun—to have a wonderful time—but they need to be protected, just as we would protect them going out to play in the park, just the same as we would protect them in all other areas of life. We have a legal age for smoking, for example. We need to make sure that the protections are in place, and the protections that are in place need to be stronger than the ones that are currently in the Bill.

I did not have a chance earlier—or I do not think I did—to support the clause about violence against women and girls. As I said in Committee, I absolutely support that being in the Bill. The Government may say, “Oh we don’t need to have this in the Bill because it runs through everything,” but having that written in the Bill would make it clear to internet service providers—to all those people providing services online and having user-generated content on their sites—how important this is and how much of a scourge it is. Young women who spend their time on social media are more likely to have lower outcomes in life as a result of problematic social media use, as a result of the pain and suffering that is caused. We should be putting such a measure in the Bill, and I will continue to argue for that.

We have talked a lot about pornographic content in this section. There is not enough futureproofing in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire and I tabled amendment 158 because we are concerned about that lack of futureproofing. The amendment edits the definition of “content”. The current definition of “content” says basically anything online, and it includes a list of stuff. We have suggested that it should say “including but not limited to”, on the basis that we do not know what the internet will look like in two years’ time, let alone what it will look like in 20 years’ time. If this Bill is to stand the test of time, it needs to be clear that that list is not exhaustive. It needs to be clear that, when we are getting into virtual reality metaverses where people are meeting each other, that counts as well. It needs to be clear that the sex dungeon that exists in the child’s game Roblox is an issue—that that content is an issue no matter whether it fits the definition of “content” or whether it fits the fact that it is written communication, images or whatever. It does not need to fit any of that. If it is anything harmful that children can find on the internet, it should be included in that definition of “content”, no matter whether it fits any of those specific categories. We just do not know what the internet is going to look like.

I have one other specific thing in relation to the issues of content and pornography. One of the biggest concerns that we heard is the massive increase in the amount of self-generated child sexual abuse images. A significant number of new images of child sexual abuse are self-generated. Everybody has a camera phone these days. Kids have camera phones these days. They have much more potential to get themselves into really uncomfortable and difficult situations than when most of us were younger. There is so much potential for that to be manipulated unless we get this right.

18:03

I have concerns about the age assurance that was mentioned. If it is livestreamed content, content that is being generated right now at this moment, scanning for those child sexual abuse images will be very difficult. There will not be a hashtag. It has not been discovered before. It is not an image that will have been looked at, categorised and worked out before. It is something that evil people are convincing and forcing children to do today.

That is another place where the Bill fails to recognise how young people use the internet today. It fails to talk specifically about things such as livestreaming and how duties on providing services for children on the internet should reduce things such as the ability to livestream and to have private conversations with potential abusers. All those things are not in the Bill in the way I would like. I understand that the codes of practice will come through and there will be guidance on the risk assessments, but I have not seen enough so far to convince me that people know what they are doing when they are writing those codes of practice.

From what I have heard from Ofcom, it has generally been pretty sensible, but nearly every person I have encountered talking about this Bill who has had or continues to have any say over it does not understand how children actually use the internet. I have been online for nearly 30 years, since I was younger than my children are now. I grew up on the internet. I spend a lot of time on the internet. I have spoken to so many people who I did not know online. I have had so many ridiculous, harmful conversations that I would be aghast and devastated if my children were having now. I do not want that to be happening to tomorrow’s generation of children.

No matter what we put in place, there will always be loopholes and bad actors and there will always be issues, but we want the Bill to be genuinely the best possible. The biggest failing is that lack of understanding of how children interact with the internet. We want it to be a safe place for them. We want them to be able to have great experiences online and to enjoy themselves, and we want to put up those protections in the same way that we put up crossing patrols and so on to protect children, and we are just not there yet.

I appreciate that the Minister and the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), have brought forward a significant number of amendments, although it is unfortunate that they have come at such short notice that we have not had enough time to look at them properly, and I appreciate that they will bring forward more, but there is still more they need to do. Even with all the amendments and all the commitments we have seen, I am still not comfortable enough that my children and my children’s children will be as safe on the internet as they should be.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support new clauses 7 and 33 in particular. I support them sometimes from a different angle from my hon. Friends, but fundamentally from the same angle: consent. I am not afraid to say that I have a different perspective from some hon. Members in this House in that I view sex work as a legitimate form of work under regulated and protected conditions, and pornography as part of that. What I do have a problem with is the lack of consent that occurs far too often not only in the industry—that may be too broad a term—but in particular content that we see online at the moment.

That is true particularly for those sex workers who might have produced content with consent at the time, as adults, but who later in life realise that they do not wish that material to be available any more—not just because they may be embarrassed about it, but perhaps because they just do not want that material commercially available and people making profits off their bodies any more. They are struggling to get content taken down because they are told, “You gave consent at the time and that can’t now be removed. You have to allow your body to be used.” We would not allow any other form of worker or artist to suffer that. In any other form of music or production, if they wished to remove their consent for it to be played, it would be taken down, but in pornography there seems to be a free-for-all where, even if people remove their consent, it still proliferates in copies of copies that are put all over the internet. That is not even to mention people who never gave their consent at all and experience revenge porn or their phones being hacked and the devastation that that can cause.

I might come from a different position on some of this, but I think we can be united in saying that of course we need better action on under-18s, which is very important, but even for those who have supposedly given their consent at one point or another, the removal of consent must be put into the Bill and platforms must have a strict responsibility to remove that content. Without that being in the Bill, there is a danger that platforms will continue to play loophole after loophole and the content will still be there when it should not be.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I was not planning to speak, but we have a couple of minutes so I will abuse that position.

I just want to say that I do not want new clause 7 to be lost in this debate and become part of the flotsam and jetsam of the tide of opinion that goes back and forth in this place, because new clause 7 is about consent. We are trying very hard to teach young men all about consent, and if we cannot do it from this place, then when can we do it? We can work out the details of the technology in time, as we always do. It is out there. Other people are way ahead of us in this matter. In fact, the people who produce this pornography are way ahead of us in this matter.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

While we have been having this debate, Iain Corby, executive director at the Age Verification Providers Association, has sent me an email in which he said that the House may be interested to know that one of the members of that organisation offers adult sites a service that facilitates age verification and the obtaining and maintaining of records of consent. So it is possible to do this if the will is there.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I absolutely agree. We can also look at this from the point of view of gambling reform and age verification for that. The technology is there, and we can harness and use it to protect people. All I am asking is that we do not let this slip through the cracks this evening.

[Damian Collins]

We have had an important debate raising a series of extremely important topics. While the Government may not agree with the amendments that have been tabled, that is not because of a lack of seriousness of concern about the issues that have been raised.

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) spoke very powerfully. I have also met Leigh Nicol, the lady she cited, and she discussed with me the experience that she had. Sadly, it was during lockdown and it was a virtual meeting rather than face to face. There are many young women, in particular, who have experienced the horror of having intimate images shared online without their knowledge or consent and then gone through the difficult experience of trying to get them removed, even when it is absolutely clear that they should be removed and are there without their consent. That is the responsibility of the companies and the platforms to act on.

Thinking about where we are now, before the Bill passes, the requirement to deal with illegal content, even the worst illegal content, on the platforms is still largely based on the reporting of that content, without the ability for us to know how effective they are at actually removing it. That is largely based on old legislation. The Bill will move on significantly by creating proactive responsibilities not just to discover illegal content but to act to mitigate it and to be audited to see how effectively it is done. Under the Bill, that now includes not just content that would be considered to be an abuse of children. A child cannot give consent to have sex or to appear in pornographic content. Companies need to make sure that what they are doing is sufficient to meet that need.

It should be for the regulator, Ofcom, as part of putting together the codes of practice, to understand, even on more extreme content, what systems companies have in place to ensure that they are complying with the law and certainly not knowingly hosting content that has been flagged to them as being non-consensual pornography or child abuse images, which is effectively what pornography with minors would be; and to understand what systems they have in place to make sure that they are complying with the law and, as hon. Members have said, making sure that they are using available technologies in order to deliver that.

[Jess Phillips]

We have an opportunity here today to make sure that the companies are doing it. I am not entirely sure why we would not take that opportunity to legislate to make sure that they are. With the greatest of respect to the Minister back in a position of authority, it sounds an awful lot like the triumph of hope over experience.

[Damian Collins]

It is because of the danger of such a sentiment that this Bill is so important. It not just sets the targets and requirements of companies to act against illegal content, but enables a regulator to ensure that they have the systems and processes in place to do it, that they are using appropriate technology and that they apply the principle that their system should be effective at addressing this issue. If they are defective, that is a failure on the company’s part. It cannot be good enough that the company says, “It is too difficult to do”, when they are not using technologies that would readily solve that problem. We believe that the technologies that the companies have and the powers of the regulator to have proper codes of practice in place and to order the companies to make sure they are doing it will be sufficient to address the concern that the hon. Lady raises.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am a little taken aback that the Minister believes that the legislation will be sufficient. I do not understand why he has not responded to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) was making that we could make this happen by putting the proposal in the Bill and saying, “This is a requirement.” I am not sure why he thinks that is not the best way forward.

[Damian Collins]

It is because the proposal would not make such content more illegal than it is now. It is already illegal and there are already legal duties on companies to act. The regulator’s job is to ensure they have the systems in place to do that effectively, and that is what the Bill sets out. We believe that the Bill addresses the serious issue that the right hon. Lady raises in her amendments. That legal requirement is there, as is the ability to have the systems in place.

If I may, I will give a different example based on the fraud example given by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). On the Joint Committee that scrutinised the Bill, we pushed hard to have fraudulent ads included within the scope of the Bill, which has been one of the important amendments to it. The regulator can consider what systems the company should have in place to identify fraud, but also what technologies it employs to make it far less likely that fraud would be there in the first place. Google has a deal with the Financial Conduct Authority, whereby it limits advertisers from non-accredited companies advertising on its platform. That makes it far less likely that fraud will be discovered because, if the system works, only properly recognised organisations will be advertising.

Facebook does not have such a system in place. As a consequence, since the Google system went live, we have seen a dramatic drop in fraud ads on Google, but a substantial increase in fraud ads on Facebook and platforms such as Instagram. That shows that if we have the right systems in place, we can have a better outcome and change the result. The job of the regulator with illegal pornography and other illegal content should be to look at those systems and say, “Do the companies have the right technology to deliver the result that is required?” If they do not, that would still be a failure of the codes.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister is quoting a case that I quoted in Committee, and the former Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), would not accept amendments on this issue. We could have tightened up on fraudulent advertising. If Google can do that for financial ads, other platforms can do it. We tabled an amendment that the Government did not accept. I do not know why this Minister is quoting something that we quoted in Committee—I know he was not there, but he needs to know that we tried this and the former Minister did not accept what we called for.

[Damian Collins]

I am quoting that case merely because it is a good example of how, if we have better systems, we can get a better result. As part of the codes of practice, Ofcom will be able to look at some of these other systems and say to companies, “This is not just about content moderation; it is about having better systems that detect known illegal activity earlier and prevent it from getting on to the platform.” It is not about how quickly it is removed, but how effective companies are at stopping it ever being there in the first place. That is within the scope of regulation, and my belief is that those powers exist at the moment and therefore should be used.

[Jess Phillips]

Just to push on this point, images of me have appeared on pornographic sites. They were not necessarily illegal images of anything bad happening to me, but other Members of Parliament in this House and I have suffered from that. Is the Minister telling me that this Bill will allow me to get in touch with that site and have an assurance that that image will be taken down and that it would be breaking the law if it did not do so?

[Damian Collins]

The Bill absolutely addresses the sharing of non-consensual images in that way, so that would be something the regulator should take enforcement action against—

[Jess Phillips]

Should!

[Damian Collins]

Well, the regulator is required, and has the power, to take enforcement action against companies for failing to do so. That is what the legislation sets out, and we will be in a very different place from where we are now. That is why the Bill constitutes a very significant reform.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Collins]

Very briefly, and then I want to wrap up.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Could the Minister give me a reassurance about when consent is withdrawn? The image may initially have been there “consensually”—I would put that in inverted commas—so the platform is okay to put it there. However, if someone contacts the platform saying that they now want to change their consent—they may want to take a role in public life, having previously had a different role; I am not saying that about my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—my understanding is that there is no ability legally to enforce that content coming down. Can the Minister correct me, and if not, why is he not supporting new clause 7?

18:15

[Damian Collins]

With people who have appeared in pornographic films consensually and signed contracts to do so, that would be a very different matter from the question of intimate images being shared without consent. When someone has not consented for such images to be there, that would be a very different matter. I am saying that the Bill sets out very clearly—it did not do so in draft form—that non-consensual sexual images and extreme pornography are within the scope of the regulator’s power. The regulator should be taking action not just on what a company does to take such content down when it is discovered after the event, but on what systems the company has in place and whether it deploys all available technology to make sure that such content is never there in the first place.

Before closing, I want to touch briefly on the point raised about the Secretary of State’s powers to designate priority areas of harm. This is now under the affirmative procedure in the Bill, and it requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The priority illegal harms will be based on offences that already exist in law, and we are writing those priority offences into the Bill. The other priorities will be areas where the regulator will seek to test whether companies adhere to their terms of service. The new transparency requirements will set that out, and the Government have said that we will set out in more detail which of those priority areas of harm such transparency will apply to. There is still more work to be done on that, but we have given an indicative example. However, when it comes to adding a new priority illegal offence to the Bill, the premise is that it will already be an offence that Parliament has created, and writing it into the Bill will be done with the positive consent of Parliament. I think that is a substantial improvement on where the Bill was before. I am conscious that I have filled my time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

18:17

Division 38

Ayes: 220

Noes: 285

Clause 34

Duties about fraudulent advertising: Category 1 services

Amendment made: 83, page 33, line 20, leave out “and (9)” and insert “, (9) and (9A)”.—(Damian Collins.)

This technical amendment ensures that a reference to clause 52 takes account of the new subsection inserted by Amendment 98.

Clause 35

Duties about fraudulent advertising: Category 2A services

Amendment made: 84, page 34, line 21, leave out “and (9)” and insert “, (9) and (9A)”.—(Damian Collins.)

This technical amendment ensures that a reference to clause 52 takes account of the new subsection inserted by Amendment 98.

Clause 63

Interpretation of this Chapter

Amendment made: 101, page 56, line 32, leave out “and (9)” and insert “, (9) and (9A)”.—(Damian Collins.)

This technical amendment ensures that a reference to clause 52 takes account of the new subsection inserted by Amendment 98.

Clause 176

Powers to amend section 36

Amendment made: 141, page 141, line 39, leave out “and (9)” and insert “, (9) and (9A)”.—(Damian Collins.)

This technical amendment ensures that a reference to clause 52 takes account of the new subsection inserted by Amendment 98.

Clause 177

Powers to amend or repeal provisions relating to exempt content or services

Amendments made: 177, page 142, line 6, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2A),”.

Amendment 178, page 142, line 7, after “49” insert “(2)(e),”.

Amendment 179, page 142, line 8, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 180, page 142, line 12, at end insert—

“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) may not have the effect that comments and reviews on provider content present on a service of which the provider is a recognised news publisher become regulated user-generated content within the meaning of Part 3.”

Amendment 181, page 142, line 25, leave out “any” and insert “either”.

Amendment 182, page 142, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 183, page 142, line 34, at end insert—

“(7A) Subject to subsection (7B), the Secretary of State may by regulations amend paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 (limited functionality services) if the Secretary of State considers that it is appropriate because of the risk of harm to individuals in the United Kingdom presented by a service described in that paragraph.

(7B) Regulations under subsection (7A) may not have the effect that a service described in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 of which the provider is a recognised news publisher is no longer exempt under that paragraph.”

Amendment 184, page 142, line 46, leave out subsection (11) and insert—

‘(11) In this section—

“comments and reviews on provider content” and “one-to-one live aural communications” have the meaning given by section 49;

“recognised news publisher” has the meaning given by section 50;

“regulated provider pornographic content” and “published or displayed” have the same meaning as in Part 5 (see section 66).’—(Damian Collins.)

Amendments 177 to 184 ensure that the power to amend the definition of “regulated user-generated content” in clause 49 cannot be exercised so as to include comments and reviews on content on services provided by recognised news publishers, and the power to amend paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 (limited functionality services) cannot be exercised so as to remove such services which are provided by recognised news publishers from the exemption.

Clause 179

Powers to amend Schedules 5, 6 and 7

Amendments made: 142, page 145, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—

“But an offence may be added to that Schedule only on the grounds in subsection (4) or (4A), and subsection (5) limits the power to add an offence.”

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 143 and 144.

Amendment 143, page 145, line 15, leave out from beginning to “the” and insert

“The first ground for adding an offence to Schedule 7 is that”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 144.

Amendment 144, page 145, line 24, at end insert—

“(4A) The second ground for adding an offence to Schedule 7 is that the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so because of—

(a) the prevalence of the use of regulated user-to-user services for the commission or facilitation of that offence,

(b) the risk of harm to individuals in the United Kingdom presented by the use of such services for the commission or facilitation of that offence, and

(c) the severity of that harm.”

This amendment extends the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations adding an offence to Schedule 7 so that it will be a priority offence. The new grounds concern the prevalence of user-to-user services being used to commit or facilitate the offence in question.

Amendment 145, page 146, line 5, leave out “and (9)” and insert “, (9) and (9A)”.—(Damian Collins.)

This technical amendment ensures that a reference to clause 52 takes account of the new subsection inserted by Amendment 98.

Clause 182

Parliamentary procedure for regulations

Amendment made: 185, page 147, line 3, after “(6)” insert “, (7A)”.—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment ensures that regulations under clause 177(7A) (inserted by Amendment 183) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment proposed: 31, page 147, line 16, leave out from “unless” to end of line 17 and insert—

“(a) a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament,

“(b) the Secretary of State has made a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the draft instrument, and

(c) the draft instrument has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Barbara Keeley.)

This amendment would require a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under sections 53 or 54 to be debated on the floor of the House of Commons, rather than in a delegated legislation committee (as part of the affirmative procedure).

Question put, That the amendment be made.

18:34

Division 39

Ayes: 188

Noes: 283

Clause 193

Index of defined terms

Amendments made: 186, page 158, line 25, at end insert—

“journalistic content (in Part 3)

section 16”

This is a technical amendment adding a definition of “journalistic content” to the index of defined terms.

Amendment 146, page 159, line 18, at end insert—

“priority offence (in Part 3)

section 52”

—(Damian Collins.)

This technical amendment adds a definition of “priority offence” to the index of defined terms.

Schedule 8

Transparency reports by providers of Category 1 services, Category 2a services and Category 2b services

Amendment made: 150, page 188, line 29, at end insert—

“7A Features, including functionalities, that a provider considers may contribute to risks of harm to individuals using the service, and measures taken or in use by the provider to mitigate and manage those risks.”—(Damian Collins.)

This amendment adds a new matter to Schedule 8, which is about things that providers can be asked to provide transparency reports about. The new matter is about risks around functionalities used by user-to-user services.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Duddridge.)

Bill to be further considered tomorrow.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mark Spencer relating to Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster not later than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the business on that Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(James Duddridge.)

Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: House of Lords Commission and House of Commons Commission, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster—a new mandate, Joint Report, HC 399; Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body: Main Supply Estimate for 2022-23: Comments from the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission and the Treasury, HC 232; Tenth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Restoration and Renewal of Parliament, HC 49.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I can inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected both the amendments on the Order Paper: amendment (b), in the name of the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), and amendment (a), in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). In accordance with the Business of the House (Today) motion, which the House has just agreed, I shall invite each of them to move their amendment formally at the end of the debate. I now call the Leader of the House to move the motion.

18:46

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)]

I beg to move,

That this House:

reaffirms its commitment to preserving the Palace of Westminster for future generations and ensuring the safety of all those who work in and visit the Palace, now and in the future;

notwithstanding the Resolution of 31 January 2018, welcomes the report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions proposing a new mandate for the Restoration and Renewal works and a new governance structure to support them;

accordingly endorses the recommendations set out in the Commissions’ report; and

in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.

May I say at the outset what an honour it is to stand here, in this historic and iconic Chamber, which is recognised around the world. We are truly privileged to represent our constituents here. However, we also have a responsibility to ensure that it is here for future generations, and a responsibility for its upkeep and preservation. We take those responsibilities very seriously. So today, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, I am asking the House to endorse the report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions—which was unanimously agreed on a cross-party basis—recommending a revised mandate for the Restoration and Renewal programme, and to approve the motion before the House.

The building needs to be repaired; that is not in question. The Commissions are united in recognising that, and we reaffirm our commitment to protecting this historic palace for future generations. The Commissions have worked constructively and across party lines to address Parliament’s shared challenge, and I therefore welcome the signature of the spokesman for the House of Commons Commission, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), on the motion.

In that context, the amendment proposed by the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), is somewhat disappointing, and contrary to the spirit in which work has proceeded so far. I think that the hon. Lady and I have a constructive working relationship, and I hope that we can get back on an even keel and find a way through this. We certainly agree that the need for the work is urgent, that delay in starting it will increase the costs and risks, and that it should be started as soon as possible to—in the words of the Joint Commission—

“ensure the maximum value for money”.

There is definitely no blank cheque available from the taxpayer.

The hon. Lady’s amendment does not really add anything to the report of the Joint Commission; rather, it is at odds with the consensual and productive cross-party approach taken by the Joint Commissions of both Houses. Rebuilding the Palace of Westminster is a huge task and it will require all parliamentarians to take difficult decisions and both Houses to be in agreement. If we are divided or deliberately partisan, our tasks will become near impossible. I hope the hon. Lady will reflect and withdraw her amendment, but I look forward to hearing her words when she gets to her feet. I hope we can work constructively together in the near future to deliver the project.

Nevertheless, the question will no doubt arise: why are we here again? Surely the debates of 2019 finished the issue and we should not be back revisiting it. In fact, we are at a crossroads where decisions are required in a radically different context. In 2018, decisions on the structure of the programme were made at a time when estimates were in the region of £3.5 billion, with a programme to decant for approximately six years. This was the context in which the two Houses agreed the current approach. But in early 2022, the Sponsor Body published its essential schemes options. It estimated the cost to be between £7 billion and £13 billion and that the work would take between 19 and 28 years and require a full decant of the Palace of Westminster for between 12 and 20 years. Those are certainly very different from the figures with which we were presented in the past. The Sponsor Body also concluded that work would probably not begin until 2027 at the very earliest.

This is a very different proposition. A gap has emerged between what is realistic, practical and can be justified to taxpayers, and what is being proposed by the Sponsor Body. These estimates make it difficult to proceed down this path only two years after the pandemic and facing a challenging fiscal context. In 2019 it was thought that an independent body was best placed to act on behalf of Parliament and guide this project, but we must now recognise the flaws in that model. As the independent panel says, the governance structure envisaged in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 was based on certainty: a project flows through a standard business case cycle with clear progress, “unimpeded by the Client”. But Parliament presents a particularly complex environment, and this is a programme spanning multiple Parliaments, so the governance structure must, in the words of the panel, be able to

“anticipate and adapt to changing demands”.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am very critical of what the Commissions have done in this regard because I have a terrible fear that if we just keep on changing the governance structure time after time, we will never move forward until there is some catastrophe in the building. That is precisely what happened in the 19th century, and it looks as if we are going to do it all over again, with politicians meddling in something that should be done for generations. Can he confirm, however, that his motion today will not be contradictory to a full decant of both Houses across eight years, which I know is his personal preference?

[Mark Spencer]

I am happy to confirm that to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken a great interest in this project. It is important to be clear with the House today that taking the Sponsor Body back in-house and back under the control of the House does not rule out any option. It does not rule out the option of a decant of 20 years. What I am saying to the House is that I do not think that that is a deliverable option. We need to look at some more practical measures, and I will come to that later in my speech. It is difficult to comprehend how we can deliver a project of this magnitude without some form of decant, but I am not an expert and, as the hon. Gentleman says, lots of Members are not experts in this field, so we need the delivery authority, which will have that expertise, to guide us and to come to those decisions very quickly.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Leader of the House has acknowledged that he is not an expert, and that most of us in this House are not experts on running major projects. The original intention of the Act of Parliament passed by this House, which has been unpicked in private in the Commissions, was that an expert body, the Sponsor Body, would be created to deliver that expertise. That body has now been abolished. He says that it has been brought in-house, but many people have left it. Can he be very precise with the House about exactly what will replace it, and where he thinks that expertise will come from in the Commissions, which in both Houses do not have the inbuilt expertise to deliver this project?

[Mark Spencer]

I will come to that, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right. What we need to do is get on with this project and stop dilly-dallying, which is why the direction of travel was not as rapid as the Commissions and I wanted. We were heading for a huge confrontation with this House, because I do not think the plans would have been palatable to Members when we finally got there. There is a shortcut we can take to expedite this process, and I will come to the structure later. I think we can get to a place where we can all agree to tap into the expertise she says we need, and that is what we are trying to establish.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Do we not also need some common sense and realism? Surely the priority is to do those works that are essential to the safety of the building and its occupants. We have to understand the mood of the times and say to the experts that to allow this enormous escalation in the project’s cost, scope and timing is simply not acceptable.

[Mark Spencer]

I honestly think we can do both. I think we can get to an understanding and a place where, with expert advice, we can get value for taxpayers’ money, where we can progress this as rapidly as possible and where we can take a more common-sense approach.

The Commissions have taken all these points on board, carefully assessed the options and sought independent advice on the best way forward. The Commissions, with cross-party representation and independent and external members, have taken a unanimous decision that it is necessary to revise the approach to the governance and mandate of the R&R programme.

We need a governance structure that is responsive to the requirements of the parliamentary context, is accountable to Parliament and is better placed to build the necessary consensus. The Commissions have judged that this can be best achieved through an in-house structure. The Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act will remain in place and will continue to provide the statutory underpinning.

The current Sponsor Body will be abolished, and its functions under the Act will be transferred to two corporate officers who will become the statutory duty holders. The Act provides for this flexibility by allowing for the Sponsor Body to be abolished and for its functions to be transferred. The proposed in-house governance structure will consist of two tiers: a client board on which the two Commissions have strategic oversight; and a programme board with external expertise that will be central to resolving critical choices and priorities.

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

One of the reasons why those of us who sat on the Joint Committee seven years ago—it is sad that so much time has gone by—did not look to do this in-house was that we judged that the expertise did not exist in-house. Although there are some fantastic people working here, I am afraid the House does not have a great track record of delivering projects cost-effectively. Why does my right hon. Friend think this will now somehow change?

[Mark Spencer]

That is a little disingenuous. The cast-iron roof project, for example, was delivered in-house and was delivered on time and on budget, which demonstrates that the House authorities do have that ability, but I think they would also recognise that they do not have the expertise, which is why it will be brought in. The programme board will be the structure that has experts who are able to advise and come forward with proposals.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Following on from my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), it is certainly a fact that the people who will be in the joint department have signed off projects in this House such as the Elizabeth Tower, which has trebled in cost. Can the Leader of the House give the House an absolute guarantee that the expert panel will be in place throughout the project and that the joint department will actually take its advice?

[Mark Spencer]

That would require this House to change that model again if that were the case. That expertise will be brought in and accessed, which is what we require; we do require that expertise. My hon. Friend said that he did not think there was a huge track record, but the model on which we were operating was driving us towards a huge cliff edge where we were going to be faced with a bill of the top side of £20 billion and a decant of 20-plus years, which I do not think this House would tolerate or vote for. We would be completely hamstrung. In that circumstance, what I am suggesting, as are the two Commissions, is that in this model we can come forward with some more practical measures and reprioritisation, which I will come to in a moment.

The relatively small staff team of the Sponsor Body will be brought in-house as a Joint Department, accountable to the Corporate Officers, delivering the strategic case and working in tandem with Strategic Estates. Let me emphasise that the Delivery Authority’s role will remain unchanged; that valuable expertise and experience will remain in place. The senior leadership of the Delivery Authority will continue and, following recent discussions, I am confident and positive about their ability to work within the new governance structure.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On the staff team and the Sponsor Body, will the Leader of the House give a commitment that all of the staff team will be brought in-house and that that will be done speedily so that they do not find themselves in the limbo they are currently in?

[Mark Spencer]

They are currently planned to TUPE across, and they will be taken across. Some of them have already left, but it is important to understand that the real expertise is within the Delivery Authority. We have secured the use of those individuals and they are busy on other projects within the House.

There is a need, highlighted in the Public Accounts Committee’s report—one that the Commissions absolutely recognise and have sought to address in their report—for the programme to enable long-term decision making. The Commissions’ report recommends that an end-state vision should be developed. Having a clear end goal in sight allows granular decisions to follow, and Parliament will have to accept compromises and take some difficult decisions in setting that long-term direction. But we cannot anticipate all the needs or events of the future. Opportunities for periodic review allow the programme to adapt to changing fiscal, societal and political contexts. Neither can we override parliamentary sovereignty. It is just realistic to recognise that there must be opportunities for future Parliaments to review decisions.

The House is further being asked to endorse a revised approach to the works, one that puts safety first. Parliament must be guided by rigorous value-for-money considerations. In these economic times, financial responsibility must be our watchword. As I said earlier, there is no blank cheque from the taxpayer.

[Chris Bryant]

May I try again?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course.

[Chris Bryant]

The Leader of the House keeps talking about how every Parliament has to be able to reform and change the system, but that is just like procurement in the Ministry of Defence; we just keep changing the specification of the tank and it gets more and more expensive, because we never move forward. That is the real danger that a lot of us are worrying about, which is why we wanted to have an arm’s-length organisation. The membership of the Commissions does not even stay the same. I am guessing it might change when he is no longer Leader of the House, perhaps on 6 September. All these changes just make it impossible for us to drive forward a project in a cost-effective and non-risky way.

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong, in that we are changing the structures but he has to recognise that if this project is to take 25 years to deliver to its final conclusion, it is entirely possible that the circumstances in 25 years’ time will not be the same as they are today. It is clearly possible to imagine a circumstance, in fairly recent times, where the internet did not exist, and clearly that technology was not considered when we were adapting and changing the House—that has had to be built in. I do not know, as I do not have a crystal ball, what technology may be required in the future. We need to have the flexibility of foot to be able to accommodate any of those future changes.

[Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Is it not the case that this project may never end, because as things go on breaking and evolving, we will be doing this forever. Therefore my right hon. Friend is right to take it in-house, and to keep the bills low, because my constituents want the potholes in their roads repaired and they want a hospital. They are very happy with this but they are not as bothered about this place as they are about their own? So is not this just going to be an endless process, which we need to manage on an ongoing basis?

[Mark Spencer]

Where my hon. Friend is right is that it is a little bit like the Forth Bridge, in that there will always be something that will need to be maintained, protected or made safe. In the short term, we need to prioritise those things. There are four areas that the Commissions want to prioritise; I hope the House will agree that they are all very important priorities. No. 1 is fire and safety; that is absolutely fundamental to what we should be driving towards. Building services are second, then asbestos, and then building fabric conservation. I hope Members will agree that those are indeed urgent priorities for us to focus on.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

On the point of fire safety, could the Leader of the House confirm that the tens of millions of pounds—£140 million or so—that has been spent on the fire safety system to date protects those of us who may be working or in the building at the time, so that we could escape; but it does not protect the building? Would he also confirm that he is aware of, and understands, the responsibilities that UNESCO places on the Government of the day to make sure that this world heritage site does survive?

[Mark Spencer]

Of course; it is absolutely vital. I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that actually Notre Dame burned down—a terrible disaster—because workmen were in there. They had actually decanted, and it was the workmen who were working in there that finally burnt down Notre Dame. So we do have a responsibility to make sure not only that people are safe, but that the building is here for hundreds of years to come. I think we can achieve that by making those our four most important priorities.

For the medium and long term, the Commissions’ report sets out the parameters of how to deliver the works, above all advocating better integration of all the various safety, repair and renewal works that are taking place across the palace. That approach could allow decisions to be brought to Parliament quicker, work to start faster, and priorities to be flexed where required.

Turning to the next steps, the motion before the House is to endorse the recommendations of the Joint Commission and agree the change to the response function and the revised mandate to the works. Secondary legislation will be required to give effect to some of these decisions. So over the next year options will be reviewed, and a strategic case will be presented to the House in 2023. It is important for Members to understand that the House is not being asked for a decision on decant or costs today. Members will be consulted, and will have opportunities to engage with the decision making, and the House will need to take future decisions on these issues at a later date. In the meantime, the Commissions have endorsed a pragmatic approach that will allow work to be undertaken in the interim.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

This is a critically important point. The Leader of the House has said that an outline business case will be presented, with options, in 2023. Following that, can he tell the House when a contract to start the work is likely to take place—that it is likely to take place in this Parliament? That would make it less likely that a following Parliament would alter the decision?

[Mark Spencer]

That clearly would be the ambition—to try and get on with that as soon as possible, but there is lots of other work that we can get on with in the meantime. For example, there is a plan to renovate the Victoria Tower at the other end of this building. That was going to be left until the restoration and renewal project was fully under way, but under this model we shall be able to get on with that much more quickly, and make sure that that masonry is secure and in place for future generations.

Let me turn to amendment (b) tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and others. To be clear, the House is not being asked for a decision on decant today: the extent to which the House should move is ultimately for Members to consider. The report does not make a recommendation on length, the moves or location, nor does anything in the motion or Commissions’ report predetermine any outcome. So we may well end up in the place advocated in amendment (b). However, I am asking the House today not to bind the hands of those who are looking at this—to give them a free hand to go and consider these things in a timely way and to come back with a very firm and clear plan.

The intrusive surveys, which are nearing completion, will offer us a clearer view of the condition of the House. The proposed amendment would further tie our hands and require us to make a decision on the basis of incomplete information and evidence. Let us allow the Delivery Authority to do its job and complete the intrusive survey, then take the decision on decant informed by the evidence in 2023, as originally planned. In my view, the state of the building is such that a period of decant will be required, but unlike some hon. Members, I do not wish to pre-emptively decide on a timeframe.

Many Members will agree with the spirit of this amendment. The Commissioners present will hear what Members say during the debate, and I hope their views will be taken on board as we move forward. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to press the amendment. This is not the time to commit the House or to bind the Commissions’ hands. I hope that we can join together and move forward. The Commissions have unanimously agreed to propose a new way forward, one that allows us to balance our requirements of a working legislature and our responsibility to take decisions appropriate to the economic context in which we find ourselves today. I bring this motion to the House on behalf of the Commissions.

19:11

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this timely debate on how we will govern the essential programme of works needed to preserve the heart of our democracy for years and generations come.

Only yesterday, the sitting of this House was suspended as water poured in. It is not the first time that business has been disrupted by a potentially unsafe working environment, and while yesterday’s sitting was suspended for only an hour, who knows how long we could be forced out next time? Electrical, plumbing or mechanical failure—there is urgent work to be done, so I am glad that we have the chance to get things moving again today.

Whether it is the weight of history on one’s shoulders as one walks through the 11th-century Westminster Hall, or the beauty of the sunlight beaming across New Palace Yard through the colonnades, the honour of working on a UNESCO world heritage site comes with a duty to be a responsible custodian. It is an honour to work in the Palace of Westminster, with all its architectural, cultural and historical significance. We also have legal and moral obligations to preserve this listed building, which around the world is a symbol of Britain and our democracy. But those who work here need to be able to carry out the functions of a modern-day Parliament, and those who visit here ought to be able to experience the Palace in all its glory, and they must be able to do so safely.

Whether they are working or visiting, everyone on the parliamentary estate must not only be but feel safe—safe from falling masonry, safe from asbestos, safe from a catastrophic failure of the building. I share the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that we are heading for that catastrophic failure if we do nothing. I recognise the concerns of right hon. and hon. Friends and Members in all parts of the House that that is where we are heading.

When I say everyone, I truly mean it. The estate must also be made more accessible to people with disabilities. Not only does the lack of accessibility make visiting the estate difficult, but it disenfranchises a talented group of people from working in Parliament. Restoration and renewal could provide opportunities to improve access and step-free accessibility, as well as visitor facilities.

I think no one is likely to disagree with anything I have said, which is similar to much of what the Leader of the House said, so Members could be forgiven for wondering why we are here—why we are where we are in the restoration and renewal of the Palace. In 2018, the Commons and the Lords agreed that work was pressing and rightly concluded that it should be undertaken by a statutory sponsor body and delivery authority. Subsequently, as my amendment highlights—it pains me to have to say this, but I do have to and I notified the right hon. Gentleman that I would—the former Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), worked to undermine progress and spent time wrangling with experts instead of working with them to secure the future of the building. We must follow the evidence and the advice of experts. I did think that the Government could have learnt by now that ignoring experts is just not advisable. I am afraid to say that in my view there is a political dimension. The Leader of the House asked me not to make it a party political matter. I am afraid to say that there is a huge aspect that is. It is on certain members of the Government that we are here. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset just kept changing the goal posts. I have seen that happen. That is typical of the whole Government.

However, today’s motion, much as I might regret that we are here, is purely about the governance structure of the works. As shadow Leader and therefore member of the House of Commons Commission, I was part of the Joint Commission that took this decision, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I will support the motion. I do so not because I am happy with how we got here—I am very much not—but because it seems to me that we are running out of other options. I do not want to undermine the skill and undoubted dedication of the people involved in the Sponsor Body, but for whatever reason—there is a range of reasons—confidence had been lost over emerging costs and so on. The Independent Expert Panel reviewed the situation and has concluded that the current model is unlikely to be viable.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about costs and we have heard about spiralling costs. The Sponsor Body has been honest about what the costs are. One of the biggest problems in this place is that we come up with figures—the Queen Elizabeth Tower being a classic example—that are totally unrealistic. We have to be honest that this project will cost a lot of money.

[Thangam Debbonaire]

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. We do not have to be expert builders to see that this is going to cost money and it is going to take time. I see no alternative to both Houses having to move out for a period of time, as yet undetermined.

I also say in response to my right hon. Friend that this shows the critical role of the Commons Finance Committee, the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), and the Public Accounts Committee, which has done such excellent work. Members of the PAC are here today and are very knowledgeable and skilled at exactly that sort of line by line scrutiny. We would need that whoever was commissioning the works—whether it was the Sponsor Body, and both Committees have paid close attention to the current structure, or any future structure.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

In 2015, I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee, ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). On that basis, I went to see the works and the operations of this building. It is still remarkable to me that we keep the entire thing going. My hon. Friend, the shadow Leader of the House, mentioned people who work here and their expertise. Is she confident that account has been taken of their judgment about the way they can continue to operate the building while this procrastination goes on and that we can support them in the difficult work that they do?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right to raise it and to pay tribute to the work of the Public Accounts Committee. Am I confident? I am not currently confident or certain of where we are at the moment in terms of delivering anything in the way that we wanted to, but I am confident that we need to do it. Having spoken to the Delivery Authority, I am confident that it views this as doable, and it is the authority that will be carrying out the work. Having reviewed the situation, the Independent Expert Panel noted:

“in principle the existing governance model could be made to work, but that lost confidence and momentum means that retaining the current model is unlikely to work.”

What it has also said, which might speak to my hon. Friend’s question, is that the recommendation of bringing the Sponsor Body function in-house should be viewed as a pragmatic measure to cover what is needed for the next 12 to 24 months—the decision phase if you like. It has also recommended that that pragmatism should not preclude alternative future options. We need to see this as part of a process to get us to the decision. Regrettable though it may be, and I do regret it, that we are where we are, this appears to be a compromise way of moving forward, with best value for money, safety and time.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about the Public Accounts Committee. To be clear, the role of that Committee is no substitute for the role of a proper sponsor or client function that keeps a close eye on the cost on a day-to-day basis. We look at things retrospectively, although we may make recommendations. Nor are we, as the Public Accounts Committee, expert enough to deliver this process. She talks about our report. Our report said that we regretted that decisions were made secretively and in private on a decision that was before the House and an Act of Parliament of this House. Does she have any comment about how we got from that Act of Parliament to where we are today?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I completely support what my hon. Friend says. Why are we here? I have already mentioned my own view on why we are here, at least partly. We need to note here that the Sponsor Body was repeatedly asked, as if we had had a referendum—goodness me—and asked people to keep voting on it until they came up with the answer that was wanted. It is very difficult to avoid looking at some of what has happened over the past couple of years and coming to the conclusion that there were people who were just going to keep asking until they got a different answer and, eventually, when they got a different answer, they said, “I don’t like that answer.”

That is problematic. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not the duty of the Public Accounts Committee to scrutinise the day-to-day spending of this body, whether it is in-house or external. It will need a very strong programme board, which will need expertise. There will also have to be extremely tight accounting measures.

I do not yet know exactly who will be on the programme board. I urge all those right hon. and hon. Members who have not just an interest—interest alone is not enough—but actual skill in this area, and ideally some of those who have history, having sat on so many Committees, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) have, to consider whether they should be part of the programme board. I certainly urge them to think about it.

Doing nothing is not an option. There is no doubt that large-scale work is needed. Asbestos, leaks, wires, plumbing nobody knows the function of, a building at risk of fire and flood—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) is quite right that the fire remediation works mean that we are protected, but the building is not—this work has to happen. It is testament to the hard-working House staff and to contractors that we thankfully have not yet witnessed a catastrophic failure of the building, as has been seen in others around the world, but at some stage that hard work will not be enough.

I want that on record. We must make sure that we are not the Parliament that delayed, at the cost of this magnificent building with its magnificent history. The parliamentary estate is in desperate need, and it is important that the restoration and renewal process works well with Parliament’s maintenance teams, who do such a good job. We have therefore no choice but to find a way out.

I note the amendment in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda and for Hackney South and Shoreditch and other right hon. and hon. Members, who are incredibly knowledgeable. I agree with their desire for urgency and that everything must be done to avoid unnecessary delay, cost and risk. I particularly pay further tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch for the work she has done on the Public Accounts Committee. I reiterate that in its recent report, the Committee encouraged further scrutiny. Value for taxpayers is important.

Before I close, I also recognise my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, who in his role as Chair of the Finance Committee and the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission has been invaluable, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. Many hon. Members have sat on the Committees for many years, but I do believe he may be the only one to have sat on pretty much all of them for a significant amount of time. His incredible wealth of knowledge seems to me to be unmatched.

However, having made my points, I will not test the House’s patience by pushing the amendment in my name to a vote. I will end by saying that we are the generation who have been given the honour, the privilege and, yes, we could say the burden of sorting this problem out. I think it is an honour and a privilege. Some of us will not see the end of it—either we will be no more, or we will be no more Members of Parliament. That is just where we are. We are the generation who decided to put it off no longer. We must go on record as having done everything we can to get the process moving, to preserve and enhance the Palace of Westminster so that it can go on as a safe, thriving and accessible workplace for many, many more centuries to come.

19:24

[Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is new to this. I recognise that both as a friend and a thoughtful politician he is approaching this in the way he judges the most sensible, so I do not want him to take any of the comments from me or from other Members tonight as being about him, but it is about seven years of failure, in my view.

We are standing in what is, for all of us, the office, but it is also a global landmark. We have all seen how—thank goodness, in the wake of the pandemic—the streets outside are full of tourists again. People come here to be photographed alongside the Elizabeth Tower and see this building as a symbol of the United Kingdom. The reality is that it is a world heritage site. People who question whether we should spend money on updating, restoring and protecting it, and say that we should move to a new building elsewhere, miss the point that we have a legal duty, whatever we do as a democracy, to restore this building and protect it for the future.

Back in 2015, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I, and others, including the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), sat on a Joint Committee of both Houses saying, “What are we going to do about the problem?” It is a very real and acute problem. When I became Leader of the House in 2015, about four days later, we very nearly had to relocate out of this building because up there in the vents the engineers found asbestos. Had they discovered that that asbestos had been disturbed—fortunately it had not; it had remained unmoved for decades—we would have had no choice but to close the Chamber for months and months.

That kind of risk is with us every day of every week. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) referred to the leak yesterday. Thank goodness it was a small problem. But we saw what happened at Notre Dame. Yes, the Leader of the House is right that it was down to a workman in the building doing the wrong thing, but we have workmen right across this building all the time, and it can happen. We saw what happened at Clandon Park. The thing that really brought it home to me at the time of the Joint Committee was when Kingsway caught fire—a road caught fire—because of electrical problems underneath its surface, and it burned for about two days.

The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right: the fire service have always said, as they said back in 2015—it is not just about now—that, if there is a serious incident in this place, they could save the people but they could not save the building. So every day of every week in this building, we live with the risk that we may discover that an asbestos problem or a critical failure of the plumbing system means that we have to move.

[Mark Tami]

The right hon. Gentleman is a fellow person who has been at this for seven years. We have already seen a release of asbestos in Speaker’s House that will lead to a group of people having to be monitored for probably about 40 years to see whether in those terrible circumstances anything actually develops, and that can happen in any part of the building.

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We went through all this seven years ago. It is hugely frustrating to me that we are here seven years later still working out what to do about it. I thought that we would have done something by the time we got to 2022.

The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rhondda will remember me pushing hard to get the northern estate project started so that we could move on and decant quickly. At least the northern estate, or some parts of it, is being done, and we have taken over Richmond House, as we planned at the time, but here we are seven years later still discussing how we are going to do this. It is not about discussing how we are going to do it starting in about a year’s time. I cannot see how we quickly get to a point where the works are actually starting. With every week that goes by, there is the risk that we as Members of Parliament wake up in the morning and discover that we have relocated to Church House indefinitely. We have to accept that.

[Chris Bryant]

Is not one of the difficulties that all the alternative places that we would have to go to in an emergency are not safe? Church House is not safe from any kind of bomb attack, and there is no other venue that we could go to. I think the Government have just sold the one other place that we might have gone to. There is nowhere. So this is not only a risk to us and the building; it is also a risk to our democracy.

[Chris Grayling]

We have been around the houses on this. We had all the proposals, whether it was “Let’s build some great gin palace on Horse Guards”, “Let’s have some great building taking up the whole width of the River Thames”, or, “Let’s move out of London”, but the logistics of this place mean that Parliament and Government have to be close to each other. In order that Ministers can go to and fro between their Departments and the Front Bench, in order to have interactions between both Houses of Parliament, and in order to have basic levels of security—given the horrendous events that have taken place in recent times, we absolutely have to make that a priority—the reality is that Parliament will not move off the secure estate. It is why we recommended taking over Richmond House, because it was the one place that gives us extra capacity within a secure environment.

The reason I have put my name to this amendment tonight and the reason I am minded to push it to a Division, unless I can achieve an extra bit of assurance from the Leader of the House—I hope he will be able to say a couple of words at the end—is that we have been around the houses on this issue, and we have talked about all the different options. We have explored the issues and challenges, and the Leader of the House is absolutely right that we do not have the expertise in-house. We need the expert advisers. I respect the fact that he will bring in further expert advice to help him, but, at the end of the day, there are only a certain number of ways in which we can do this.

On the Joint Committee, we agreed that doing this bit by bit over a 30-year period does not work, because that would leave too much risk for too long. We explored whether we could do half the building and then the other half, but the problem is that the services are all common to both Houses. There is not a shutter that can be brought down between the Commons and the Lords—the sewerage and plumbing systems work for both, and the risers full of asbestos serve both. There is no simple option that allows us to move into the Lords Chamber while this is done, and so forth. We came to the clear conclusion that a decant was the only realistic option.

Many Members have expressed concerns that if we move out, we will never move back. I do not think we can just move out with an endless timeframe. There has to be a clear mandate for the people who will do the work, and that is the purpose of the amendment. It states that we think the only viable option—I have discussed the fact that we spent a year debating it—is a decant that lasts a maximum of eight years, because no Parliament will accept being asked to write a blank cheque. This is where I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The idea that we could do a 20-year decant is crazy. We cannot do that.

We need to give a clear brief to the Delivery Authority and all those working on the project that we are prepared to countenance a decant that takes us through much of one Parliament and much of the next, but we do not think that any generation of Members of Parliament should be deprived of the opportunity to spend at least a part of their time here participating in debate in this Chamber. Realistically, an eight-year timeframe is the most that is possibly sellable to Members of Parliament. It is, in my view, the only deliverable option. It will cost money, and there is nothing we can do about that, because this is a world heritage site. It is a duty that we just have to perform. If we do not give a clear brief to those who will be deciding the way forward and making recommendations, we will frankly be kicking the can down the road yet again.

I seek my right hon. Friend’s assurance that at the end of this debate, and as this approach goes forward, he will give a clear mandate that we will see what it will cost and what it will take for us to be decanted from here for eight years and then return. If he can assure me that that will be part of the brief and we will all be able to see the outcome, I will be happy not to press the amendment to a Division. However, we spent a year coming to this conclusion, so I am not happy to cast it aside, and I do not think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is either.

We have done an awful lot of work, and we are all deeply frustrated that we have got to this point seven years later. We cannot possibly defend that, and I describe this amendment as the “Bloody hell, get on with it” amendment. We worked out that the decant was the only way forward. When the plans are laid before this House next year, we want to see the eight-year decant and what it entails on the table for Members to consider. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is happy to give me that assurance, I am happy not to press the amendment, but I am adamant that we must have that on the table.

This is a historic responsibility for us all. The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right that we cannot be the Parliament that swept this under the carpet; we have got to get on with it. It is not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we are where we are, but we should never have got into this position in the first place. I ask him and all on the Commissions to ensure that we really get on with it at pace. If we do not, one day we will find that we are no longer sitting in this Chamber, but stuck in Church House, thinking, “What on earth are we going to do now?” That would be letting down our democracy and letting down our country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, colleagues will see that we have at least nine more speakers—I see another Member is now standing—in which case, if I do need to get the Leader of the House back in at the end, it probably requires everyone to take about five minutes. I call Kirsty Blackman.

19:35

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

First, I want to note an interest, in that I am on the sponsor board; I have been the SNP’s delegate to it for a hugely long time now. I must apologise for the fact that I am not my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is unfortunately on Committee business and cannot be here, so Members are stuck with me. I will do my best—probably not with quite the flair that he would normally bring to this—to fill his shoes in some way.

I agree with the point that the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) just made. The fact that we are here—that this position has been reached—is indefensible. The SNP’s position has been that this is an absolutely horrible building to work in. It is dreadful for our staff, it is a grim place to work and it is not a nice working environment. As a result of that, of the colossal amount of money involved and of the fact that we do not want to be here—we are going to be an independent country, and we are going to toddle off and leave yous to it—we suggested that if others were going to do anything with restoration and renewal, they should build a new Parliament. That will cost far less money than anything they could possibly do with this one. For our staff and people who work in this building, and for future MPs and staff who work in this building, it would be a significantly better and safer working environment. However, that was rejected.

We agreed an Act of Parliament—an Act of Parliament —about how this was going to work. The Act said, “Right, we’re going to have a sponsor board and a Sponsor Body, and we’re going to have a delivery board and a Delivery Authority. We’re going to have all of those things, and they are all going to work together in a groove and deliver what the House has said they are going to deliver.” The Sponsor Body, led by the sponsor board, came up with the memorandum of understanding between the Sponsor Body and the House, and that huge and massively detailed document explained exactly how things would work.

It feels as though the House of Commons Commission —although not so much the Lords one—and successive Leaders of the House gave argued at every opportunity about how this was going to work. They have said, “Actually, we don’t really agree with the Act of Parliament. We need to do this differently.” It feels as though those on the Government Front Bench and, at times, other Members on the House of Commons Commission—this must have been the case—have ended up costing more and more by adding on so many extra things, coming up with new stipulations and having us do ridiculous surveys.

One of those surveys was about making this bit of the House into a bubble so that we could continue to work in it, walking here from Portcullis House with hard hats and boots on, which I do not think anybody would have much enjoyed. This would have been a bubble where we could have continued to meet, because key people cannot bear to leave this awful, leaking room that is too small for 650 MPs to sit in. If this is going to happen, and we do not agree that it should, nobody could do it in a more cack-handed way than the way it is being done.

This structure was agreed and set up by the Houses, and at every opportunity the Government and others have tried to dismantle the structure and then complained because it cost too much money. Of course it will continue to cost money if people keep moving the goalposts—if they do not really want disabled access, but they just said that in an Act of Parliament, and if they are going to complain when the Sponsor Body pitches up and says, “This is how much it will cost to have disabled access.” If they do not want it, of course what they to try to deliver is not going to suit the House. The governing structures have not worked because the Commissions want one thing, the pre-2019 Members of Parliament wanted a different thing from the post-2019 MPs, the Speaker wants something different, the Leaders of the House have wanted something different, and the sponsor board and Sponsor Body have been trying to serve all those masters, and it has proved to be impossible.

The new structure that the Leader of the House suggests will have exactly the same problems as the previous one. It will have exactly the same number of people suggesting they are the right person to make all the decisions, and that person is going to change on a regular basis—even if it only changes once in every five years, that is still on a regular basis. Ever more money will be expended while bits of masonry continue to fall off, while asbestos continues to be in this building and while the fire risk continues to be massive for a UNESCO world heritage site. This building is a relic; it is not a suitable, appropriate working environment.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I apologise to the hon. Lady for stopping her in full rant, but does she not appreciate that this is a UNESCO world heritage site and a grade 1 listed building, and whether we are in this Parliament or not, this Parliament has a responsibility to maintain it properly? How does she answer that?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Maintaining this building properly, making it safe and making it so it does not burn down is a very different thing from making it safe so it does not burn down while thousands of people work here. The majority of the fire incidents here are caused by issues with people, as are many of the safety issues. If we take the people out of the equation, it is significantly cheaper to do all that; if we only have disabled access visitor routes, we take away a huge amount of the risk that is created. We could rip out almost all the services that go up and down the vertical risers if we did not need to keep them because we need internet in office T306. Clearly, we would not need internet in office T306 if there was nobody working in this place.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

What does the hon. Lady envisage this building would become? Would it just become an empty shell, in which case it would certainly deteriorate quite quickly? What alternative use does she envisage for it?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Honestly, I do not really care: I am going to be out of here, the Scottish National party is going to be out of here, Scotland is not going to have any stake in this building, and the UK without Scotland can decide what it wants to do with the building. It is not my responsibility to make that decision; it is the responsibility of the people who will carry on being here after Scottish independence. I am not trying to dodge the question; I am just not fussed, as it is not my decision. Just as I am not really fussed about what happens with council tax rates in England, it is not my decision to make. It is the hon. Gentleman’s decision to make, and it is for the people who will be here to decide what this building should be used for in the future.

I am testing your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have spoken for a bit longer than I had intended. I do not think this has been done well; in fact, I do not think it could have been done worse. I do not think what is being proposed is going to fix the issues, and in the meantime our staff, House staff and MPs are all working in a very substandard, dangerous working environment, and that is totally and completely unacceptable.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We will start with a seven-minute time limit.

19:43

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

That was an interesting speech, although I am not sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) carried the rest of the House. This is the iconic centre of the United Kingdom, and it is not surprising that the SNP wants to make it into a museum.

I commend the Leader of the House for the moderate, sensible, open-minded way in which he opened the debate. I suspect that very few people would disagree with anything he said, and most of what the shadow Leader of the House the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said was sensible, too. We all agree that we have to just get on with it. There have been too many delays, and—let us be realistic—they will probably still be working around us in 50, 60 or 100 years’ time. That is the way of these old buildings.

I hope we will move on from this endless debate about whether or not we have a decant. I rather resent the fact that those of us who have been arguing the case against a very lengthy decant are accused by others of just wanting to live in a comfortable place. I serve on the Sponsor Body with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). If we had proceeded with its plans, which would have entailed a decant of up to 20 years, that decant would not have started before 2031. I can assure the House that by 2031, I will certainly be retired and quite possibly dead, so it is nothing to do with me. What the Sponsor Body finally came up with might have been a fair evaluation of what it would cost to do a full singing-and-dancing renovation and change of everything, but it was totally unrealistic, and the Commission had to step in.

There will be ways of working creatively around us. I accept that it may well be necessary to have a decant, but we have no idea how long that decant will last. If we get rid of the Daily Mail September sittings and stop sweating the building through the entire summer recess, there may come a point where we will break in July and not come back until the following January, or it may take longer—we have no idea. However, I say with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) that we should not, I am afraid, accept an amendment that just lays down a set time. We have to look at the evidence. The new Commission will do its work, and will do whatever is necessary.

There has been so much delay, and I think it is very unfair of the hon. Member for Bristol West who leads for the Opposition to blame the Government and the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), for that fact. The reason why we have had so much delay is that the Sponsor Body has come up with wildly expensive proposals, the first of which was the demolition of Richmond House. That would have been financially wasteful, with millions of pounds spent on a white elephant permanent replica Chamber; it would have been architecturally destructive, making a mockery of heritage laws; and it could have cost up to £1 billion. That proposal caused an enormous amount of delay, and I think there is a general consensus that it was right for us to do away with it. It has been delay, delay, delay.

The plans for the Palace were not much better. The Sponsor Body was planning on removing 14 lift shafts, and wanted office space for MPs cut by as much as one fifth. The programme was in danger of becoming a vast feeding frenzy for contractors and consultants at the taxpayer’s expense. A lot of those ideas were simply unrealisable, so the plans for the R&R programme that have been put forward have failed. As the Leader of the House said, we need to look at working models that have been successful, such as that used for Elizabeth Tower, which has been beautifully restored—of course, that project went over time and over budget because too little preparatory work was done, but the result is magnificent. The cast-iron roofing that the Leader of the House talked about has been an immense success. It is the largest cast-iron roof in Europe. Each piece has been taken apart, restored or replaced, and put back with meticulous skill, so I do not think it is fair to criticise the estates programme.

[Chris Bryant]

One of the problems is that lots of people advocate for having lots more of those individual projects. Something like 32 or 33 projects are going on at the moment, and one of the difficulties with the estate is that it is very tight for space, with nearly every available inch already covered in a portakabin or some kind of contractor’s arrangements. We cannot do many more projects at the same time as the current ones, and the cast-iron roofs would have been done quite a bit quicker if the previous Speaker had not insisted that work stopped whenever he was in his house. That is what is going to happen if we keep on trying to do all the work around the building while we are still in it.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point and we just have to learn to compromise. He mentions Mr Speaker. We should congratulate Mr Speaker on his own creative thinking. The Speaker’s house needed urgent repairs, which meant he had to be accommodated elsewhere. The R&R programme drew up plans costing £20 million, to tear up a Georgian townhouse on the estate and put a lift shaft through it. Mr Speaker and the previous Leader of the House grasped the nettle, visited the site itself, and decided it just needed a lick of paint and some basic work. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset, who is sitting in his place, reported that it cost just 5% of the planned £20 million to get all three empty houses back into use. That is exactly the kind of mentality we need. It requires good decision making, an eye for savings, and cutting out unnecessary embellishments.

Serving on the sponsor body has been informative. The sponsor body’s job is to oversee and scrutinise the delivery authority, but I personally believe that the information provided to the sponsor body has often been mired in the worst kind of management speak. Operations are often totally opaque and lacking in clarity. I believe that our ability to thoroughly scrutinise work has not been fully facilitated. Every time it came across a problem, it reached for the most invasive and most expensive solution. I believe that in the end it was going to provide very bad value for money. Every time we proposed alternatives, ridiculous claims about costing and timescale were thrown back. Inadequate figures were given to us. There was a lack of awareness of MPs’ work. For example, it was suggested that MPs’ staff move to shared open-plan offices. Parliamentary politics requires privacy and discretion, and dealing with constituents’ cases even more so. Often, we deal with very sensitive information. We do not work like other entities and we have to accept that Parliament is a unique place.

In conclusion, I believe that what the Leader of the House is proposing today is a sensible compromise. We are not ruling anything in or anything out. We are going to get on with it. We love this building. We are not going to put ourselves first and we are going to do the absolutely essential work to restore this Barry and Pugin masterpiece. We are not going to make it carbon neutral and fill in atriums and all the courtyards. All that sort of expensive stuff is for the birds. We are going to make this building safe and fireproof, and we will do it, hopefully, with good preparatory work, within time and within budget.

19:52

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). When he and I first arrived in this place, Richmond House was being built. We had the pleasure of seeing it go up and contribute to the parliamentary landscape—the hanging gardens of Babylon, I think it was referred to at the time.

Since I have been sent back to take part in these events again, I find there is a collection of people who serve the public interest loyally, hard and well, and that the more we discuss it among ourselves, the closer we get to very similar conclusions. I will cut straight to the chase, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that other people can get into the debate. My views are very similar to those of the Leader of the House, and I have sympathy with the motion he has tabled. I also see a lot in both amendments. The Government do deserve chiding—let me put it nicely—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) did in a pretty gutsy way. The contents of the other amendment make points that, mostly, I agree with and think are probably the right way to go. It is possible that we are getting the worst of both worlds for ourselves: that we will have a political involvement that is not enough or does not satisfy us all, and still have sufficient specialist oversight and interest for there to be tensions between the two. I hope that that does not happen. The best way of avoiding that is to make sure that there is a climate of openness, rather than of caution or—I would even go as far as to say— concealment. It would be better to know that we had a shared problem up front rather than to be presented with it afterwards, particularly on the costings.

Not only have you served on the House of Commons Finance Committee, Dame Rosie, but you chaired it, so time after time, you will have had instances where you have been told at the end of a programme what the cost looks like. It might have been more helpful to know what the true costs looked like at the beginning of the programme. That has happened too often with the Commons Finance Committee for it to be endured. We must have a proper, realistic sense of what is going on, rather than an estimate that those who propose it hope will endure over time.

I am happy to report that the House of Lords has a similar Finance Committee to us—it has had it, I think, for five years—and that it had its first joint meeting with the Commons Finance Committee last week. It examined in some detail the Elizabeth Tower project, which has been the subject of some comment and high overspend. It went through that in some detail. Everything that we would expect to be said about lessons learned was said. We have heard it before. But this is my core point: this has to stick. Lessons have to be learned. Projections have to be realistic.

In two or perhaps three years’ time, we will face a decision about the cost of the decant and the substantial rise in public expenditure that will accompany the costs of running the new building, as well as the costs of continuing the work on the old one. I am still convinced that this is the correct way to proceed, if we can, but we have to know what we are in for. It seems that we should do our bit to look at what else we are spending money on, whether we are getting value for money, whether there are ways to bring the costs down and whether expenditure could be better managed over a longer period. We cannot demand that everything is treated as a priority and just say, “We want this project, but we also want that project.” We must try to get our house in order and do what we can to have the twin objectives that the Leader of the House spelled out. They are reasonable objectives, I think, to proceed on cautiously, learning the lessons of what has not gone terribly well before.

Also, we should pat ourselves on the back for things that have gone right. Everybody says how nice the Elizabeth Tower looks. The work on the Victoria Tower is proceeding at pace. The determination is to make sure that the masonry does not fall off on top of people. Unfortunately, the buildings continue to be corroded by acid rain and pollution, so we will never be without a maintenance programme. Eternal vigilance will have to be our watchword, certainly for the foreseeable future, on prosaic matters such as fires and damage. It is comforting to know that people can be got out, but we want to save the building as well, which is exactly where we started. I urge the proposers of the amendments not to push them to a vote at this time—I think their points have been well made—and to support the Leader of the House on the main motion.

19:59

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this debate. May I say straightaway that although the Leader of the House has come in for criticism today, he has only been Leader of the House for a short time? He is having to answer for the mistakes of the past, but he now has a huge weight on his shoulders because he can rescue the project, get it on the right path and get work started, for all the many reasons that we have heard today. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a chartered surveyor. I was able to articulate my views more fully in my Westminster Hall debate last Thursday.

This debate could not be more timely, given yesterday’s water leak in the Chamber. That was the second time in not many years that we have had a leak in the Chamber; the previous leak was in the Press Gallery. Small fires are reported virtually every month in this place, and it is only because of the diligence and hard work of the staff who patrol on a virtually 24-hour fire watch that nothing more serious has happened. There was also an asbestos leak in Speaker’s House last year, with an impact on more than 100 construction workers.

As I said to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), we are obliged to protect and preserve this UNESCO world heritage site—a grade I listed building with more than 900 years of political history—for our country. I fear that we are leaving the building at risk of a much larger failure than a leak in the roof, which would inevitably involve our having to move out of Parliament and would leave us all looking rather stupid for not having taken major action more quickly.

The project’s cost is estimated by several experts as approximately £10 billion—somewhere between the £8.77 billion cost of the Olympics and the £18.25 billion cost of Crossrail. It is a vast and complex project. I know such projects only too well from my role as deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and a member of the Finance Committee. I am glad that the Chairs of those Committees, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), are present; they both do a splendid job. On almost a weekly basis, we see large Government projects that end up costing hundreds of millions of pounds more than anticipated. The Ajax defence vehicle project, for example, has already cost £3.2 billion, has not delivered a single workable vehicle and is more than 10 years late. My fear is that the restoration and renewal project could go the same way. Governance on such large projects is paramount to ensuring that they are delivered on time and on budget.

When the Sponsor Body gave figures to the Commissions, the cheapest plan involved a full decant of the Palace of Westminster for between 10 and 20 years, with work costing in the region of £7 billion to £13 billion. The suggestion it came up with that would have taken the longest was for the project to be done on a continuous basis, with the Houses remaining in both Chambers. That option would have cost a staggering £11 billion to £22 billion and would have taken somewhere in the region of 46 to 70 years. The Commissions took fright and decided that the Sponsor Body should be immediately abolished and replaced with a joint department of both Houses.

The problem with that is exactly the one that has happened in past projects. The Elizabeth Tower, which has ended up costing almost three times what was estimated; the purchase of parliamentary buildings, which have cost more than £100 million each and a great deal to exit—all these projects have been overseen by the present in-house incumbents. What is to suggest that R&R would be managed any differently? What is to suggest that it would not end up costing billions of pounds more and taking many years longer than it needs to?

In contemplation of the new joint department of the two Houses, an expert panel has been appointed. As I have said, it should be enshrined in statute so that it can continue to give advice. The new budget should not be subsumed into the main vote on the House of Commons; it should be entirely separate, so that this House can monitor it properly and see how much the cost is on an ongoing basis, in a similar way to the quarterly reports that we get from HS2.

I should warn the House that during a Public Accounts Committee hearing in March, the chief executive, David Goldstone—who knows a thing or two, having managed the Olympic project—was questioned about what the continued presence assessment had found in relation to the building. He said:

“The conclusion it came to is that, in effect, it is technically possible to do it but, consistent with all previous work on this subject, it would take an enormously longer time, would cost an awful lot more and”—

this is the key point; these are his words, not mine—

“would create extraordinary risks in relation to health and safety and fire safety…The risk of disruption is very significant as well.”

If we take all that advice into account, it should be possible to come up with some well-informed costings and outlines of a plan of operation showing how long we need to decant, whether the whole project can be done as one, and whether, if it cannot, it can be done in two halves so that parliamentarians can stay in one House or the other.

I think there is a real and evident danger that the proposed joint department, which will in effect be the “client”, will not give clear instructions to the Delivery Authority. There will always be the temptation for it to be constantly involved in mission creeps, adding the latest bells and whistles to the project, but, beyond that, it will be continually changing its mind. The Leader of the House presaged exactly that possibility this evening in his speech, and how is that compatible with what he said about wanting to provide the very best value for money?

We in the Public Accounts Committee know full well that big projects do go wrong when the client changes its mind. There is a big risk of that with the new joint department, because the composition of the House will change after each general election, as, no doubt, will the composition of the Commissions. There is therefore a real risk that the Commissions will change their mind and want to alter the remit yet again.

We owe it to the next generation to grip this problem today and sort it out once and for all, otherwise the next generation will not thank us.

20:06

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

It is four and a half years since we reached our decision and I think it has been said that it is seven years since we started the whole process, and where are we? Nowhere. We are back where we started.

I should say that I am a member of the Sponsor Body—until we abolish it, that is. I believe it has carried out the task that it was set. The fact that certain individuals do not like the recommendation for a full decant is not the fault of the Sponsor Body. If the House wants to change the remit or scope of the project, that is fine, but let us not blame the Sponsor Body. Let us at least have the good grace to be honest about that, and let us not make up stories such as “Restoral and renewal was responsible for the change of Speaker”, because that simply is not true: it had absolutely nothing to do with R&R.

As a number of Members have pointed out, we should not forget why we chose the structure that we did choose, learning from the Olympics and recognising that this place would change. In the event of a project which, however it is carried out, will continue for many years, Members will change, Governments will change and there will be different views, but what we recognised at the time was that that should not be allowed to undermine this project—which is exactly what has happened. The project has been derailed by a constant stream of new asks, all with one aim: to delay. We have heard suggestions that the House of Lords should move to York, or, more recently, to Wolverhampton, Stoke, Burnley, Edinburgh, Sunderland or Plymouth. I am sure that they are all fine places, but those suggestions were not realistic.

More time was wasted by the suggestion that we should not decant at all. I challenge any Member to come up with any report or any figures that suggest that it is cheaper to stay here than to move out. We need to be honest about that. Then we had the Richmond House debacle. Those who were opposed to a decant seized on Richmond House: they became great defenders of it, which, surprisingly, very few of them had seemed to be previously. Why was that? Because they saw Richmond House as a convenient vehicle for more dither and delay.

So what is the plan now? It is to get rid of the Sponsor Body and bring the function in-house, creating some new department and some hotchpotch of a new governance structure.

In all honesty, we are being asked to rubber-stamp a decision that has already been made. That is the reality of the situation. Parliament decided something, but that does not matter because behind closed doors, the two Commissions have decided to do something completely different. That is the reality of the situation. We can dress it up as much as we like but that is effectively what has happened.

As a number of Members have mentioned, we do not have a great record on doing things internally. I know that the cast iron roofs are always wheeled out as a great example, but the Elizabeth Tower has been mentioned, and Derby Gate is another project that went massively over cost and time. One of my favourites—not one of the biggest projects—was the Cromwell Green security entrance, which I think was condemned after 10 years because of leaks, with water pouring through when it is raining. So we have to be honest: we are not very good at doing this. We do not have the experience or the expertise to manage such projects. I am not blaming the people in-house; it is not their fault, but we sometimes set them tasks that they are unable to do because they do not have that expertise. That is why we drew up the model that we did, but if we go down the road that we are going down, we are going to repeat those mistakes.

One thing I will challenge, which I have heard being put about, is that one of the failings of the Sponsor Body was that it did not consult Members. Actually, there have been loads of consultations and loads of individual consultations. I have had the pleasure, or misfortune, of chairing numerous meetings where one, two or three people—and sometimes no people—would turn up. Maybe that was me; maybe it was just the fact that I was chairing them and nobody wanted to go. But this is the nature of politicians. We moan and groan about people not consulting us, but we do not take up the consultation when it is available. So I think that is a really unfair criticism of the Sponsor Body, because a lot of people worked extremely hard to make sure that Members had the opportunity to express their views.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Just to link that to the hon. Member’s earlier point, does he think there is much point in consulting all the Members when the House of Commons Commissioners are going to make a decision anyway that might be totally different from what Members have said?

[Mark Tami]

That is a very fair point. As I said, the decision has effectively been made.

Let us be honest: it is not about the cost; it is not about the time it will take; and it is certainly not about the people who actually work in here. So what is it about? It is about people who want to stay in here, come what may, with some fantasy vision that we can somehow live in a little bubble in here, that we can stay put, come what may, while everyone works around us, and that we can come up with some costings and then say, “We don’t like that costing so we are going to halve it or quarter it”, and somehow the project can be done for that amount. We are ignoring the reality, and just because the Sponsor Body gave us that reality, we do not like it. The Leader of the House does not like it, so he says we are going to come up with something else and do it on a cheaper basis. It is as if we did not look at these things seven years ago. But this is where we are. As I said, I do not really know why we are having this debate, because the decision was made behind closed doors some time ago. That is a very sad state of affairs, and the House will rue this decision.

20:13

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a very disappointing debate because, as other hon. Members have said, we have been going round and round this issue for far too long. I think we need to slay some myths here. Value for money is one thing, but it does not mean cheap. There is no way that the work can be done to this building—minimally or maximally—on the cheap. It will cost billions of pounds. There is no getting away from that. This is a UNESCO world heritage site, and under the rules of UNESCO, that responsibility falls on the Treasury or the finance department of the country responsible, which in this case is Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Government of the day.

There is huge risk in this building. Only in recent weeks we have had masonry falling down, and yesterday we had the leak. It is only a matter of time before somebody gets hurt. I know that former Leaders of the House have worried about this a great deal, and not surprisingly. We are a group of people who aspire to run the country, and the Conservative party is deciding who will be its leader and the next Prime Minister. We all want to be in a position to make decisions, yet on this issue everyone seems to hope or believe they will not be standing when the music stops and that, somehow, the problem will be someone else’s.

This is a time for decisions. These delays are ongoing and repeated. The Joint Committee’s report was not debated until about a year after it was published, and there was a further delay as the votes on the report kept being put off. I vividly remember the date, 31 January 2018, because I came from my daughter’s hospital sickbed to be here for that debate. I thought, “Great, we might get something through that means we can get moving on this.”

Then there were endless delays in funding the Sponsor Body’s work to develop the business case. Money was eked out, a bit at a time, so there was never really enough to get on with the job and do the very detailed work that needed to be done. We know it might mean getting the mechanical and engineering in place, two floors below the basement, to run this building. It might mean stripping out asbestos between the Committee corridors. They are the things that make this place dangerous. The required decisions have been endlessly delayed.

I want to slay another myth about the money. The Leader of the House cited the £3.5 billion figure that was originally mooted, and £4 billion has been mentioned at different times. This was never the figure for all the work to the building; it was an indicative figure, based on work by Deloitte that looked at the options and modelled certain works. The figure was an order of magnitude and was never for the full work on the building. It said, “If you take this approach, this approach or this approach, this is the scale we are looking at.” Unfortunately, that figure has repeatedly been embedded as though it were a fact.

The House asked the Sponsor Body to come up with what needed to be done to the building and how much it would cost. The answer came back that it would cost £7 billion to £13 billion, with a full decant for up to 20 years. The Commissions did not like that answer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said. There is no point asking the experts to do the work and then ignoring what they have to say. This place does not have the experts to do the work the Sponsor Body did. Nobody is perfect, and I am not saying that every decision of the Sponsor Body was absolutely right and on the nail, but it did what it was told to do and came back with the numbers, and it was told that they were too high.

The Leader of the House talked about shortcuts to expedite the process. He said, “We can do both, get value for money and progress as rapidly as possible. We need a common-sense approach.” I do not have a problem with a common-sense approach, but I do not think it is possible to have a common-sense approach that halves or changes the costs for something on which we have already set the parameters for what we want to do. I cannot see how that can be delivered.

We will create two corporate officers and a client board made up of the two Commissions. I have to confess that I was surprised when a senior member of one of the Commissions—I will say no more, so as not to identify them—approached me in the last week to say, “We will need your help to do this job, because we are not sure we have the ability to do it.” As I said before, I may chair the Public Accounts Committee, ably helped by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who is the deputy Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and others, but we are not experts in running major projects. We scrutinise, which is a different thing. We need to make sure we have that expertise in place, so I hope the Leader of the House can tell us how he will ensure there is real expertise on the Commissions because, let us be honest, they are made up of members who rotate very fast and do not necessarily have any understanding or experience of running a major project, and do not necessarily know which questions to ask.

The hon. Member for The Cotswolds highlighted some of the issues we see in Government, but we also regularly see non-executive members of boards who do not take their role seriously, who do not do it properly, who do not get on top of the subject and who do not always call out things that need to be called out. That needs to be built in so that we have clearly focused non-executives from both outside and inside the House to deliver that and make sure the programme board has that expertise.

I am really concerned today. We need a long-term decision to be made on this. Parliament will face these difficult decisions—I am quoting the Leader of the House back at himself—but he also talked about future Parliaments revising this. If we start fiddling around, as we have already done, and delay progress considerably, we will be in a very bad place.

It is outrageous that the very body that legislates and passed an Act of Parliament to set up this structure has dismantled that in a secret, mineral-water-filled room. The minute from that meeting revealed so little about what the discussion was. Reports of it suggest that there was not a serious discussion about the real consequences. That is not a model for democracy, yet it was the mother of Parliaments that made that decision in that very underhand and secretive way. That is one of the most disappointing things about the whole saga.

Our words will echo down the halls of history if we see this building burn down and we were the people who let it happen. The hand of history is here. I believe that six generations of the family of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds have been here. He stands up for the future of this place, as we all should do. We need to see real action now.

20:20

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I will be quick, Madam Deputy Speaker. My contribution tonight is born of seven years of frustration at making so little progress with this project. In 2018, I voted for the decant, as I thought it was the simplest thing to do. I also thought we would go to Richmond House, because that was the safest place for us to stay in and it was close to the Departments of State in Whitehall. I really thought it was very straightforward and I hoped we would make good progress.

Tonight, I support amendments (a) and (b). I support amendment (a) not because I think in policy the Government have stopped progress on this, but because Ministers have stymied progress on this important project. I support amendment (b) because we need new machinery and new energy to take this forward. I also support it because, although we need occasional reviews and challenge for experts, most of all we should provide the way forward through this.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), I think we need full transparency on cost. We need to go into this with our eyes open, but see it as an investment in our country’s history and in this great place. Most of all, I want to crack on, as we have delayed progress for far too long.

20:22

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

The building we are standing in today is more than a building; it is a symbol recognised the world over. Politics aside, it is a great privilege to work here. It is a beautiful and historic landmark and, as we have heard, a UNESCO world heritage site. I would like to thank the building for making a timely demonstration in this Chamber yesterday, in preparation for today’s debate; I think its point has been heard, although the water leak has now, thankfully, cleaned up.

That attachment to this place on the part of many Members has made planning for restoration difficult. It is not hard to see why many colleagues would not want to relocate for so long; so much of British life has been dominated by Westminster, and so a small and convenient world has built around us. Departments are a stone’s throw away, along with media headquarters, businesses and charities. There is not much that is so far out of reach that we could not run back in time for a vote if the Division bell rings. Around that point, there is lots to unpack: the centralisation of British politics; and the view of a distant and far removed from reality “Westminster bubble”. We will each have our own views on that, and certainly employment in such an exciting and meaningful profession should be spread further across the UK. However, that is a broader discussion and I would like to use my time to speak specifically about the Palace and the works themselves.

Every day we are here, we see groups of schoolchildren excited for the tour. Families, both from the UK and from farther afield, come in their droves too, as do our constituents. This place is iconic—a must-see for tourists from all over the world.

This is an old building, but actually for the most part it is not as old as some might think. After almost the entire palace was destroyed in 1834, a public competition was held for architectural designs for its replacement. It was actually political reasoning that led to the gothic-inspired choice, designed by Charles Barry, that led to the building we see today. It is interesting to know that the neoclassical style that was popular at the time was seen as symbolic of republicanism and revolution, so the preferred options were designs of gothic and Elizabethan influence.

The palace is old enough, though, that the place needs a little sprucing up. Construction started in 1840 and most of the site was completed in 1860. That puts various parts of the building at around 160 to 180 years old. There is no doubt about it—we need to invest in some changes, and we have known that for a long time. This is about not just a cosmetic facelift but the preservation of history, and most importantly the safety of everyone that works here or visits. We have heard about Notre Dame; that brings into sharp focus the absolute necessity for fire safety in a building such as this. Of course, it is something that has been on the minds of many colleagues recently, in a slightly different context, too. Fire suppression systems must be a priority, and I know that for those working closely on the project it absolutely is.

I was lucky enough to join one of the tours put on by the restoration and renewal team last month, to see parts of the palace that we often pass by without thinking about them too much, like the art painted directly on to the stonework on the staircase up to the Committee corridor. That art has considerable historic significance, but it cannot just be lifted off the wall and put away while the works are carried out. Accounting for all these moving parts, the quirks and character of the building, will require a strong strategy. Naturally, the costs involved in bringing the building up to the necessary standards are huge; the restoration and renewal body puts the numbers at between £7 billion and £13 billion.

It is vital that the costs are necessary and deliver value for public money. Restoration works must happen, yes, and they have been in the works for a very long time. A lot has changed in the wider country in that time, though, and many of our constituents are facing astronomical rises to their living costs. We have a duty to ensure that the cost of this project is scrutinised and that taxpayer money is not wasted when it could be better used elsewhere.

The majority view of the public, according to quantitative quarterly public polling, is that they care deeply about this place and want to see it restored. The strength of that feeling might vary regionally or across parts of the four nations—I do not know—but it shows that largely, constituents are interested in protecting our heritage. That polling also found that 70% to 80% of the public felt that an important benefit of the restoration was the jobs that it would create. While the jobs themselves might not be political, they would be protecting our political institution, the cornerstone of our democracy, and the prosperity that creates must be shared equitably.

I mentioned the need for a strategy, and want to say now that I believe that a decant of Members, peers and staff is probably the most efficient way forward. I hope that we will see some more detailed and convincing proposals on that in the near future, to carry out these works as swiftly as possible and without costly delays charged to the taxpayer. That may mean that everyone needs to move out for the duration. We cannot expect our staff, or the staff of the House, to work in a building that could potentially be a hazard, literally crumbling before our eyes. So the quicker colleagues all move out, the quicker colleagues can all move back in and the quicker the Palace can be restored to its former glory.

20:28

[Mark Spencer]

With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in this interesting and at times robust debate. I hope we can find a way forward through consensus. I hope hon. Members will recognise that we have much in common. We all want to achieve the same aims: we all want to protect this fantastic building, we all want to save taxpayers as much money as possible and we all want to do it as quickly as can be delivered. I think that the way forward that we are now suggesting does allow for all those things to happen.

Let me respond to some of the comments made in the debate. Reference was made to the Speaker’s House restoration, which is an example of how projects can be done “piecemeal”. That project was done completely independently, and during the course of the work, there have been innovations. For example, all the light fittings in the Speaker’s apartments are now completely sealed and airtight, so that in future it will be possible to change the a light fitting for another type without disturbing the asbestos above it. I think that is a huge step forward, because those who work on that part of the building in the future will be safe and taxpayers’ money will be saved. That leap forward in technology is an example of how we can make progress efficiently and save taxpayers’ money.

There is a clear brief to the Delivery Authority to get on with the job. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) share my passion for getting on with this project, which is why their names appear on the Order Paper with that of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). To be absolutely clear, it is not possible for me to stand here at the Dispatch Box and guarantee that the House will have a vote on an eight-year decant. What I can say is that the members of the Delivery Authority and the Commissions have heard this debate and I will make sure that an eight-year decant is one of the proposals they consider very seriously.

The concept outlined by my right hon. and hon. Friends of turning the telescope around and saying, “This is the time available. What can be delivered in that time?” is an interesting one. We may well be able to pursue it and look at what it is possible to achieve. Clearly, there is a sliding scale. I am told it is technically possible to deliver restoration and renewal without decanting from the House of Commons, but the timescale and the cost to the taxpayer would be enormous. We can consider all those matters as we move forward.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who is no longer in her place. She met me on a number of occasions to assist in the decision-making process and has been of great value to the thinking behind the way forward.

The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said there is not enough expertise on the House of Commons Commission. I can assure her that there will not be expertise on the House of Commons Commission; the expertise will be on the programme board, which will advise the Commission. While the Commissioners, of whom I am one, may not be experts, we will recruit and secure expertise on the programme board to give the Commission professional advice, which I hope the Commissioners will follow. I am sure they will.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at such a late stage. One of my concerns is that the Commission has been rather spooked by numbers that, in major project terms, are not extraordinary. It is costing £2 million a week just to do the maintenance and basic repairs to this place. We need to see figures for what it will cost to do that on an ongoing basis versus what the cost would be to do it in one hit. The public are not fools; if we kick the can down the road so that it costs more overall, they will see through that.

[Mark Spencer]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that. One of the fundamental problems is that, because restoration and renewal was on the horizon, what was happening was that a piece of masonry, for example, would become unsafe; a scaffold would be erected to retrieve that piece of masonry, and the subsequent decision-making process would end in, “Well, there’s no need to do anything too dramatic here, because it will be swept up with restoration and renewal in the future.”

Under this new system, instead of putting the scaffold up and bodging it—for want of a better expression—we will be able to get up there and mend it properly once for the next 50 years, rather than waiting for restoration and renewal to come and sweep the project up. The Victoria Tower is a really good example. It was being delayed because restoration and renewal was on the horizon, but we will now be able to bring that project forward, get on with it and do it properly for once in a generation. We will be able to crack on with it in the short term. There is a way to save money for the taxpayer, expedite some of these repairs and make sure that the process happens in a more timely way.

[Chris Grayling]

I am happy to accept my right hon. Friend’s assurances that he will press ahead and ask the Delivery Authority to set out for us what that eight years would entail. However, I hope that he has taken from this debate tonight a sense that those of us on both sides of the House who have been involved in this programme over many years—he has come to this relatively fresh—have a clear sense of the need for urgency. Can I ask him to come back to this House with options really very quickly? Otherwise, he will find a lot more pressure coming from Members on both sides of the House.

[Mark Spencer]

That message has been well and truly received, and I am grateful for the contributions that have reinforced it.

We have heard about the depth of affection that working in this building brings, and we have heard about Members’ affection for it. I know that everyone who has been critical in a friendly way this evening has done so with the best of intentions and the best of motivations. I pay tribute to those who have taken part in the debate. We have a huge responsibility to protect this building for future generations to make sure that, in another 300 years, it stands here as proudly as it has done through two world wars, as a beacon of parliamentary democracy for the nation. I commend the motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The amendments are not being pressed to a Division, so the question is the main question as on the Order Paper.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House:

reaffirms its commitment to preserving the Palace of Westminster for future generations and ensuring the safety of all those who work in and visit the Palace, now and in the future;

notwithstanding the Resolution of 31 January 2018, welcomes the report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions proposing a new mandate for the Restoration and Renewal works and a new governance structure to support them;

accordingly endorses the recommendations set out in the Commissions’ report; and

in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Highways

That the draft Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 16 June, be approved.—(David Morris.)

Question agreed to.

Water meters for park homes

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

00:00

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

My South East Cornwall constituents and more than 570 others online have raised the issue that many thousands of residential park home residents do not have their own water meters and end up paying significantly more than they should. Where each home is metered, negligent park owners are more likely to undertake repairs to leakages more quickly and avoid wastage, while residents will properly pay only for what they use.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that park home owners pay the same tariffs as households in any other housing sector, however, as many sites are metered rather than individual park homes, they are frequently overcharged by park owners; further that park home owners are frequently paying for water wasted from delayed repairs to leakages in the site infrastructure and for water used by the park owners for their own purposes; further that residential park home owners are usually on fixed incomes and should not be paying for water they do not consume; further that they should enjoy the same benefits that individual water meters bring to mainstream housing and further that the collateral benefit will be that leakages are repaired more quickly by park owners and wastages of the resource minimised.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to require all water companies to provide each residential mobile home on a protected site with water meters and ensure that they fit meters for free on request (excepting Scotland).

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P002740]

Environment Agency and Water Levels in the Sankey Canal

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Morris.)

00:00

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate on such an important issue to my constituency, and particularly to those who live in my home town of Widnes. I want to raise the perilous state of the Sankey canal, also known as the St Helens canal and, to many of the older generation among my Widnes constituents, the Cut.

In my maiden speech in this House 25 years ago I said:

“Mine is a constituency of many waterways—the river Mersey, the Manchester ship canal, the Bridgewater canal and the St. Helen’s canal.”—[Official Report, 10 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 1036.]

Those waterways have played a significant part in my parliamentary work over my time here, much of it on the successful campaign to secure a second Mersey crossing road bridge. In the past few years, I have raised and supported the ongoing Unlock Runcorn campaign to restore the link between the Bridgewater canal and the Manchester ship canal and the restoration of the locks. I now find myself needing to raise the future of the Sankey canal in this place.

I was born and bred in Widnes and have never lived anywhere else. In my early childhood I lived in the Newtown area, only a short distance from the canal. I know how important a role the canal plays in our community and its importance to my constituents and many others who enjoy it and get great pleasure from it—of course, I am one of them.

There are several reasons why the matter should be debated in Parliament, not least because it was three Acts of Parliament that authorised its construction and extensions. The Sankey canal, initially known as the Sankey Brook navigation and later the St Helens canal, is a former industrial canal that was opened in 1757. It was England’s first of the industrial revolution and the first modern canal, even before the Bridgewater canal.

The canal was opened in three stages. The first Act of Parliament authorising the construction of the navigation was passed on 20 March 1755. It was entitled “An Act for making navigable the River or Brook called Sankey Brook, and Three several Branches thereof from the River Mersey below Sankey Bridges”. The second Act of Parliament was obtained on 8 April 1762, amending the earlier Act, and was entitled “An Act to amend and render more effectual, an Act made in the Twenty-eighth Year of the Reign of his late Majesty King George the Second, for making navigable Sankey Brook, in the county of Lancaster, and for the extending and improving the said Navigation”. The Act authorised the extension of the navigation to Fiddler’s Ferry on the River Mersey.

To counter competition from the new railways, another extension was planned from Fiddler’s Ferry across Cuerdley and Widnes salt marshes to Widnes Wharf, on the west bank of the River Mersey near Runcorn Gap, creating a second connection to the Mersey and another basin. That extension was authorised by a third Act of Parliament, granted on 29 May 1830. The almost 2-mile section of canal that is in Widnes opened in July 1833 and was for many years known as the New Cut, reflecting the fact that it was the last section to open.

Thereafter, well into the 20th century, the canal continued to play an important role in the transport of goods and materials essential to industry and the economic wellbeing of our country. It closed completely in 1963 and became derelict. British Waterways sold it to the respective local authorities and parts of it, in Warrington and St Helens, were filled in.

Between 1979 and 1983, a cosmetic restoration of the canal was carried out between Spike Island in Widnes and Sankey Valley Park in Warrington. Two marinas were also created at Spike Island and at Fiddler’s Ferry. A water supply for these works was an issue; the original way in which the canal was kept in water, via feeds from the St Helens area including Carr Mill dam, which was constructed to supply water to the canal, no longer functioned because of the infilling that had occurred.

An agreement was reached with the Central Electricity Generating Board to pump the water that was a by-product of their electricity generation at Fiddler’s Ferry power station into the canal. The CEEB agreed to do so for free, and for almost 40 years that was how the canal was kept in water.

It was known for many years that Fiddler’s Ferry power station would one day close and the water it put into the canal would no longer be available. Halton Borough Council has told me that that is why work on trying to identify, and most importantly fund, solutions began several years ago. The council has advised me that numerous bids and initiatives were made or embarked upon, but all either failed to attract money or were found to be unworkable.

All the realistic solutions that could supply enough water would have to be undertaken in Warrington. Therefore, Halton council has been working in partnership with Warrington. In 2019, Halton was told that the power station would close on 31 March 2020, which it did. It was informed that the water supply would cease and says that the main stakeholders were also informed. The council match funded engineering reports, which Warrington Borough Council commissioned, and provided a share of the cost.

Just as the covid crisis began, Fiddler’s Ferry power station agreed to carry on pumping for a while longer, after which Warrington, in partnership with Fiddler’s Ferry, embarked upon some temporary pumping, which lasted until March this year and then ceased.

From April 2022, water levels in the Halton section of the canal began to drop. Halton says that its efforts were stepped up to see where Warrington was up to with a permanent water supply solution, but for many reasons, including the pandemic, progress has been slow and is still ongoing. The partnership with Warrington is very important. Halton tells me that there is nothing that it can do in the short to medium term with regard to the water supply. I have challenged this. It says that it is

“very reliant on Warrington for that. It is also essential that any water supply that is found is both sustainable and affordable.”

Halton Borough Council has also commissioned a design that will seal the locks and make areas of our canal more watertight. While this, if the works that are carried out, will not in itself sort out the water supply issue, it will help in future to hold more water back. In addition, it will be undertaking some infrastructure repairs along the route of the canal, which it says it was unable to do when the canal was full of water.

The solution favoured by Halton Borough Council and the Sankey Canal Restoration Society would be to reconnect the original historical water supply sources and let them feed the canal by gravity. This will be supplemented by new sources from developments that are starting to take place along the canal. Another option that it may be possible to deliver more quickly, although Halton Borough Council believes that even this could take up to a year, would be to use the former power station pumping facilities to withdraw water from the River Mersey. This, again, would be too long. From information I have been given, it is estimated that the cost to operate this annually would be about £1 million plus the energy costs. Halton tells me that Warrington Borough Council is exploring this option. The previous pumping arrangement put 2 million gallons of water per day into the canal. With that amount of water going in, Halton Borough Council and Warrington Borough Council did not have to worry too much about the high volumes of leakage that occurred from along the length of the canal. Halton Borough Council tells me that to make the best use of whatever water will be available, the canal will need to be more watertight than it ever was historically.

We are faced with the stark reality of a canal that is an important part of our national industrial heritage almost drained of water. Boats are left high and dry. It is having a catastrophic impact on wildlife. Despite the fantastic efforts of residents to rescue some of the fish, many fish are now dead. From viewing a video taken today by local reporter Oliver Clay, I have seen very disturbing scenes of hundreds, possibly thousands, of dead fish. Birds have been badly affected, especially the many swans. Some are also injured because of the drop in water levels and have become tangled with debris and rubbish at the bottom of the canal. Again, local people have done all they can to help to rescue the swans.

I cannot stress too much the importance of the canal to the whole character of the town and our borough. It is as much part of our identity as rugby league, the River Mersey, and the bridges that cross the Mersey between Widnes and Runcorn. The canal runs into Spike Island, which is a local beauty spot with fantastic views across the Mersey and of the bridges. It is hard to believe that it was once at the centre of the British chemical industry during the industrial revolution. After it was abandoned by the chemical industry, it became one of the finest land reclamation projects anywhere in the country. It is visited by many thousands of people each year. It has parkland, woodland, wetlands, footpaths, and so much wildlife. The Stone Roses held a famous concert there in 1990. The canal is an integral and crucial part of Spike Island and its ecosystem.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance to local people of the canal—the pure enjoyment of being near it, leisure walking, being close to nature, fishing, and of course mental health. People come from far and wide to visit Spike Island. It also forms part of the trans-Pennine trail. The Catalyst Science Discovery Centre and Museum sits by the canal. Visitors from around the country, including many schoolchildren, come to this award-winning museum and many spend time visiting Spike Island. At the top of the museum there is a wonderful glass viewing area with panoramic views of the Mersey and Spike Island. Imagine now having to look down on an empty canal!

While I understand the financial issues facing one of the smallest local authorities in the country, I believe that Halton Borough Council has got this wrong. It should have been more dynamic, bold and innovative in finding a solution and funding to sustain and maintain water levels and secure the canal’s long-term future. As I said, this has turned out to be a catastrophe. It appears that the council has lost control of the situation. I have witnessed few issues during my time as MP for Halton that have caused such widespread concern, distress and anger across my community. That is why I have had to step in, with help from the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), and call a meeting with all key stakeholders later this month who can have an influence on solving this problem. I want to see everybody in the same room at the same time, so that we can get to the solution as quickly as possible. As I have said, I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support.

I have to say to the Minister that we also need help and support from the Government, as well as from the Environment Agency and United Utilities, which will be at the meeting. I urge the Minister to give a strong steer, as a solution needs to be found and there can be no more delays. The canal is a national asset that is important to our natural environment and ecosystem. I invite the Minister to come and visit the canal to see for himself, and I may also ask him for a meeting to discuss in more detail the challenges we are facing.

Given the challenges of flooding, which take up a lot of the Government’s time, not least in areas such as Blackbrook in St Helens, the canal provides an option to take away excess water and could be an important asset in helping to alleviate flooding. More planning consideration must be given to the canal so that any new developments built close to it feed the service water run-off to it. There should be much more outrage about what is happening to this historic canal, not just as we have seen locally but nationally. This canal forms an important part of the industrial history of our country. It was the first canal of the industrial revolution. If this was happening in London, the national media would be all over it. The Government speak a lot about levelling up, but I can say to the Government that this is a great opportunity to literally level up, and I urge the Minister and his Department to work with me and the local authorities to find the resources needed to save the historic Sankey canal.

I will finish by quoting a few of my constituents who have written to me. Many hundreds have been in touch with me. One said:

“I moved to Widnes from Manchester and could not believe how beautiful this town is. I only discovered Spike Island when I mithered my partner to show me the place where the Stone Roses played. From the moment I arrived I was overwhelmed by the beauty of the place.”

Another resident said:

“Spike Island has been a godsend for me with my mental health, its peace and tranquil beauty has always calmed me.”

A local psychologist who works with vulnerable people said:

“I often deliver walk and talk therapy and Spike Island is a safe and convenient venue.”

Another constituent said:

“We rescued another 10 swans tonight that were stranded in the thick silt. These swans are unable to fly away”.

A constituent in Runcorn said:

“Apart from the historic value of the canal and the huge number of birds, wild fowl and mammals that have a habitat there, it is a hugely popular area with locals.”

There is huge support for the canal and Spike Island, where the canal runs through. This issue is vitally important, not just in my constituency but for the wider region and nationally, given the historic importance of the canal. I urge the Minister to do all he can to put his support behind finding a solution, and I look forward to meeting him at some point in the future.

20:52

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I start by congratulating my neighbour, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing this debate, and I have to say I agree with pretty much everything he has said. While it is often the case that Warrington and Widnes will do battle when it comes to rugby league, we are standing as one on the issue of the Sankey canal.

I am, as the hon. Gentleman is, keen to find an urgent solution. Even though the visual problem we see with an empty canal is not actually in Warrington South in my constituency, I know that local people value this area as a leisure amenity. As he has just said, it is a beautiful part of the north-west and somewhere that people can enjoy outdoor space and make the most of the fantastic countryside that we have. Frankly, political boundaries do not matter to normal people. They are not bothered which council controls it; they just want the issue sorting. The overwhelming message in what I am about to say is that we need to find a solution and we need to get people together. I am pleased that between us we will manage to bring people together at the end of this month, and I hope we can find a long-lasting solution that delivers for the people of Warrington and Halton.

I pay particular tribute to the volunteers at the Sankey Canal Restoration Society, who have spent many years working to restore and preserve this canal. I can only imagine the angst that they feel when they look at the asset—the prized asset—they have been working to restore suddenly drained and, frankly, in a terrible state. I have seen some of the pictures, and there really is a contrasting image of two canals—a canal in Warrington that is full of water and has been maintained by the local authority and, I am afraid to say, a canal in Halton that, as the hon. Member said, has not been maintained and now has no water in it, but has silt at the bottom and, frankly, looks in a terrible state.

I first met those from SSE, which currently owns the Fiddler’s Ferry site, a number of years back when I was elected. I spoke to them on numerous occasions because I knew the site was going to be cleared and that demolition would follow, and each time they told me that they had warned the local councils this was going to happen. It was a problem that could have been foreseen, and their decommissioning plans and their plan to withdraw power needed a solution from local councils. Halton and Warrington, along with the Sankey Canal Restoration Society, have been working together on this because they have an aspiration to restore navigation to the entire length of the canal, but it seems that we have really been pushed backwards in that respect.

One of the considerations of this project was finding a permanent and sustainable water supply, and I understand that various options have been explored over the years. Having received a report from Warrington Council, it seems that no solutions are free from difficulty. I understand that water from the canal is being lost at a rate of about 9,000 cubic metres a day, which is a significant amount, and we really do need this work to continue.

I will conclude by saying that the hon. Member is absolutely right: a financial solution is required from the councils. I know that Warrington is continuing to invest, and I do urge the Minister, wherever he possibly can, to intervene to support the efforts to restore this canal, because this really matters to my constituents.

20:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Double)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin by placing on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who, before the events of last week, would have been the Minister responding to this debate. While I am incredibly honoured and delighted to have this role, there is no doubting the commitment and passion for the environment that she brought to it during her time in office. She should feel rightly proud of all that she achieved and, indeed, she will be a very tough act to follow.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) on securing this debate on what is clearly a very important matter to him and many of his constituents. Our canals are a highly valuable feature of our national landscapes. They are the most visible demonstration of our country’s industrial heritage. They are green corridors, sometimes in areas with little other space for nature, as well as a place for leisure and relaxation for so many people, such as boaters, anglers, joggers, cyclists and ramblers. They are rightly treasured across our country, and there is understandable concern when their future is at risk, as in the case he has highlighted tonight. It is important to note, however, that our canals provide all this despite, or perhaps even because of, the fact that they are run not by central Government but by our 30 navigation authorities across the 3,400 miles of regulated inland waterways in England and Wales.

The Sankey canal is an historic part of our industrial landscape. It was the first modern canal in England, with the initial section opened as long ago as 1757. Built to carry coal to Liverpool, it is 16 miles long, although less than 1 mile is used by boats today. The hon. Member for Halton laid out the history of the canal and its importance to the local industrial heritage very well. I understand that a long-term restoration project is under way, led by the Sankey Canal Restoration Society, working with the relevant local councils and the Canal and River Trust, which together own various sections of the canal.

Until recently, the water supply for sections of the canal came via pumps at the Fiddler’s Ferry power station, but with the closure of this plant in 2020, the supply ceased. This is, of course, an issue that local councillors have been aware of for some time, with Halton and Warrington councils reportedly working on a solution for over a decade. The Environment Agency is the regulator responsible for water resources management and compliance with water quality requirements, and it has been doing what it can to support the local councils with advice. In June 2022 the Environment Agency granted an abstraction licence to Warrington Borough Council to abstract water to supply to the Sankey canal.

The Environment Agency has been working closely with Halton Borough Council on fish rescue work that has been undertaken in recent weeks, attending the site to provide advice on the removal and relocation of fish. The hon. Member for Halton highlighted some of the recent concerning events there and I am pleased that the Environment Agency is assisting in that.

While the Environment Agency will continue to support the local councils where possible, this is not an area where we have dedicated departmental resources. DEFRA gives an annual grant to the Canal and River Trust, the independent charity established in 2012 to manage over 2,000 miles of waterways. The grant to the Canal and River Trust provides some financial support for the charity as it establishes itself and develops new revenue streams while working towards self-sufficiency. The current grant stands at about £52 million a year, with £10 million of that dependent on the trust meeting performance criteria covering principal asset condition, towpath condition, and flood management. The funding for the Canal and River Trust is specific to that charity and not a general fund.

[Derek Twigg]

Given the scenes filmed today showing that hundreds or possibly thousands of fish have died, will the Minister go back to the Environment Agency and ask exactly what it is doing to advise and help save the fish in the canal?

[Steve Double]

I had a meeting with the Environment Agency today and received an update on its work. It assured me that it is providing help and support to address the situation the hon. Gentleman highlights with regard to fish and wildlife, but I will happily go back to it in light of today’s debate and ensure that that continues to happen.

Last year 743 million or so visits were made by people to the Canal and River Trust canal towpaths for a wide variety of reasons including walking, cycling, and deriving health and wellbeing benefits from being close to water. DEFRA is undertaking a review of the current Government grant funding, as required by the 2012 grant agreement with the trust. The review is assessing the trust’s performance over the past 10 years for value for money, and gauging whether there is a case for continued Government grant funding after the end of the current grant period which expires in 2027. The review is nearing completion and we expect to announce a decision in the autumn.

On the issues the hon. Gentleman raised about the Sankey canal, I absolutely believe that he, working with colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), with local councils, and with the tremendous enthusiasm of volunteers like the Sankey Canal Restoration Society, can make a huge difference here. Right across the country, volunteer groups, supported by local councils and their MPs, have led the way in fundraising and in delivering fantastic infrastructure projects to restore and improve canal systems. I have every confidence that the hon. Gentleman can do the same in his constituency.

[Andy Carter]

We currently have a tale of two canals, however. In Warrington, where the funding has been granted by the local authority, there is water in the canal; in Halton, where the council is refusing to fund it, there is no water. Can the Minister give some direction to the council on what it might want to do to address this problem?

[Steve Double]

Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman made that point very well: one council has stepped up and enabled improvements to take place to restore the canal, whereas another council has not. I believe the answer primarily lies locally in finding a solution to restore the canal and ensure its future. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halton for his invitation to visit the canal, and if I can find time in my diary, I would be very happy to do so. I am also happy to meet him, my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South and any other stakeholders, because I want to play my part in trying to find a solution. As the hon. Member for Halton will appreciate, the Department is limited in what it can do, but I am happy to use my office to encourage a local solution to be found. I believe that we can do so—that a local solution can be achieved. The hon. Gentleman’s clear desire is to find a way to secure the future of that historic canal, which is an important part of local history and the current enjoyment of local people. I believe he can do so, and am very happy to do what I can to assist him in that effort.

Question put and agreed to.

21:05

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 12 July 2022

Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Ministerial Corrections

Draft Construction Contracts (England) Exclusion Order 2022

The following are extracts from the debate on the draft Construction Contracts (England) Exclusion Order 2022 in the Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee on 29 June 2022.

[Lee Rowley]

That means that if this works, and we have confidence that it will, the risk to the public purse is minimised because companies pay on results, not on proposal, and because a set of companies and individual actors will be entering into a contract to ensure that they price the risk of delivery appropriately and deliver it to get a long-term revenue source from the Government.

[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 29 June 2022, Vol. 717, c. 8.]

Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley).

An error has been identified in my response to the debate.

The correct response should have been:

[Lee Rowley]

That means that if this works, and we have confidence that it will, the risk to the public purse is minimised because companies pay on results, not on proposal, and because a set of companies and individual actors will be entering into a contract to ensure that they price the risk of delivery appropriately and deliver it to get a long-term revenue source from a water company and its customers.

[Lee Rowley]

The order, however, relates to the arrangement between two private parties—the water companies and first-tier building contractors—though admittedly for a piece of infrastructure that will be important to the citizenry of the United Kingdom.

[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 29 June 2022, Vol. 717, c. 9.]

Letter of correction from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lee Rowley).

An error has been identified in my response to the debate.

The correct response should have been:

[Lee Rowley]

The order, however, relates to the arrangement between two private parties—the water companies and SPVs—though admittedly for a piece of infrastructure that will be important to the citizenry of the United Kingdom.

National Security Bill (Third sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Rushanara Ali, † James Gray

Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Eagle, Maria (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)

† Elmore, Chris (Ogmore) (Lab)

† Everitt, Ben (Milton Keynes North) (Con)

† Hart, Sally-Ann (Hastings and Rye) (Con)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

Hosie, Stewart (Dundee East) (SNP)

† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

† Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)

† Lynch, Holly (Halifax) (Lab)

† McPartland, Stephen (Minister for Security)

† McDonald, Stuart C. (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

† Mann, Scott (North Cornwall) (Con)

† Mohindra, Mr Gagan (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)

† Mumby-Croft, Holly (Scunthorpe) (Con)

† Phillips, Jess (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)

Sambrook, Gary (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

Huw Yardley, Bradley Albrow, Simon Armitage, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 12 July 2022

(Morning)

[James Gray in the Chair]

National Security Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

I welcome the Committee to the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Let us first have a few moments of parish notices. Many people here are old hands at this business, but some are not. Members will therefore forgive me if I talk them through the way in which the Committee ought to consider the Bill, from the beginning—forgive me if I am telling you things that you already know.

The Bill before you is the Bill as agreed, without Division, on Second Reading. The purpose of the Committee is to consider the Bill in detail and seek to improve it. That is done by any member of the Committee tabling amendments. Most often, amendments are tabled by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, although anybody can do so. On this occasion, there is also a large number—perhaps larger than usual—of Government amendments. We talk through the amendments.

Amendments are grouped on the selection list before you and are linked together by subject. If there are amendments across the field on a similar subject, they are debated together in one group. Amendments are then voted on not at that time, but when we get to the relevant part of the Bill; amendments are debated together, but often we will vote on them two or three days later, as we come to them. That removes the confusion on that part. The Member who tabled the lead amendment in a group starts the debate. Others may then catch my eye. Members may speak as often as they like on each amendment, although we might seek to avoid overdoing it.

Behaviour, as it were, is identical here as to that in the main Chamber. Things such as eating and drinking are not allowed, and—to begin with, at least—gentlemen are wearing their coats. I am a very old-fashioned traditionalist and tend to start that way. However, if somebody at some stage wanted to make a point of order, I might be persuaded to change that particular rule—for the first time in my 25 years as a Chairman, mark you, but these are extreme conditions. I am sure that the Doorkeeper will kindly ensure that everyone has plenty of water, as we need to be aware of the heat today.

Clause 1

Obtaining or disclosing protected information

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out “prejudicial” and insert “damaging”.

This amendment seeks to clarify the tests to be met before the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information is committed.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Amendment 47, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after “safety or” insert “critical”.

This amendment seeks to clarify the tests to be met before the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information is committed.

Amendment 48, in clause 27, page 21, line 4, at end insert

““critical interests” includes security and intelligence, defence, international relations and law and order”.

This amendment seeks to clarify the tests to be met before the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information is committed.

Clause stand part.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I welcome the new Minister to his place and wish him all the best in his new role. I certainly foresee this experience as being thrown in at the deep end, but it is a Bill on which there is broad consensus, so I hope that it is not too much of a baptism of fire and that he enjoys it.

It is nice to be able to join colleagues. I was sorry to miss the evidence session last Thursday, as I was indisposed, but I have read the transcript, and the session seemed to prove incredibly useful. I therefore did not miss the usual experience I have at around this time of a Bill Committee, when I think, “If only I had been able to hear or read that evidence before drafting my amendments, they might have been slightly different.”

Let me reiterate our position: the vast majority of provisions in the Bill are welcome and probably long overdue. Clause 1, like clause 4, implements part of the Law Commission’s review recommendations. The clauses are broadly welcome and should stand part of the Bill. Our amendments to clause 1, like most of the handful of other amendments we have tabled, are simply designed to probe whether the offences are drawn tightly enough. The crimes that we are talking about are serious—the offence in clause 1 can lead to life imprisonment. I do not think that anybody on the Committee would say that that is not appropriate when a person steals or hacks protected security information at the behest of a foreign Government and puts the lives of UK citizens at risk.

The amendments are simply designed to ask whether the offence might catch conduct that it was not intended to catch, particularly behaviour that might embarrass the Government but is not in any genuine sense prejudicial to our safety. The shadow Minister put that question to the Law Commission witnesses last Thursday. Professor Lewis responded that such questions are probably legitimate in relation to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and leaks, but the offence is different in this case because of the requirement to be acting for a foreign power. She said succinctly:

I think we are in a slightly different realm here: the realm of espionage and not the realm of leaks.—[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 52, Q98.]

On the whole, I absolutely accept that point, and I fleetingly considered withdrawing some of the amendments, but there are questions about whether that distinction is 100% correct. There are legitimate concerns—they were raised on Second Reading and in the written briefings provided to MPs in advance of it—that the clause also catches behaviour that is more akin to a disclosure under the 1989 Act.

Article 19 and the Campaign For Freedom of Information argue that some of the broad concepts used in clause 1 combine in a way that puts civil society organisations and journalists at risk. I am grateful to those groups for their Second Reading briefings, which have largely prompted my remarks this morning. They point to several features of the clause that cause difficulty. First, it covers material that does not bear a security classification, and information is in scope even if it is not restricted but the person receiving it reasonably believes that it should have been.

Secondly, the concept of “safety or interests of the United Kingdom” is essentially determined by the Government of the day, so it is a policy of the state and, potentially, a broad concept. Thirdly, as well as not being confined to hostile states, the foreign power condition appears to be met simply by obtaining funding from a friendly Government who are pursuing perfectly reasonable aims.

That combination of factors gives rise to concerns for NGOs and journalists. I will give some hypothetical examples of each, which I have borrowed from Article 19. Let us say that an NGO in the UK has some general overseas funding from a friendly Government to campaign on climate change. The Government of the day decide that fracking or new coal are essential for UK interests—who knows where we might be in a few months’ time? The NGO is provided with leaked information undermining that policy—perhaps about the safety record of the company being lined up to operate the plan—and publishes it. Has the NGO involved committed a criminal offence? The way the clause is worded suggest that it might have.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made the point that lots of excellent organisations receive funding from overseas foreign powers, as they are currently defined. In fact, a list would include ActionAid, Anti-Slavery International, Article 19, Client Earth, Global Witness, Index on Censorship, Media Defence, the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, Privacy International, Reprieve—from which we heard evidence last week—and Transparency International. The funders of those NGOs include organisations such as the Danish International Development Agency, IrishAid, New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the US State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, and the US State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons—there are many more in that vein. That is why we have concerns about the effect of clause 1 on NGOs.

In contrast, if a different NGO—one just across the road—had published that document online, it would not be committing an offence, not just because it does not receive any such foreign funding, but because the 1989 Act is more specifically about the subject matter or material that leads to an offence of disclosure—namely, it would have to relate to security and intelligence, defence, international relations and law enforcement. Environment or energy policy—or fracking, in my example—would not be covered. The punishment under the 1989 Act would be two years’ imprisonment, not life, so there is real inconsistency between the disclosures caught by the Bill and those caught by that Act.

My second example relates to journalism. What happens if, rather than directly publishing the leak, the NGO passes it to a journalist who reports the leaked information as part of their story? If that journalist is employed by a UK news organisation, all is well, because the foreign power conditions are not met. However, if the journalist works for another Government state broadcaster—even a friendly one—the foreign power condition is adequately met. One reporter commits no offence at all; another reporter—who perhaps works for Danmarks Radio or any other state broadcaster—commits an offence that could mean life imprisonment.

Our amendments offer different ways of addressing that. Amendment 46 would reintroduce the test of damage. Interestingly, the Law Commission’s proposals for reform of the 1989 Act recognise that damage can sometimes act as a public interest test, and that it is a concept worth keeping in relation to offences that could be committed by journalists or citizens generally, even if the Law Commission was arguing for removing it in relation to other disclosure offences.

Our amendments would also clarify what interests are protected by that serious offence, and would match the clause up with what is protected by the 1989 Act. Amendment 48 mentions simply “critical” interests—meaning security, intelligence, defence, international relations and law and order.

There is another alternative that I will come to later, which relates to fixing the foreign power clause so that NGOs are not caught if they get funding from benign foreign powers for perfectly reasonable purposes. Those are different alternatives, and I would be interested to know whether the Government accept that those two scenarios are caught by the clause. If so, what is their response?

[The Minister for Security (Stephen McPartland)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to be here in Committee. I will start with the clause and then deal with the amendments tabled by—let me see if I can get this right—the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Very good.

[Stephen McPartland]

Thank you.

I will quickly respond to some of the hon. Gentleman’s points. There are a variety of protections throughout the Bill. One is that someone has to be doing activity designed to benefit or help a foreign power in order to commit an offence. Secondly, most of the offences in part 1 of the Bill need sign-off from the Attorney General. Thirdly, the Crown Prosecution Service has to be satisfied that prosecuting is in the public interest. Those are three very large protections that exist throughout the Bill. As we go through the Bill clause by clause, we must always remember those three big principles.

I will start by referring to the recent case of the individual working in the British embassy in Berlin who was extradited and charged, and to the conviction of a Ministry of Defence contractor in 2020 under the existing espionage legislation, which indicate the threat that is posed by those looking to harm the United Kingdom by committing espionage. Clauses 1 to 3 create four separate but overlapping offences to ensure that the Bill proportionately covers the wide range of threats and harms that constitute espionage, without capturing legitimate activity. The clauses are supported by other provisions in the Bill, including the “prohibited places” provisions, by building on and modernising our existing tools in the Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920 and 1939. The new provisions continue to criminalise harmful activity while reducing the risk of loopholes that can be exploited by sophisticated state actors. I will speak later to clauses 2 and 3, and to the “prohibited places” regime.

Before I get into the detail of the offence set out in clause 1, it is important to flag that, along with other offences in the Bill, it will apply only in circumstances where there is a clear link between the activity and a foreign power. This is provided for by the foreign power condition, which we will discuss in more detail later. In essence, a person’s conduct must be carried out for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit a foreign power. This responds to the recommendation, made by the Law Commission in its 2020 “Protection of Official Data” report, to move away from outdated concepts.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The foreign power condition includes activities carried out with the financial or other assistance of a foreign power. The concern is that if an NGO gets regular funding for environmental or human rights work, it would be accidently caught by the foreign power condition. A journalist who works for a friendly state broadcaster would also be caught by the foreign power condition. We still think that such scenarios are a concern.

[Stephen McPartland]

As I said earlier, we have three huge protections. One is that activity must be for, or on behalf of, a foreign power. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but there are another two layers on top of that protection. The first is that the Attorney General’s consent must be obtained. Secondly, the Crown Prosecution Service must be satisfied that prosecution would be in the public interest. Those are three very strong layers of protection that would help protect an NGO if it were to do something inadvertently.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. Having such protections in place is all very well, but the real issue is the chilling effect this could have in the kinds of circumstances that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has set out. It is not right, is it, for us to criminalise activity that we do not really want to criminalise, but then say, “Well, the Attorney General will sort it out later in each individual case.”? That is not really a very good way of legislating.

[Stephen McPartland]

We are not talking about legislating in that way. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, we are saying that there are three layers of protection. The first layer is that people would be deemed to be obtaining or disclosing protected information for, or on behalf of, a foreign power. The next layers would involve the Attorney General and the Crown Prosecution Service. The hon. Lady, as a lawyer, will be very well aware that the CPS always determines whether it feels it is in the public interest to prosecute. People will not be caught up by accident, and I think we are getting into theoretics by going further and further down that line.

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I am struck by the hypothetical example given by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Just go with Cumbernauld, if that helps.

[Ben Everitt]

Okay, we will just go with Cumbernauld. The hypothetical example referred to a Government of the day diversifying their energy sources so that, potentially, they were less reliant on fuel and power from a possibly hostile foreign state. The Minister has detailed the extra layers of defence that will act in the public interest. Does he agree that in the hypothetical example cited we would want some protection from foreign interference in Government policy—a democratically elected Government of the UK?

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend is correct. Three tests must be met for someone to be prosecuted: conducting harmful activity with regard to information that is protected effectively, knowingly prejudicing the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and acting in a way that benefits a foreign power. Forgive me, but I do not believe that an NGO will accidentally fail all three of those tests.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

But it may, because subsection (1)(b) states that a person commits an offence if

“the person’s conduct is for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial”.

An NGO might think that putting something into the public domain is in the public interest. They may not even take into account that that disclosure may damage UK security. For example, in this morning’s newspapers—

[The Chair]

Interventions should be brief.

[Mr Jones]

The story of alleged shootings by the SAS has clearly been put into the public domain. I would argue that disclosure is not in the public interest of the UK, but people are arguing that it should be in the public domain.

[Stephen McPartland]

That example demonstrates how important the Bill is, because it sets out that activities that are illegal will still be illegal if actors are acting in a particular manner. The Bill is trying to bring current provisions up to date to provide our intelligence services with the toolkits they need to keep our nation safe and secure. I believe that the three tests are strong enough to help provide those protections.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that, but just take this morning’s example cited on the BBC of the alleged illegal acts by the SAS. Someone has got the information, put it in the public domain and may feel that it is in the public interest for it to be scrutinised. Will that damage our interests? Yes, it will. The Government might think that that disclosure will help a foreign power or damage our interests—and I would argue that possibly it will—but that is not to question the judgment of the individuals who have decided that the allegation should be in the public domain.

[Stephen McPartland]

I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I believe that we have three very strong tests that must be applied: the information must benefit a foreign power, the Attorney General must consider the case, and the CPS must decide that it is in the public interest to prosecute. Those three tests and protections run throughout the Bill.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I recognise that the Minister is trying to make progress and I apologise for intervening, but does he have any concerns about the Attorney General test? Does he think that the Attorney General does not protect the Government from embarrassment? Does he think that the law always comes above with the Attorney General?

09:45

[Stephen McPartland]

Current events demonstrate that we never protect the Government from embarrassment!

Before I get into the detail of the offence itself, it is important to flag that, along with other offences in the Bill, it will apply only in circumstances where there is a clear link between the activity and a foreign power. That is provided for by the foreign power condition, which we will discuss in more detail later. It responds to recommendations in the Law Commission’s 2020 “Protection of Official Data” report about moving from outdated concepts such as “enemy”.

Clause 1 enhances our ability to tackle the threat of espionage by introducing a modern offence to capture those unlawfully obtaining, copying, recording, retaining, disclosing or providing access to protected information. Protected information is any information, document or other article that is or could reasonably be expected to be subject to a form of restriction of access in order to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom—for example, if the information is stored within a secure Government building or has a form of restricted classification. Protected information can cover a wide range of Government material, including information such as raw data, documents such as committee reports and other articles such as memory sticks.

Protected information includes, but is not limited to, classified material. That is important, given that serious harm can be caused by obtaining or disclosing seemingly non-sensitive information that, if used in a certain way by sophisticated state actors, could be capable of damaging the United Kingdom’s national security. However, I want to be clear that the definition will not cover truly benign items such as the lunch menu of the Home Office canteen.

Like the existing espionage provisions, and as recommended by the Law Commission, clause 1 will require that a

“person’s conduct is for a purpose…prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

The term

“safety or interests of the United Kingdom”

has been interpreted in case law as meaning the objects of state policy determined by the Crown on the advice of Ministers, which includes national security. That enables the United Kingdom to respond to threats targeted against its wide range of interests.

Amendment 46 would require that a person’s conduct be instead for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is damaging to the safety or critical interests of the UK. That would create a higher evidential threshold to secure prosecution in an area that is often difficult to evidence due to the sensitive nature of the information that may have been obtained or disclosed. Put simply, we would have to explain why it caused damage, which may require evidence that compounds the damage. That would provide challenges to our law enforcement agencies and courts, and is likely to result in fewer prosecutions being pursued, offering further opportunities to those looking to harm our country through acts of espionage. The use of “prejudicial” mitigates some of that risk.

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the difference between those two words, but can he give us an example? The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East gave a theoretical example to illustrate why he tabled the amendments. Can the Minister give us an example of something that is prejudicial and not damaging?

[Stephen McPartland]

I will come on to that in a bit. I will provide an example shortly.

[Maria Eagle]

Thank you.

[Stephen McPartland]

You are very welcome. I would not want to get it wrong.

Amendments 47 and 48 would introduce and define the term “critical interests”. In the amendments, “critical interests” is defined to include security, intelligence, defence, international relations and law and order. Although I recognise that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East tabled the amendments to attempt to specify exactly what should fall under UK interests in order to add clarity, I must stress that it limits the scope and utility of the clause 1 offence and risks creating loopholes that could be exploited by those looking to harm the UK. There is also the risk that the offence would become quickly outdated as the UK’s interests naturally and properly evolve. Notably, the list does not include economic interests or interests relating to public health, to name just two areas that would be overlooked by such a definition. Those are areas that are targeted by hostile actors and should rightly be protected.

The safety or interests of the UK test is used not only in clause 1, but in several other offences throughout part 1 of the Bill, such as sabotage or entering a prohibited place with a purpose prejudicial to the UK. There is a risk that creating a notably different test under the clause 1 offence would confuse the legal interpretation of the tests under those other offences and may have a significant impact on their operational utility.

Finally, I reiterate that the test of a person conducting activity

“prejudicial to the safety or interests”

of the UK already exists and is understood in the courts. Just last week at an oral evidence session, the law commissioner invested considerable time and effort in reviewing this area of law, outlining their support of the Government’s decision to retain that term. They commented that the

“safety or interest of the state is consistent with a lot of the wording that already exists within the Official Secrets Act…and it avoids what might risk being an unduly narrow focus on national security.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 52, Q97.]

Moving away from the amendments, it should be noted that instead of using “enemy”, as in the espionage provisions, the offence in clause 1 includes a foreign power condition. That moves the offence away from labelling countries as enemies, which is less relevant in the 21st century.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood asked about the difference between prejudicial and damaging. The damage requirement would require the court to demonstrate harm and explain why it is damaging, whereas prejudice is broader and could include reducing future opportunities. That will also mitigate some of the risks associated, as I have said. It provides a wider test so that we can intervene at an earlier stage of a plot or something else that would affect our national security.

I turn to the extent of the provisions under the 1911 Act. An activity that takes place wholly outside the UK would be an offence only if it is committed overseas by a UK national or officer, such as a Crown servant. Technological developments in a more global world mean that it is now more likely that information that warrants protection to safeguard the safety or interests of the UK may be vulnerable to activity that takes place outside the UK by a wider range of actors—for example, a locally engaged security guard working in a UK embassy stealing papers, or the theft of information held there digitally via cyber means.

To keep pace with the modern threat, the extraterritorial jurisdiction for the offence has been expanded so that the offence can be committed anywhere in the world and by anyone, regardless of their nationality. The extraterritorial jurisdiction is a critical reform within the offence as a better defence for the United Kingdom against a modern espionage threat, whose global nature is not reflected in the current provisions in the espionage offence of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Another key difference from the existing offence is the increase in the maximum penalty available to life imprisonment. The emergence of modern vectors such as cyber means that espionage has the potential to cause a greater level of harm than was possible in 1911 when the United Kingdom’s espionage offences and penalties were first drafted. In the most serious cases, an act of obtaining or disclosing protected information can result in the loss of life or can gravely undermine the United Kingdom’s ability to defend itself from a range of threats. This demonstrates the United Kingdom’s resolve to make it more difficult and detrimental for hostile actors to undermine our country’s interests and safety by committing acts of espionage.

Although we will come to this in more detail later in Committee, I want to flag a key safeguard that applies to prosecutions to this and other serious offences in part 1. Given that state threat activity and the United Kingdom’s response can have a significant impact on the safety and interests of our country and wider international relations, the Attorney General’s consent, as I said earlier, must be obtained in the case of England and Wales before a prosecution is taken forward. In Northern Ireland, the consent of the Advocate General must be sought.

I stress the importance and need for reform of the espionage laws in the Official Secrets Acts 1911, 1920 and 1939. Recent and ongoing events make it clear that the threat from state threat activity, particularly acts of espionage, is of continuing concern and we must have robust protections in place. The introduction of the offence of obtaining or disclosing protected information as a core part of the Bill provides measures to tackle the harmful espionage activity that the United Kingdom faces. That is why clause 1 is so vital. I encourage my fellow Committee members to support it and I ask that the hon. Member withdraw his amendment to it.

[The Chair]

Before I call the shadow Minister, it might be helpful if I clarify the order of debate that I normally expect to see. The person who has proposed an amendment moves it. By and large, anybody else then takes part in the debate, including the shadow Minister. The Minister replies to the debate and then the proposer gets a short whack at the end. On this occasion, I will call the shadow Minister, and then the Minister will have an opportunity to reply before the proposer rounds up.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I am eternally grateful, Mr Gray. It is great to see you joining as Chair of this Committee on this particularly important piece of legislation. Thank you for the refresher on the order in which the Front-Bench spokespersons take part in proceedings.

We have had a highly unconventional start to this Bill Committee. I do not think anybody is more relieved to see the Minister in his place—perhaps the Government Whip. I really do welcome the Minister to his place and wish him all the very best. I know he has made every effort to get across the detail of the Bill in the incredibly short time he has had to prepare. I echo the sentiment we expressed on Second Reading and offer him the assurance that the Bill has our support. It is right, and increasingly urgent, that our laws are updated. We intend to be nothing but constructive in our scrutiny, deliberations and suggested additions, as we work together to ensure that the legislation is as effective as we all need it to be.

The Home Office’s impact assessment is clear that:

“The threat from hostile activity by states is a growing, diversifying and evolving one, manifesting itself in several different forms including espionage, foreign interference in our political system, sabotage, disinformation, cyber operations, and even attempted assassinations.”

I was struck by the testimony of Sir Alex Younger, the former chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, in last week’s evidence session. In response to a question about how threats to the UK have changed, he said:

“What I would call grey threats…often presented us with real challenges, particularly when actors or states felt themselves at war with us and we did not feel ourselves at war with them, for good reason.

My career saw less emphasis on conventional threats and more on grey space. Most of my career was devoted to counter-terrorism, which was the dominant example, but subsequently we saw state actors working in subthreshold space—operations short of conventional war—to harm us.—[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 11-12, Q21.]

Following detailed pieces of work such as the Intelligence and Security Committee’s “Russia” report and the Law Commission’s “Protection of Official Data” report, we have been calling for progress in this legislative area for many months, so we welcome the opportunity to work with the Government to get it right.

As the Minister has outlined, clauses 1 to 3 will introduce three new espionage offences: obtaining or disclosing protected information, obtaining or disclosing trade secrets, and assisting a foreign intelligence service. As was highlighted by the Government’s integrated review in 2021, state threats to Departments, national infrastructure, British businesses and private individuals are growing and becoming ever more complex. The situation in Ukraine and the ongoing Russian aggression have brought about an urgency to introduce new offences in this area, but make no mistake: this has been an emerging trend in contemporary national security threats for years.

The director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, in his joint address to UK businesses, journalists and academics with the director of the FBI last week, said that alongside the situation in Ukraine, the

“most game-changing challenge we face comes from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s covertly applying pressure across the globe… We need to talk about it. We need to act.”

I thank the director general and all those who are working so hard in our UK intelligence community for the work that they undertake around the clock to keep us safe. They have to respond to threats that most of us cannot begin to comprehend. We are grateful for their service, and it is at the forefront of our minds as we consider what they need from us in order to do their job. Therefore, these new offences, which reflect the changing dynamics of the challenges to our national security, very much have our support.

Clause 1 criminalises obtaining or disclosing protected information. Further to the Minister’s introduction to the clause, we heard from the witnesses last week about the need for the clause. It is a particular focus of the Law Commission’s “Protection of Official Data” report, and the commission confirmed that it was satisfied that the offences

“reflect well the recommendations that we made.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 50, Q94.]

In explaining why the offences are required, the “Microsoft Digital Defence Report”, which was published in October last year, identified that Chinese actors engaged in this type of activity mostly targeted data and intellectual property exfiltration. A broad range of sectors has been targeted, including comms infrastructure, the defence industrial base, IT, education, law firms and medical research. Interestingly, the report said:

“In the last year, espionage, and more specifically, intelligence collection, has been a far more common goal than destructive attacks.”

However, rather than commercial or industry targets, Microsoft’s data shows that

“nearly 80% of those targeted were either in government, NGOs, or think tanks.”

Its analysis suggested that,

“Think tanks often serve as policy incubators and implementers, with strong ties to current and former government officials and programs. Threat actors can and do exploit the connections between the more traditional NGO community and government organizations to position themselves to gain insights into national policy plans and intentions.”

The theft of research, policy development and datasets has been the focus of hostile state actors in recent months, so we are satisfied that there is a need for the new offence created by clause 1.

10:00

On Scottish National party amendments 46, 47 and 48, tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—this is the third Committee I have served on with him, and it has taken three Committees for me to be able to reference his constituency with any degree of certainty—we will also seek to probe some of the questions that he highlighted.

There are some recurring principles throughout the Bill, which manifest themselves in clause 1, and it would be useful to work through them in these early stages. The condition that

“the person’s conduct is for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”

must be satisfied in order for the offence to have occurred. The principle of “ought reasonably to know” recurs in the offences created by clauses 1, 2 and 3, and later in the Bill, so I am keen to work through the notion, further to the conversation I have had with the intelligence community directly. In some of my discussions, there has been a sense that a clear and robust representation may be made in order to communicate to a person that their conduct, if it persists, will bring them within the scope of the offence.

One example is the security services interference alert, issued in January to Members of this House. One would expect that that would put it beyond any doubt that the conduct of someone continuing to engage or supply information to an individual named in that way is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, removing any ability to plead ignorance. Is that type of formal intervention required for someone to commit an offence under the “ought reasonably to know” stipulation? If not, will the Minister provide further clarity about the other ways in which he envisages that condition being met?

Former members of the UK’s intelligence community have put it to me that the combination of a relatively broad definition of “protected information” in clause 1, combined with a maximum sentence for these offences being imprisonment for life, a fine or both makes the clause quite a beast, in terms of what it does. I recognise the need for seriousness for all the reasons I have outlined, but I am mindful that “protected information” has a much broader definition than “classified information”. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that a naive young person visiting the House of Commons comes across a misplaced hard copy of what should be a password-protected document, takes a photo and puts it on their Facebook page—if that is indeed what young people use for social media nowadays. For other potential scenarios, hon. Members are limited only by their imagination. I have no doubt that they will be relieved that I will leave it to just that one. As stupid and unhelpful as that is, has that person opened themselves up to life imprisonment?

The Minister said that the Home Office menu will not be captured by these offences, but there is a plethora of examples between the Home Office menu and very serious information, and that requires some working through. I am sure the Minister will assure me that there will be sliding scale of offences up to and including life imprisonment at the disposal of the judiciary, which will presumably be dealt with in the sentencing guidelines. Will he confirm that that will be the case? Can he remind Members of the process of the development of the sentencing guidelines, and the timeframe in which we might expect to see them alongside the Bill? An indication of the value of the fines available to the judiciary would also be incredibly helpful.

[Stephen McPartland]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady and I thank her for her kind words. She asked a number of questions, which I will do my utmost to answer.

Protected information is information, documents or other articles to which, for the purpose of protecting UK safety or interests, access is restricted, or it is reasonable to expect that access would be restricted. The hon. Lady’s example of taking a photograph inside the House of Commons would not be considered that. Throughout the Bill there are three tests. First, would the activity assist a foreign power? Secondly, would the Attorney General give consent? Thirdly, would the Crown Prosecution Service consider it to be in the public interest to prosecute? Taking a photograph inside the House of Commons or of something a bit more restricted than the Home Office lunch menu would not come under the provision.

The hon. Lady referred to the director general of MI5; this is about giving the Home Office, the intelligence services and the intelligence community the tools they need to tackle the wider threat. The British public trust the UK intelligence community to do the job and to have the powers. People often worry when other agencies get wider powers, but that is not what is happening in the Bill.

On being able to intervene at an earlier stage, the provisions in the Bill provide a toolkit to allow the intelligence community to intervene earlier in some matters in order to work with people to stop them progressing into specific acts that would break the law. It will help people who may be going down the wrong path, as well as helping the intelligence community to act at a much earlier stage.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate and to the Minister for his response. As I say, I absolutely accept the case for a clause such as this one. However, the Minister’s explanation of the protections in place in respect of the two scenarios that I outlined falls a long way short of what I would regard as satisfactory.

I outlined three solutions or protections. One was the foreign power condition; I have explained already why both the NGO and the journalist in those scenarios would meet the foreign power condition, so that does not work. Thereafter, we are left with the Attorney General and the Crown Prosecution Service. That offers no protection at all. From the point of view of the rule of law, people need to know whether they have broken the law or are committing an offence that is punishable by life imprisonment. We cannot leave that journalist or NGO in that position by saying it all depends on what the Attorney General or the Crown Prosecution Service thinks.

I have no idea whether the Attorney General or the Crown Prosecution Service would regard that NGO and journalist as having committed an offence that they would want to prosecute. As Members have said, that leaves a big chilling effect on that NGO and journalist. They have no certainty that they will not be prosecuted for the activities they undertake. They open themselves up to the possibility of life imprisonment for what, on the face of it, has all the characteristics of a disclosure of information, which should be dealt with, if at all, under the Official Secrets Act 1989 rather than in this Bill.

[Mr Jones]

I have been told that this may be outside the scope of the Bill, but it seems to me that what is missing from it is a public interest defence for those individuals. That protection not being in the Bill opens people up to what the hon. Gentleman describes.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is a fair point. In the light of the lack of satisfactory safeguards we have heard this morning, we may have to revisit that question. There is an issue of scope in relation to sticking that into the 1989 Act, but I do not see any reason why we could not include it in some of the offences in this Bill. Unless the Government can come up with better safeguards than have been offered this morning, we are going to have to revisit that.

I urge the Minister to go away and think about this issue. I am actually more worried about those two scenarios now than I was at the start of the day. I am not absolutely sure that the amendments that I tabled are the right ones, so we will revisit the issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Obtaining or disclosing trade secrets

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Stephen McPartland]

Clause 2 provides for an offence of obtaining or disclosing trade secrets. It will be an important tool for law enforcement and the intelligence agencies to detect, deter and protect modern espionage activity. It will introduce an offence to criminalise the illicit acquisition, retention or disclosure of sensitive information with a commercial, industrial or economic value linked to its secrecy for, on behalf of or to benefit foreign states.

There is an inherent link between economic prosperity and our national security; we cannot ignore one and expect the other not to suffer as a result. We must respond to the fact that our adversaries and competitors are already acting in a more consolidated way, taking a whole-state approach to state threat activity. It is crucial that we ensure our legislation covers the wide range of threats and harms that constitute modern espionage.

For the purposes of this legislation, a person commits an offence if they obtain, copy, record, retain, disclose or provide access to a trade secret; additionally, the person’s conduct must be unauthorised and they must know or ought reasonably to know that their conduct is unauthorised. As with clause 1 and a number of other provisions in the Bill, there must also be a link to a foreign power, such as an intention to benefit that power or to direct tasking by that power.

The clause provides for a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both. That reflects the severity of the conduct and the potential damage to the UK, its businesses and our economy, as well as being comparable to existing similar legislation.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister said that there must be a direct link to a foreign power. May I give an example? Suppose that somebody obtains information and gives or sells it not to a foreign power but to a competitor business. Is that covered under the legislation?

[Stephen McPartland]

The legislation takes civil offences and makes some of them criminal. That case would remain a civil offence. What we are doing is providing the intelligence services with the tools they need to prosecute people who hand over trade secrets in the criminal system. For example, MBDA in my constituency builds Brimstone missiles, which are currently being used in action. If some of those secrets were to be removed and handed over, that would be difficult for the people using those missiles and for the country. There are clear examples of how the loss of trade secrets threatens the country and our allies’ lives.

[Mr Jones]

I agree, but is it the case that to prosecute under the Bill there will need to be a causal link from the individual to a foreign power and not necessarily to a competitor in the UK?

[Stephen McPartland]

My understanding is that the action would have to be done on behalf of or for the purposes of a foreign power. If it was done unknowingly, it would be for the lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide how to proceed.

[Maria Eagle]

In the example that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham gave of a person obtaining information and trade secrets and selling them to a competitor business, if that business had a complex ownership structure that led back to, say, China, would that be enough for the person to fall foul of the legislation?

[Stephen McPartland]

I appreciate the question and understand the spirit in which it was asked. However, one thing that we must be careful of is laying out exactly what someone must do to fall foul of the legislation. If we did, in that example, the Chinese would create that structure and be in a position to use it ensure that anybody acting on their behalf would not fall under that power. We must provide the intelligence agencies with the tools that they need to interdict and decide whether such people can be pursued and taken to court. As we have seen, it is difficult to get anybody on espionage. However, as we have said throughout proceedings, we do need the foreign power condition, or to reasonably know, and reasonableness is a huge test within English law, so a person would have to reasonably know that what they are doing would benefit a foreign power.

The offence under the clause is first and foremost a national security offence. We have created a definition of “trade secret”, found in subsection (2), which is intended for use in the state threats context. The introduction of the definition in the offence will help to address the increasingly diverse set of tactics employed by state actors to undermine the UK’s national and economic security and target a wide range of information.

There is no specific criminal offence in UK law that directly criminalises the threat to trade secrets by or for the benefit of foreign states. We have trade secrets regulations that transpose European law, but they serve a different purpose. We have therefore modified the definition of “trade secret” to ensure that it is suitable for our specific purposes. For example, as well as requiring that protections are in place that would limit the utility and potentially impose obligations on businesses, the definition in the Trade Secrets (Enforcement, etc.) Regulations 2018 does not account for information with a potential value. We are seeking to capture early-stage ideas such as research as well as established ideas that are more likely to be subject to protective measures.

Subsections (1)(b) and (3) set out in the instances in which a person’s conduct is unauthorised and what that means. The clause uses the term “unauthorised” because it focuses on the consent of the person with the power to give that consent. We want to make it absolutely clear that legitimate conduct is not captured by this offence. For the purposes of this offence, a person’s conduct is unauthorised if they are not entitled to determine whether they are able to carry out the conduct in question—for example, if they disclose a trade secret to a foreign power and they do not have the permission of the person who does have the power to make that decision. An example of where someone is not captured by the offence could be a team of researchers who are working with a foreign power, but although the information they control amounts to a trade secret, their research partnership authorises them to share that information with the foreign power.

10:15

Technological developments have enabled espionage and information acquisition to be conducted from a foreign state with greater ease. United Kingdom business interests are often targeted. Implementing an offence with extraterritorial jurisdictions is necessary to defend the United Kingdom against threats posed by foreign powers. The clause applies overseas where the conduct takes place wholly outside the UK, but only where the trade secret is in the possession or control of a UK person.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is one of a couple of issues that I have. I would like the full information on why the offence can take place only outside the United Kingdom if it is in respect of possession by a United Kingdom national, as opposed to a UK resident or any other description of persons. I do not know whether the Minister can answer that now, but it would be useful to understand it.

[Stephen McPartland]

I will come back to the hon. Member on that point.

The clause applies overseas where the conduct takes place outside the UK. That includes both a UK national overseas and a UK company based overseas, provided that it is incorporated or was formed, if unincorporated, under domestic law. The clause brings forward an important offence that will form part of a modernised toolkit for our world-class intelligence agencies and law enforcement. It is proportionate to the threat posed by this activity, and imposes no restrictions or obligations on UK businesses, but offers further protections for them, and the UK as a whole, against modern espionage activity. We cannot promote economic prosperity without enhancing our national security and responding to the modern threat posed by espionage.

[Holly Lynch]

As the Minister just outlined, the clause creates an offence in relation to obtaining or disclosing trade secrets. The former deputy National Security Adviser, Paddy McGuinness, set the scene for this new offence when he gave evidence last week. On the trade secrets element, he said that it does “a very significant thing”, and continued:

“This kind of legislation and the type of work that Sir Alex and his successors in MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are doing has Darwinian effect, so I have no doubt that as companies have got better at certain kinds of protection advised by the interaction with the CPNI and the National Cyber Security Centre, so the opponents have got better at it. And we will have to go on doing it.”

He said:

“It does not feel as though we have quite the same volume of opencast mining of our intellectual property and economic value that we had, as was described previously by General Keith Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency in the US. He described the enormous volume—trillions of value—taken out of our economies. There still is a very high level, though, so there is more work to do on this, and it is a significant challenge to the corporate sector to do the right thing in this space, because of the difficulty that it represents.”

He also said:

“The Bill provides a really solid basis for that discussion, because of the criminalisation of the trades secrets aspect.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 25, Q50.]

All that provides an incredibly sobering outlook on the scale of the challenge that we face as a country.

Let me work through some of the detail further. We have some queries about this clause, as we did for clause 1. The seriousness of the clause is underlined by the fact that it creates an offence for which, if someone was found guilty of committing it, they would find themselves with a jail term not exceeding 14 years imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The Minister did not give us that extra bit of detail about the sentencing guidelines in the discussion about clause 1. I wonder if he might be able to return to that point in the discussion on clause 2.

Further to that, I confess that on my first reading and several subsequent readings of the clause, and having listened carefully to the Minister explain the detail of who can be prosecuted and where, it seems to suggest that this offence could be committed only by a UK national. I asked a former member of the intelligence community to have a look at it, and they felt that subsections (4) to (7) on who can commit the offence only seem to refer to a UK person, a United Kingdom national or a British citizen. Only on seeking a legal opinion was it judged that it could be interpreted to apply to non-UK nationals, but only if their criminal activity takes place in the UK. It does not apply where this activity is wholly outside the UK. That same legal opinion queried what it means to be “wholly” outside the UK, as that is unclear in this online age. It is also unclear why obtaining UK-related trade secrets unlawfully is not criminalised for non-UK nationals operating entirely from abroad, as is the nature of a lot of this type of activity.

We are not naive to the additional barriers to bringing someone to justice in these circumstances, yet such activity is no less wrongful because of nationality or where the criminal act takes place. With that in mind, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm, first, for absolute clarity, that this crime can be committed by non-UK nationals when acting in the UK and we could prosecute them using this clause on that basis. Secondly, why does the clause not extend to criminalising non-UK nationals when they commit this offence in the theft of UK intellectual property and trade secrets outside the UK? Will the Minister clarify those points?

Again, we have the principle of “ought reasonably to know”, which warrants further consideration and clarity. On the “ought reasonably to know” threshold, I have it on good authority from former members of the intelligence community that the duping of individuals by nation states into doing the bidding of that nation state is not uncommon tradecraft. Are we satisfied that we have the right balance in that regard? Any clarity that the Minister can provide on the sentencing guidelines would be enormously welcome.

[Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. Would you mind awfully if Members were to take their jackets off?

[The Chair]

I will not be taking my jacket off, but hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies may take their jackets off if they wish, as it is very hot.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have three short points building on what Members have already raised in relation to this clause.

First, as raised by esteemed colleagues from the Intelligence and Security Committee, there is a question mark over what happens if somebody recklessly starts dishing out trade secrets, not directly to somebody in way that meets the foreign power condition but in a way that makes that inevitable or very likely. That does not seem to be caught by the clause at the moment, so that is something for the Minister to think about.

Secondly, as I have already asked, I want to understand why the offence is only committed “wholly” abroad if the trade secret is in the possession of a UK national, not, for example, a UK resident who is not a national. The Government have made a conscious choice about that drafting and I am interested to know why.

Finally, the clause states that the offence is committed if

“the person’s conduct is unauthorised”.

Do we need to be a little more explicit about what we mean by authorisation and authorised by whom? I can imagine situations where, for example, the person who we want to prosecute might say, “Actually, my conduct is authorised. It is authorised by the laws of my country,” which may be considerably different from the laws of this country. Does that need to be clarified? That might be implied in the phrase

“the person’s conduct is unauthorised”

but it may be something the Government want to look at.

[Stephen McPartland]

Earlier, we talked about sentencing guidelines. My understanding is that we are not in a position to give more detail on that yet. That is something I have discussed with the Ministry of Justice, as we will come to later.

With regard to the offence, one issue we have is the offence is designed to catch overseas activity with a strong link to the UK. It has been set at the threshold of a UK offence, so if we extend who it will to apply to, that will end up extending the scope of the offence. It is almost as if we have tried to put a safeguard in place to protect and control it, and the more we extend it, the more it will extend the scope of the offence and bring more and more within its scope, so that is the position we are in.

[Jess Phillips]

As a point of clarification, how will it apply to somebody who has indefinite leave to remain, who is not a lawful British citizen in the United Kingdom but very much operating here?

[Stephen McPartland]

It applies in the sense that if that person were to commit murder, they would be prosecuted in this country under the laws applying to murder.

[Jess Phillips]

The Minister would be surprised.

[Stephen McPartland]

Effectively, it would apply in the same way. As I have said, with all these offences the Advocate General has to sign them off, and the Crown Prosecution Service as well.

[Jess Phillips]

In actual fact, on a number of occasions I have handled cases where someone with ILR in the UK has committed murder abroad and there was absolutely nothing that could be done about it.

[The Chair]

That is well beyond the scope of the Bill.

[Jess Phillips]

But it is not beyond the scope of what—

[The Chair]

It is beyond the scope of the Bill.

[Stephen McPartland]

I have nothing further to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Assisting a foreign intelligence service

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move, amendment 49, in clause 3, page 3, line 30, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert

“activities which are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Government amendments 1 to 4.

Clause stand part.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

On the face of it, the offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service in the UK or, in the case of UK persons, anywhere else is long overdue. Under the Bill, the offence is rightly a serious one and is capable of seeing a person in prison for 14 years.

We have tabled the amendment to push the Government on whether they have got the scope of the offence right, to ensure that we do not catch people who were not intended to be caught. In particular, is there not a danger that, as drafted, the offence punishes behaviour that might actually be consistent with, or even positively beneficial to, UK interests? That may come about because, as the Minister explained, we no longer have the concept of enemy services and also because of the very limited scope of the prejudice test.

What does “assisting” mean? It means assisting a foreign intelligence service in carrying out “UK-related activities”. Where those activities are outside the UK, it is only an offence to assist that service as a UK person if those activities are

“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom”.

However, where those activities are in the UK, there is no need for those activities to be prejudicial at all—any conduct which assists those activities is very likely criminal. I can well understand that a clear ban on assisting any conduct that supports Foreign Intelligence Service activities is attractive, but I will give another hypothetical example, which is much more dangerous than my earlier one, because it does not come from any briefing—I have had to make it up myself, so let us see how it goes.

What if the Estonian intelligence services, for example, believe that a member of their embassy staff in London is providing information to the Russians? They ask an Estonian student who lives in the same apartment block as that staff member to allow access to her apartment to undertake eavesdropping, or they ask her to undertake some monitoring, such as noting times of arrival or departure. That activity by the Estonian intelligence services, or by that student on their behalf, seems positively consistent with UK interests, but as drafted, it would amount to a serious criminal offence under clause 3.

The clause is so widely drafted that I worry that lots of people involved in setting up and facilitating a future meeting between the head of MI6 and the CIA might be in danger of committing an offence, whether they pick him up at the airport, provide him with a hotel room or serve him breakfast. I very much look forward to being reassured that that is not the case.

The amendment would ensure that, as with activities outside the UK, conduct here would have to be intended to support activities adverse to UK interests, or to be such that a person ought reasonably to know that it would possibly assist activities adverse to UK interests. There might be different ways of fixing this potential problem—perhaps a different hurdle can be used to assess “in the UK” activities, such as “inconsistent with UK interests.”

On the Government’s amendments, why do the Government intend to turn the relevant provision into a defence, which then puts the burden on the person accused? The explanatory notes talk of clarifying that it is a defence, but that seems a very deliberate change of mind by the Government, especially if one reads the explanatory notes, which say that clause 3(7)

“sets out exceptions to the offence to ensure that legitimate conduct that is within the UK’s interests is not caught withing the offence.”

That is what the explanatory notes say about the original drafting of the Bill, so it is not clear why the Government have had a change of heart, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.

10:30

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I understand the thrust of the clause, but I would like some clarification on the definition of assisting a foreign power. I have one historical example, although I think it might not work. Eddie Chapman— Agent Zigzag from the second world war—was working for both sides. He was a UK agent and a Nazi agent. He got an Iron Cross for his misinformation work. In that case, he was not assisting a foreign power, because he was given dud information, but what about the case of a UK-based foreign diplomat who is working against us and supporting his or her nation, but is also then feeding information to us? It could be argued that that individual is working against our interests, because they are working on behalf of that other nation, but separately they might be the source of information. What would happen to that individual?

Gordievsky is a good example; he was in the Russian embassy in London for many years, feeding a lot of vital information to the UK, but his daily activities would have been prejudicial to the UK’s interests. How would the clause apply to individuals like that? Would they be separated out because of their benefit to us, although certain activities they are conducting would not be of benefit? I give just two historical examples, but there might be others in the future. Where would those individuals fall under the provisions in the clause?

[Holly Lynch]

As we have heard, the clause introduces a new espionage offence of assisting a foreign intelligence service. A person commits an offence if that person

“engages in conduct of any kind, and…intends that conduct to materially assist a foreign intelligence service in carrying out UK-related activities.”

Once again, we are broadly supportive of the clause. As highlighted by the Government’s own integrated review in 2021, threats to Government Departments, national infrastructure, British business and private individuals are growing and becoming ever more complex as states become more assertive in advancing their aims. The clause goes a long way towards updating the threat posed by modern-day espionage and the changes are long overdue. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 Russia report stated:

“The current legislation enabling action against foreign spies is acknowledged to be weak. In particular, the Official Secrets Acts are out of date—crucially, it is not illegal to be a foreign agent in this country.”

Nevertheless, it is important that the Government clarify a number of different aspects of the clause. I highlight two recommendations from the Law Commission’s 2020 review of the Official Secrets Act. Recommendation 12.5 stated:

“In any new statute to replace the Official Secrets Act 1911, the requirement that the defendant’s conduct was capable of benefitting a foreign power should continue to be objectively determined. There should be no requirement to prove that the defendant personally knew or believed that his or her conduct had such capability.”

Will the Minister confirm that that requirement is compatible with the new offence established in clause 3?

The Law Commission also highlighted the danger of an individual unknowingly assisting a foreign intelligence service and then still being charged and convicted with the same offence as an individual who actively sought to assist a foreign intelligence service. This defence is currently accounted for in the Official Secrets Act 1989, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham discussed. I appreciate that that Act is not being updated by this legislation, but the principle still stands. The Law Commission’s recommendation 12.24 stated:

“The ‘defence’, currently contained in section 1(5) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, of not knowing and having no reasonable grounds to believe that the material disclosed related to security or intelligence, should continue to apply.”

It is naive to think that foreign intelligence services advertise who they are and what they are planning to do with any information they are given by someone or in any engagement they may have. The duping of individuals is a somewhat common tool in espionage tradecraft. Let us say that an overseas business research company commissions a UK national to explain how the UK’s parliamentary processes work, but it transpires that the business research company was working for a foreign intelligence service. Under clause 3, could the UK national still be tried for assisting a foreign intelligence service?

We welcome the exemptions in subsection (7) that create an appropriate space for democratic obligations and diplomacy to take place, especially as the Bill makes no distinction between countries that are our allies and those that are hostile and seek to undermine the UK’s interests. However, I also note that the offence is explicit about the definition of a foreign intelligence service. On first reading, I had concerns that where someone is sharing information with a former member of intelligence services, the definition might not extend to criminalising that conduct. As the old saying goes, once a KGB officer, always a KGB officer.

However, given that the definition included in subsection (9) outlines that “foreign intelligence service” means

“any person whose functions include carrying out intelligence activities for or on behalf of a foreign power”,

I understand that anyone sharing information with former KGB officers, for example, would be committing an offence. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is the case.

[Stephen McPartland]

That was a range of great examples, and I will do my best to address them. The whole purpose of the clause is to provide our world-class intelligence agencies and law enforcement with the tools to respond appropriately to activity conducted in and against the UK by foreign intelligence services that wish to cause us harm. Although the Government understand and appreciate the intention behind the amendment, we propose to reject it.

The distinction between activities taking place inside the UK and those taking place overseas was deliberate. For activity taking place overseas, clause 3(4) requires the conduct to be

“prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”

That is to ensure that we target the most harmful activity overseas that has an appropriate link to the UK. For activity taking place inside the UK, there is currently no requirement for the activity to be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. However, taking into account the defence in clause 3(7), foreign intelligence service activity carried out in the UK without even informal agreement or assent is inherently prejudicial to the UK’s safety or interests. Having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why that activity is prejudicial risks creating a high evidential threshold that could, as we try to meet it, potentially compound the damage caused.

Clause 3(4)(a) has been drafted to ensure that the offence can prevent a wide range of activities from occurring and prevent threats from developing. Any legitimate activity would be covered by the three elements of the defence in clause 3(7), so there are appropriate safeguards in place. If a foreign intelligence service carried out activity in the UK and its conduct did not fall under clause 3(7), we must be able to call it out for what it is and prevent further harm from being caused. The current construction of clause 3(4) allow us to do exactly that, and the amendment risks reducing the operational utility of the clause as a whole.

We cannot allow the UK to become a hotbed for foreign intelligence services running covert and deceptive operations. I understand the examples that have been given, and I am looking into some of them, but the reality is that we need to be in a position to protect the intelligence services and give them an opportunity to go out there and deal with these people and the threats we face. As I have said, we have three protections throughout the whole Bill. We are coming up with lots of examples, but by answering each of them specifically, we will just provide our enemies and state threats with ways to work around the offence.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but it is important to work through hypothetical examples so that we can understand the scope of the Bill. I absolutely get his explanation as to why there is a distinction between activity inside and outside the UK, and he briefly mentioned the idea of a friendly foreign intelligence service—in my example, the Estonian intelligence service—having permission to engage in the activities that I described. That may well be the solution. I will take away what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Stephen McPartland]

I beg to move Government amendment 1, in clause 3, page 4, leave out line 1 and insert—

“In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence to show that the person engaged”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 4.

[Stephen McPartland]

The amendment clarifies that clause 3(7) contains a defence, rather than an exception, because it may be unclear which of the two it is as currently drafted. In doing so, two changes must be made to the clause. One will insert new wording to show that clause 3(7) is a defence, and the other will insert subsection (7A), which states that the defendant must adduce some evidence to establish that a matter in clause 3(7) is satisfied. The prosecution will then be required to prove that it is not met beyond a reasonable doubt.

We tabled the amendments to provide clarity to the operational community and to make absolutely clear the intention behind the offence. Clarifying that clause 3(7) is a defence places an evidential burden on the defendant to adduce evidence that one of the three conditions in subsection (7) applies to them. If someone raises a defence under subsection (7), the prosecution will need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defence does not apply.

There are three separate elements to subsection (7). If it is an exception, the prosecution would be required to prove in all cases beyond reasonable doubt that none of the three elements applies. That would potentially be challenging to evidence, given the wide range of circumstances under which the matters in the clause may arise. In effect, the prosecution would have to prove a negative. Where an offence is believed to have been committed and a prosecution is pursued, subsection (7) being an exception would mean that all three conditions would need to be shown not to apply in each case that is brought forward for prosecution. That is not our intention, and the amendment will mean that defendants must raise a defence under subsection (7), and the prosecution must then prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it does not apply.

We have worked closely with our operational partners, law enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service on this amendment to provide greater clarity about the scope of clause 3. By tabling this amendment to subsection (7), we can more clearly represent the policy intention behind clause 3 as a whole.

[Holly Lynch]

I have the Minister’s explanation. We considered the implications of Government amendments 1 to 4 earlier, and on that basis we are satisfied.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out “is” and insert “was”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 4, line 10, leave out “is” and insert “was”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.

Amendment 4, in clause 3, page 4, line 10, at end insert—

“(7A) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (7) if—

(a) sufficient evidence of the matter is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.” —(Stephen McPartland.)

This amendment provides that a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the defence in clause 3(7).

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Entering etc a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 4, page 5, line 9, at end insert—

“(7) No offence is committed under subsection (1) if the conduct is for the purposes of protest unless the conduct is prejudicial to the safety of the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would restrict the circumstances in which access to a prohibited place for the purposes of protest would amount to an offence under this section.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 5 stand part.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It is obvious what the amendment is getting at: it is about protest rights, which were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East, who unfortunately cannot be with us today.

We all broadly see what the Government are trying to achieve. Clause 4 builds on the Law Commission recommendations. It protects prohibited places against entry etc. for purposes prejudicial to the UK. Clause 5 criminalises entry etc. where there is no purpose prejudicial but where there is actual unauthorised entry. I will come back to why that is necessary.

However, as before, given that a person can receive a hefty 14-year penalty if they are found guilty of an offence under clause 4, we want to be clear about whether it has been drafted tightly enough. As with clause 1, issues are created by the breadth of some of the concepts, such as the safety or interests of the UK. Crucially, if a person even approaches or is in the vicinity of a prohibited place, they are at risk of committing this very grave offence if they have a purpose that they ought to know is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. We must bear in mind that clause 8 allows for additional sites to become prohibited, not necessarily for the safety of the UK but to protect its nebulous interests. Again, there is that very broad concept.

In Chandler v. Director of Public Prosecutions, the plan of the folk being prosecuted was to enter a prohibited RAF station and prevent access to others, thus preventing aircraft from taking off. Unsurprisingly, it was held that, objectively, it was access for purposes prejudicial, even if the protesters themselves believed it to be in the interests of the state to get rid of nuclear weapons. It was decided that the interests of the state are not for the jury to decide on, but for the Government of the day.

Of course, many more protesters will approach or be in the vicinity of a prohibited place for peaceful protest with no intention of inhibiting its operations. Others want to cause a degree of nuisance—for example, in minor blockades, chaining themselves to plant pots— with no real risk to safety. The amendment simply asks what the new provisions mean for them. What is the Government’s intention? Is a protest against nuclear weapons in the vicinity of Faslane, which the state currently believes to be in its interest, prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom? Would a minor blockade causing temporary inconvenience be in contravention of the clause? Surely these people are not to be convicted of such a serious offence, which carries up to 14 years in prison.

10:45

Our amendment would therefore exclude protesters from the scope of the provision unless they put safety at risk. If they do not, why not simply leave the issue to the policing and protest Bills that already exist? I have some problems with how the Government go about dealing with protests and policing, but that is for another day.

Finally, it is not clear to me what clause 5 adds to the current trespass offences, including under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and in particular the section 128 offence of trespassing on a designated site. Why do we need another trespass law? Why a longer punishment? What is the justification for that, and why are we seeking to punish people who simply did not know, but made a mistake?

[Mr Jones]

I sympathise with the amendment. In terms of legitimate protest, I may disagree with, for example, the peace camp at Faslane, but does it fall within the remit of the clause? Is that proportionate in an open and free society? I may disagree with what the protesters call for, but I would defend their right to make their opinions known.

We need clarity and to get the balance right between legitimate protest in the public interest and protecting security. The clause is detailed on access to prohibited areas. The clause states that a person commits an offence if they cause

“an unmanned vehicle or device to access”

an area. That is very clear. A drone, for example, would be prohibited. But what happens in the case of a trained eagle wearing a camera? I think that is covered by “device to access” an area. Will the Minister confirm that if someone strapped a camera to an eagle and sent it over a prohibited site, that would be covered by the Bill?

The clause is clear about inspecting

“photographs, videos or other recordings”,

but how wide is the area? It would cover someone standing with equipment that had access from 20 miles away, but what about somebody just observing through binoculars? Would that be covered? How big is the prohibited area? If we are not careful, the points that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has raised could fall within the scope of the Bill, or be used by the Government to stop legitimate protest or people who have an interest in opposing activities taking place at a certain site.

[Holly Lynch]

The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham have outlined their thoughts on amendment 50. I will speak to clauses 4 and 5 more broadly.

Clause 4 establishes a new offence of entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK. We welcome the measure, and the protection it will offer to sites and places that are vital to our national security. It has been a long time coming, and we have been falling back on somewhat antiquated legislation in the absence of such provisions. Giving evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee in January 2019, the director general of MI5 said,

“The purpose of [a potential new Espionage Act] is to be able to tighten up on the powers that have become, you know, dusty and largely ineffective since the days of the Official Secrets Act, half of which was drafted for First World War days and was about sketches of naval dockyards, etc.”

In his evidence on behalf of the Law Commission last week, Dr Nicholas Hoggard said

“One of our concerns about the existing offences in the 1911 Act was that the existing prohibited places—though extensive; it is an extensive and complicated piece of drafting—have a strong military focus, and they do not necessarily reflect the way that critical national infrastructure, for example, or sensitive information is held by the Government.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 51, Q96.]

Clause 4(2) sets out that,

“a reference to inspecting a prohibited place includes—

(a) taking, or procuring the taking of, photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place;

(b) inspecting photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place.”

We heard some more innovative examples, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham likes to think outside the box, and as those acting on behalf of hostile states will continue to evolve and adapt to the legislation that we progress through this place.

Clause 4(3) explicitly states that the offence applies if the person inspects a prohibited place

“by electronic or remote means”,

and clause 4(4) states that the offence applies

“whether the person’s conduct takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”

The use of drones has been an asset in many ways, but inevitably a headache in others. I have raised concerns previously on behalf of constituents that it is at the extremes of distaste and disrespect for drone footage of serious or even fatal accidents to be taken by members of the public and shared on social media, or published by news outlets. It is with urgency that we need to update the laws that ensure national security is not compromised in the absence of up-to-date legislation, but for the reasons I have highlighted I hope this might also be the start of a conversation about drones, beyond their national security implications.

Clause 5 establishes that

“A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person—

(i) accesses, enters, inspects or passes over or under a prohibited place, or

(ii) causes an unmanned vehicle or device to access, enter, inspect 15 or pass over or under a prohibited place,

(b) that conduct is unauthorised, and

(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that their conduct is unauthorised.”

The Opposition welcome this provision, and see it as a necessary step to protect sites that are vital to our national security. I would like to probe the Minister on the stipulation that a person who commits an offence “ought reasonably to know” that their conduct is unauthorised. There is a concern that an individual may unknowingly stumble on a prohibited place, and then be prosecuted in the same way as someone actively seeking to undermine UK national security. Further detail on the sentencing guidelines might allow us to work through that uncertainty, but we have to work with what we have in primary legislation. The chances of that occurring are made more likely by the fact that this stand-alone offence does not need the foreign power condition to be met.

Let me provide some rare light relief in today’s proceedings. In 2016, civilians began to wander on to the grounds of several restricted air force and military bases in Canada while playing Pokémon GO, which is an augmented reality game where characters spawn randomly in the proximity of a user’s location—it was all the rage at the time. Documents released on request to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation revealed the military’s confusion about what was happening at the time. One email from a major read,

“Please advise the Commissionaires, that apparently Fort Frontenac is both a PokéGym and a PokéStop”.

He went on to say,

“I will be completely honest in that I have no idea what that is.”

Just three days after the app’s release, two men drove a van on to an air force base near Toronto just before midnight. A corporal confronted the occupants and found them playing with their smartphones. In another incident, one woman was found at the Borden base playing the game, while her three children climbed over tanks. In their attempts to get on top of what was going on, the documents revealed that one colonel wrote,

“There’s a game out there taking off like gangbusters, and it requires people to move to digitally cached locations to get points”.

I do not know what “gangbusters” means. Another security expert recommended they hire a 12-year-old to help them out with the problem.

As part of the military response, at least three officers at different bases were assigned the task of playing Pokémon GO on site, and logging the appearance of every gym, PokéStop, and wild monster. In what I thought was a particularly enterprising spirit, in my constituency of Halifax’s namesake, they instead recommended that the PokéStop be relocated nearer to the museum, in the hope that it would increase footfall in a helpful rather than unhelpful way. I intended to share those examples by way of demonstrating that innocent players of Pokémon GO should be protected from the harshest of sentences, but on reflection, having read out the details, I am not so sure.

Back to the serious—I could not find specific examples here in the UK, but I can only imagine that there were some. We cannot afford to create carve-outs for Pokémon GO players that could be exploited by those acting on behalf of hostile states. The example outlines the need for appropriate consideration of such mitigations in the sentencing guidelines for such offences.

I note that the Law Commission proposed that in any reform of the Official Secrets Acts, a safeguard similar to that contained in section 131 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 should be introduced, requiring the Secretary of State to take such steps as he or she considers appropriate to inform the public of the effect of any designation order, including, in particular, by displaying notices on or near the site to which the order relates. That would ensure that an individual is given fair warning that he or she is approaching a location that is given enhanced protection by the criminal law. If I am not mistaken, that point was made by the right hon. Member for Dundee East on Second Reading. I hope that the Government will recognise the merit of doing so.

[Maria Eagle]

I have a short point of clarification for the Minister, if he would be so kind. It is about what is covered by the offence.

I am looking at clause 5(1)(a)(i), which states:

“A person commits an offence if…the person…accesses, enters, inspects or passes over or under a prohibited place”.

Clause 5(3) clarifies further:

“In subsection (1)(a) a reference to inspecting a prohibited place includes taking, or procuring the taking of, photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place.”

Does that include someone who is off the premises with binoculars or some device to enable them to look closely at the prohibited place, without being under or over it? Does that include the old-fashioned spy looking through binoculars and taking notes, rather than taking photographs, or is that not covered by the clause? It does not seem that it is, but I might have missed something. I will be grateful for clarification.

[Stephen McPartland]

I may dwell on this clause slightly longer than others, because it is the first of a number of clauses regarding a regime to protect sensitive sites in the UK. There has been a range of examples and questions. To the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, the simple answer is yes.

With regards to the Pokémon examples of the hon. Member for Halifax, the answers again are about—this very much determines the whole scope of the clause—prejudicial interest and people doing something accidentally. To fall foul of the clause, someone needs to have prejudicial interest against the UK. In the examples, people have wandered in and done something accidentally; they would not be prosecuted under the clause.

The right hon. Member for North Durham gave the example of strapping a camera to an eagle; if that is something that someone can do, fair play to them. However, if that camera strapped to the eagle were then to record activity in the place, and that was prejudicial to the UK, the person would be prosecuted. If they just wanted to strap a camera to an eagle to see what happened, the intelligence services have the opportunity not to prosecute someone, because, given the protections throughout the Bill, the Attorney General would have to sign off on whether to prosecute, and the Crown Prosecution Service on whether that was in the public interest.

I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East on ability to have lawful protest, and for lawful protest not to be restricted. It has been reflected by other Members and I raised it with the Department last week.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

It is absolutely right that people have the right to protest, but the attention of the Minister and that of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to the recent cases in which, for example, Extinction Rebellion protestors were found not guilty of criminal damage, despite the judge directing jurors that there was no defence in law. Likewise, the protestors who toppled the Colston statue were found not guilty. We have to be careful: jurors might find people not guilty, but we have to protect the ambitions of the Bill.

10:59

[Stephen McPartland]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, which is that we have to be careful to provide the intelligence services with the tools they need to protect our protected sites. I may not agree with the purpose of protest, but I agree with the ability of everybody to protest lawfully. People will start to fall foul of this clause when they try to scale the walls of a restricted site and to impede lawful activity going on at the restricted site—when they start to move from protest towards criminal activity. That will be captured.

[Mr Jones]

I am not sure it will. Let us take the Faslane peace camp as an example. I totally disagree with what those people are arguing for, but if somebody there took a photograph and put it out on social media to make a political point, would they be caught under the Bill? Is not that prohibited under the Bill?

[Stephen McPartland]

No, because they would not be doing something designed to prejudice the United Kingdom.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is useful and it might answer my question. The offence is committed if somebody approaches or is

“in the vicinity of a prohibited place”.

That obviously covers the peace camp. Is the Minister saying that at that stage there is nothing prejudicial to the UK’s safety and interests, and that such action only becomes prejudicial to UK safety and interests when people take further action, along the lines that he suggested?

[Stephen McPartland]

Yes. The intention is that people have to do something prejudicial to the UK’s interests to fall foul of the clause.

Prohibited places are inherently sensitive sites that are likely to be the target of state threat activity. Unauthorised access to such sites could be a precursor to harmful acts such as espionage or sabotage, and it is important that we have the tools and powers we need to adequately protect those sites.

[Mr Jones]

I think the Minister just said yes to my question and the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood about a person with binoculars. Does that fall under clause 5(1)(a)(i), which refers to an offence being committed if a person

“accesses, enters, inspects or passes over or under a prohibited place”?

Would somebody on a hill several miles away with a pair of binoculars be classed as inspecting an area? Is that why the Minister says that is covered in the Bill?

[Stephen McPartland]

Yes, that is the intention. Remember that the Official Secrets Act 1911 refers to sketches. We are trying to reform that Act and the others to get to a point at which we help our intelligence services to come up with ways of dealing with some stuff that could technically be considered out of scope. The idea behind the clause is that we will be able to give the intelligence community the tools they need to deal with somebody inspecting a site or doing something prejudicial to the UK’s interests.

[Mr Jones]

I come back to the fact that if we looked at the Official Secrets Act 1989 and had one big Bill, it would have been far better than this one. Will the Minister clarify that somebody with binoculars would be classified as “inspection”? My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood asked whether a person looking at a site through binoculars would be captured by this offence, or whether they would have to be writing something down. What is the situation with the old-fashioned sketches mentioned in the 1911 Act? Would they be covered?

[Stephen McPartland]

The purpose is to cover activity that is prejudicial to the United Kingdom’s interests. For example, if someone were bird watching and they looked at the site through their binoculars, they would not be captured by the offence because they would not be doing anything prejudicial to the United Kingdom’s interests. However, if they were sketching a site to identify how they could break into it or to record activity going on there, that would be prejudicial to the United Kingdom’s interests, so the clause covers that. It is a case-by-case situation.

The current prohibited places provisions fall under the espionage offence within section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

[Mr Jones]

The Bill is specific about procuring “photographs, videos or other”. I understand why they are included: they are modern. If we pass the Bill, will sketches still be covered? Would it not be better to repeat that bit of the 1911 Act?

[Sally-Ann Hart]

rose—

[Stephen McPartland]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and am happy to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that “other recordings” would include a sketch?

[Stephen McPartland]

Sketches are included, because a sketch would have to be inspected. The question was: are sketches included? The answer is yes.

[Mr Jones]

Where?

[Stephen McPartland]

Because a sketch would have to be inspected.

[The Chair]

Order. This really must not become a conversation. Minister, you might perhaps wish to conclude your remarks. We cannot have a conversation backwards and forwards across the Chamber.

[Stephen McPartland]

I agree.

[Maria Eagle]

Will the Minister give way on this point?

[Stephen McPartland]

A final time.

[Maria Eagle]

I regret having to ask more than once, but I am just not quite clear from the Minister’s answers. Perhaps he could write to the Committee if it is not totally clear; that would not be a problem. In subsection (1)(a)(i), does inspecting include looking from a distance—not over or under—say through binoculars that magnify, if someone is doing that with a malign intent, so they are caught by subsection (1)(b), which are the other requirements of the offence?

Would just looking through binoculars from a distance—not taking videos or photographs—and just doing notes or a sketch still be covered, or are we creating a lacuna? That is the only question I seek an answer to. I am afraid the Minister has not been totally clear on how looking through binoculars is covered. We are not inspecting the sketch—we are inspecting the site through the binoculars. Is that not right? In which case, is it still okay for this person to do a sketch? It is not clear.

[Stephen McPartland]

I am grateful for the intervention and shall try to clarify. It is clear that the provision is not exhaustive, but the reality is someone has to inspect the site, whether that is through binoculars or making a sketch, and the purpose of that activity—that inspection—is to be prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom.

[Maria Eagle]

That is clear.

[Stephen McPartland]

I will move on to amendment 50. The condition inserted through amendment 50 removes the term “safety or interests of the United Kingdom” in the context of protests. It is the Government’s view that this is detrimental to the offence under clause 4 as it limits the range of conduct that would be considered prejudicial to the UK and risks creating loopholes that hostile actors could use to exploit using protest as a tool to disrupt sensitive sites in the UK. It is also likely to mean that sites that are not directly involved in the safety of the UK would not be afforded any protection where protests are being inappropriately used to disrupt the lawful functioning of the site. It is crucial that we retain the existing term if we are able to effectively protect the UK’s most sensitive areas from harmful activity.

In addition, the effect of amendment 50 would be that no offence would be committed by protesters if their conduct were not, as a matter of fact, prejudicial. In practice, this would not have any further effect on safeguarding protest activity because if the activity were not in fact prejudicial, a person cannot know, or be in a position where they ought reasonably to know, that that is the case. The amendment may be designed to ensure that no offence is committed unless actual damage results from the conduct, but it would not have that effect and the Government would not support a narrowing of the offence along those lines. While I understand the intention of the amendment, I do not see any requirement for it, given the fact that sufficient safeguards for legitimate protesting activity are already in place.

It is important to say that we will work with the police and the College of Policing ahead of commencement of the provisions to ensure that those implementing these clauses have the appropriate training and guidance to use these powers proportionately. I do not support the amendment and ask that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East withdraws it.

Finally, clause 5 provides a second offence to capture harmful activity within the reformed prohibited places regime. A person commits this offence if, without authorisation, they engage in conduct at a prohibited place and they know, or reasonably ought to know, that their conduct is unauthorised. A person’s conduct is unauthorised if the person is not entitled to determine whether they may engage in the conduct, or if they do not have consent to engage in the conduct from a person entitled to give it—for example, if they walk past signage stating that access to the site is prohibited without authorisation, or if they take pictures from outside the site in spite of clear signage that that is not permitted.

[Holly Lynch]

This is a question I asked members of the UK intelligence community because I could not answer it: does a list of prohibited places exist in the public domain? Such a list might equip someone with the information prior to arriving at a site and enable them to determine whether a place is prohibited. It is not clear to me whether a list exists. Can the Minister clarify?

[Stephen McPartland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I will certainly look at that. A number of sites will be prohibited in law, and some sites will not want people to know exactly where they are and what they are doing because they will become targets. Once again, there is a balance to be struck in relation to provision for the intelligence community.

[Holly Lynch]

I completely accept the sensitive nature of the subject and why we might not want to put such information in the public domain, but with respect to the “ought reasonably to have known” defence, I wonder whether we should ensure that people are equipped with the information that a site is indeed prohibited before they find themselves, perhaps accidentally, in a compromising position. How can we ensure that all that is communicated appropriately and sensitively so as to protect people from accidentally falling foul of these stipulations?

[Stephen McPartland]

It goes back to the reasonableness test: is the person conducting a reasonable activity, or is the activity prejudicial to the United Kingdom’s national security interests?

For a person to be guilty of the offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that their conduct—for example, in entering the prohibited place—was unauthorised, which provides protections. Unlike the clause 4 offence, there is no requirement that the person have a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom to commit this offence. That ensures that action can be taken in cases when a person has knowingly carried out unauthorised conduct at a prohibited place, such as trespassing, without having to consider whether that person has a purpose prejudicial to the United Kingdom’s safety or interests, which requires a higher threshold of potential harm to be demonstrated.

To take account of the fact that a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom does not need to be proven, there are differences between the conduct caught under the offence under this clause and the offence under clause 4. For example, this offence does not criminalise the inspection of photographs of prohibited places, and it is not capable of capturing conduct in the vicinity of a prohibited place.

The Government do not consider it proportionate or necessary to capture the inspection of photographs under this offence, given that inspecting a photograph that has already been taken of a prohibited place cannot be classed as inherently unauthorised activity. Given the wide range of legitimate activities that could be undertaken in the vicinity of a prohibited place, and given that there is no inherent need for walking past a prohibited place to be authorised, the offence under clause 5 does not capture activity in the vicinity of a prohibited place.

The second prohibited places offence under clause 5 is a crucial addition to the tools our law enforcement agencies and courts can use to capture the full range of harmful activity that can take place at prohibited places. Even though this offence is not aimed at capturing the most damaging activity around those places, as clause 4 does, and attracts lower penalties, it is equally important that we introduce an offence that can capture activity that may seem less severe, but is still capable of interfering with and damaging the operations and security of the United Kingdom’s most sensitive sites.

This offence should be seen as part of a tiered approach alongside the new police powers to protect those sites, which I will come to, and it will ensure that law enforcement has a range of tools and powers at its disposal to protect those sites.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The debate has been useful, particularly in relation to protestors, and it is useful to know that, apparently, the Minister’s view is that protestors approaching or being in the vicinity of a prohibited place will not necessarily engage the clause because, at that stage, the activity is not prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom. Something more is required before that part of the test is engaged. We might need to explore that further on Report, but for now it is important that we say protestors are not so interested in the Pokémon players. We can revisit that on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Powers of police officers in relation to a prohibited place

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

11:15

[Stephen McPartland]

The powers set out in clause 6 allow for a police officer to exercise specific powers in order to protect prohibited places. A person commits an offence if they fail to comply with an order imposed under the police powers in relation to a prohibited place. Those powers include the ability to order a person who has accessed or entered a prohibited place or is in the vicinity of one to leave it immediately. Under these powers, a police officer may also arrange for the removal or movement of a vehicle or device from a prohibited place or an area adjacent to a prohibited place.

Alongside the police powers, the clause provides that is an offence to fail to comply with an order given by a constable under those provisions. As an example, if a person is circling the perimeter of a prohibited place and taking detailed photographs of the infrastructure and activities within, the police may order this person to cease to engage in that activity and leave the area immediately, given that they are carrying out an inspection of the site and their activity is in an area adjacent to the prohibited place.

In order to exercise any of those powers, a constable must reasonably believe that doing so is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. For example, exercise of the powers may be necessary for the prevention of activity that could harm or disrupt the operations or functioning of a prohibited place. In most instances, we consider that the use of these powers will be intelligence-led and that the police will be called to prohibited places where there is a concern identified from the site itself.

The aim of the police powers in relation to prohibited places is not to impede legitimate activity, such as lawful protest, but rather to catch and deter activity around prohibited places that is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK. That includes activity that is harmful to and disrupts or impedes the functioning or operations of a prohibited place, such as scaling fences, blocking access points or wider disruption to the critical and sensitive work being conducted at these sites. Ahead of implementation, my officials will work with the police and the College of Policing to ensure that clear guidance and training are in place to ensure that the powers are used reasonably and proportionately to protect these sites.

The additional powers are a critical part of the reformed prohibited places regime and provide significant operational utility, given that they enable law enforcement to prevent harmful activity from taking place at these sensitive sites—activity that could be a precursor to state-threat offences such as espionage or sabotage. Without their inclusion, the UK will be less equipped to counter hostile activity as it happens, which will leave these sites more vulnerable to state-threat activity or wider threats that do not have a state link.

[Holly Lynch]

Subsections (1) and (2) set out the powers that police constables can exercise to protect a prohibited place, which include ordering a person to cease their activity or move away from the site. Subsection (3) provides that a constable must reasonably believe the use of those powers to be

“necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.”

This includes prevention of activity that could harm or disrupt the operations or functioning of a prohibited place in a way that could jeopardise the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

The clause gives the police powers to direct people to stop using devices and leave the area, but when I discussed its detail with a recently retired senior police officer he observed that the clause seemingly does not confer on the constable the power to seize the device or any video or images or, indeed, sketches or footage off the back of an eagle taken by the device. Can the Minister explain whether that is the case? If so, would the clause not benefit from an addition to prevent any such sensitive material from leaving the scene with a person instructed to take it with them?

I find it curious that all police officers tend to be referred to as “constable” in legislation, despite the fact that constable is just one of several possible ranks. Indeed, there is some variety in the responsibilities for keeping sites defined as prohibited places safe. The Civil Nuclear Constabulary, overseen by the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, is the armed police force in charge of protecting civil nuclear sites and nuclear materials in England and Scotland. The Ministry of Defence police is responsible for law enforcement and security of military bases in the UK; as it says on the tin, it reports into the Ministry of Defence.

Will the Minister confirm that the powers conferred in clause 6 extend beyond those officers serving in regular police forces that report to the Home Office? It is the specialist forces sitting outside of those structures that tend to pick up the lion’s share of the responsibility for protecting prohibited places. Could he confirm that the powers apply to all officers, regardless of rank, and where the military also provide defences at their own sites, or are at least partnering in that work? Could the Minister explain whether the powers extend to the military, or are exclusively for police officers?

Finally, the powers conferred will also allow a constable to arrange for the removal of a vehicle from a prohibited place “or an area adjacent” to it. Does the Minister envisage any further guidance on what constitutes “adjacent to a prohibited place” to assist a constable in determining distance, proximity, and so on, in making those judgments and communicating those clearly in a reasonable way to members of the public?

[Stephen McPartland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the very good points she has raised. My understanding is that the powers currently apply only to police officers, not to members of the military. It is very clear throughout the clause that it refers to “a constable”, and it is referenced as “Powers of police officers”.

[Mr Jones]

Is that not a hole in the legislation? We are coming on to Cyprus next, where it is not civilian police that do security there, and I can think of a few others around the world where it is done by the military. Therefore, should those powers not also be given to the military?

[Stephen McPartland]

When we talk about military, MOD police will have those powers.

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but a number of sites are not guarded by MOD police—although there are some—but are the responsibility of the UK armed forces, which are not police.

[Stephen McPartland]

Both the right hon. Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for Halifax made a very good point. We will take that away and look at it. If they want to strengthen the Bill, we are happy to work with them to do that.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between providing force protection for a site and providing constabulary and law enforcement duties?

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We must also bear in mind that it is not our intention to introduce search-and-seize powers under these police powers. This is part of the tiered approach we referred to earlier, with the police being able to warn people to go away before they fall foul of the law. There is the opportunity to give them that warning before any arrest.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley, but there are also sites that are benign, so it is not a force protection point but a constabulary duty that is carried out by members of the armed forces. Therefore, I think they need these powers if this is a comprehensive suite of powers.

[Stephen McPartland]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member. As I said, that is certainly something that we will look at and come back to.

[Maria Eagle]

rose—

[The Chair]

The Minister has concluded his remarks, unless I am much mistaken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

11:23

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Mark Hendrick, † Mr Philip Hollobone, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Ian Paisley

Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

† Benton, Scott (Blackpool South) (Con)

† Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

† Fletcher, Colleen (Coventry North East) (Lab)

Gibson, Patricia (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

† Henry, Darren (Broxtowe) (Con)

† Johnson, Gareth (Dartford) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Marcus (Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† Maskell, Rachael (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)

† Mortimer, Jill (Hartlepool) (Con)

† Nici, Lia (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

† Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

† Smith, Greg (Buckingham) (Con)

† Vickers, Matt (Stockton South) (Con)

Bethan Harding, Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 12 July 2022

(Morning)

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

09:25

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I have some preliminary announcements. Please keep electronic devices on silent mode. No food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted during Committee sittings. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if hon. Members emailed their speaking notes to [e-mail].

Clause 72

Long-term empty dwellings: England

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I would like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and our predecessors on the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), all of whom did a huge job to bring the Bill to where it is today. Through their diligent work, we are debating a Bill which will help to level up across the country.

Committee Members will be familiar with the challenge in many areas, whereby homes are left empty while local families are struggling to find a home close to their jobs or families, due to the pressures on local housing supply. It cannot be right that there are families left without an affordable home when there are owners not doing their best to bring their properties back into productive use for the benefit of the community. The Government are taking action to encourage those empty properties back into use. The longer a property is empty, the more likely it is to deteriorate and attract antisocial behaviour such as vandalism or squatting, which can reduce the value of properties and drive away the local communities. That is why we have introduced powers for councils to charge extra council tax on homes left empty for more than two years.

In 2018, we introduced a stepped approach so that councils can increase the premium depending on the length of time the property has been empty. Councils now have the power to charge up to four times the amount of the standard council tax bill when a home has been empty for more than 10 years. Nearly every council already makes use of the empty homes premium. I welcome the creative ways in which some councils use these powers to stimulate better use of the housing stock in their areas—for example, by providing refurbishment grants to bring empty homes to the standard for renting out, or conversion grants to help pay for converting a large empty home into smaller units. Why should councils wait two years before they have the power to take action to bring empty homes back into use? Through the Bill, we will give councils the power to apply the 100% premium on properties left empty after one year, rather than the current two years.

Clause 72 makes a simple change to section 11B of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It will change the definition of “long-term empty dwelling” from meaning a dwelling that has been unoccupied, and substantially unfurnished, for more than two years, to one that has been unoccupied, and substantially unfurnished, for at least 12 months. To ensure that the change is implemented rapidly, but also provides sufficient opportunity for homeowners who may be affected to take steps to avoid the charge, subsection (2) provides that the amended definition has effect for financial years beginning on or after 1 April 2024. The clause will strengthen the powers for local councils to take action to incentivise owners to bring empty properties back into use, address the impacts of empty homes and help to increase the supply of affordable housing where it is needed. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and to serve with new members of the Committee. Perhaps it should be of concern that your predecessor, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), sat in the Chair for a number of our sessions, but the idea of just one more seemed less preferable than entering Government. That may be a sign of what is to come between now and the end of September. In all seriousness, we welcome the Ministers to their place and we look forward to working with them.

I thank the hon. Member for Harborough and the right hon. Member for Pudsey for their efforts and communications with the shadow ministerial team inside and outside Committee. They worked very collegiately, which we appreciated, and I think that has been reflected in the quality of the debate so far, and the good spirits. We are here to disagree on points of substance, but are able to do so in good humour, and I know that that will continue with the new Ministers. I also thank the Whip, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), for enabling us to work together. I am sad that the new Ministers have missed out on those weeks of debate, which were largely composed of speeches from me. I am happy to start again if they wish—or perhaps not; those who have heard them seem to be moving further and further away, so perhaps I should take that as my cue to move on.

I am glad that the Minister is choosing to address the clause stand part debate, because it is an important part of the legislative process. When law is put on to the statute book, Ministers ought to make a case for it, so we appreciate his contribution. Given today’s development, I hope that the Minister may be able to offer one more. The continued absence of an impact assessment needs to be addressed. According to the Minister’s own words, the Bill is an important piece of legislation that will help to level up the country. At the moment, we do not have much of a base to build that case on, so we would be keen to see the impact assessment. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.

Clause 72 is important because we are currently in a severe housing crisis, with a lack of supply of affordable homes for young people and no opportunities for families to get on the property ladder. Coupled with that, long-term empty dwellings are sat idly by, serving no purpose. It is right that the Government want to act, and we support the clause. However, we feel that it is a missed opportunity and that even the Bill will not give local authorities sufficient tools to get a grip of the situation and protect their local communities. We should have gone further with a power to levy a greater empty homes premium and to close the loophole through which properties are pushed into the business rates category—or slid into it—to avoid council tax. The Government should revisit that issue. I know that the Minister will have a full inbox, so he does not need to look far for inspiration. The Welsh Government seem streets ahead of the UK Government with their current policies. It is not a matter on which to divide the Committee, but I hope that the Minister will revisit the issue at a later stage, because we certainly will.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your oversight and chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I offer a huge welcome to the new Ministers. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Pudsey and the hon. Member for Harborough. The debate in Committee has indeed been consensual, collegiate and courteous, and I am sure that is how it will continue. It is a privilege to be on the Opposition side of the room and to join in the important endeavour of scrutinising this important Bill.

When it comes to communities like mine, it is worth bearing in mind that long-term empty dwellings—properties that are not used at all—are a challenge. In my district of South Lakeland, we have something in the region of 900 to 1,000 of such properties at any given time. It is likely that there are between seven and 10 times as many properties not lived in, but classified as second homes. If the Government are committed to retrieving properties that are out of permanent usage, and which are effectively displacing local people and the local workforce, empty homes are important, but not nearly as important as tackling the excessive second home ownership problem in communities such as the lakes and the dales. We look forward to discussing those issues when we consider later amendments today.

[Mr Jones]

First, I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his very kind welcome. I look forward to working with him and his fellow shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, in a good spirit. I suspect that we may not agree on everything as the Bill goes through the House, but I am confident that we will work together with a good spirit, both in Committee and outside.

In response to a couple of the points that have been made, I know that the impact assessment has been a concern. It will be provided shortly, and I would certainly expect that to be the case before the conclusion of the Committee’s proceedings. I hope that we will provide it as soon as we can.

On Wales, we have already given councils the power to apply a 300% premium to properties that have been empty for more than 10 years. That is part of our stepped approach to increasing the level of premium the longer the property remains empty. What we propose strikes the right balance between providing an incentive to bring empty properties back into use while recognising more challenging cases in which owners are taking action to have property suitable for accommodation within that time frame.

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale for his kind welcome. I do not disagree with his point about the challenges in many areas, especially those that have a strong tourist economy. I am sure that we will debate those challenges when we come to the next set of amendments. It is good to hear his comments, and that the ministerial team are thinking about that issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73

Dwellings occupied periodically: England

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 73, page 81, line 30, after “dwelling” insert

“for six months or longer per year”.

This amendment seeks to further define how long a property must be empty for to be described as occupied periodically.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 80, in clause 73, page 81, line 31, at end insert—

“(c) the occupier declares the dwelling is not their principal residence and there is no tenant in the property for 6 months or longer per year.”

This amendment seeks to provide further definition around the conditions around occupancy.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Hollobone. I welcome the Ministers to their places and wish them well during the consideration of the Bill. We have had a cordial debate so far, but they will hear much about York’s housing crisis, which is a prism through which to look at the Bill as well as an important case study to help the Government understand the real challenges we face.

The amendments highlight that some properties are occupied on a part-time basis only. They are let as short-term holiday lets from time to time, perhaps not consistently, or may be empty for periods and utilised some of the time. We all recognise from our constituencies that some properties have different patterns of occupation, so that they are not always empty, but are not fully occupied either. The challenge is that that can remove opportunities for people who desperately need a home.

The amendments seek to define a period of vacancy and reduce it from a year to six months. It is reasonable to expect a property owner to visit the property every six months. A longer period would raise questions of whether they in fact reside there. I am aware of circumstances in which people have families overseas, for instance, and may make extended visits to see them. I would not want to penalise people because their life journey and responsibilities differ from mine, but if they do not visit a property for six months we can conclude, under the definitions in the clause, that it is an empty dwelling.

This is an important issue, because empty homes, especially during a period of inclement weather, can impact on neighbouring properties. Gardens can become unwieldy and overgrown in less than six months, which can impact on the morale of the neighbourhood and on house prices. I can point to many such examples in my constituency. In fact, a resident called me into her garden in Tang Hall on Sunday and showed me the consequences of a home being neglected for a period of around six months. The brambles were about 6 feet high and encroaching on her garden space. These things really matter to neighbourhoods. Neglected properties can also spread damp to each other, which is another concern for neighbours.

Neglected properties should attract an uplift in council tax. Having clearer and shorter parameters by which councils have permission to operate an increase in council tax enables councils to make better decisions, as well as generating revenue for the council. I would therefore like to focus on my amendments in order to achieve that. I have further amendments that I will dwell on shortly, but the reason that this amendment is so important for communities such as mine is that we are increasingly seeing properties being developed not for occupation, but for asset. We will return to that theme on numerous occasions throughout the debate.

We can see around us the new developments in London. We are also increasingly seeing that situation in York, where there may be one or two occupancies in luxury apartment buildings, but nobody has ever moved into many of the units. They are literally just investments for people in the UK or overseas. Residents in my city who are desperate to get on the property ladder and have a home know that there are dormant units within their community, and they are significantly concerned about the implications.

I will talk further about this issue, but I am putting the Minister on alert about the York Central site, which he will certainly get to know over the coming days. We have a 45-hectare brownfield site—the biggest brownfield site in Europe—yet our council sees the development of luxury apartments that no one will live in as its priority, as opposed to the site being used for homes for local people, and for economic space, which would be the best use for it. Indeed, Homes England has identified that the whole area could well turn into Airbnbs. We know that York already has around 2,000, so this is a serious encroachment on future housing use. Therefore, we do not want to see lip service paid to these measures; we want to ensure that we have the right measures in statute to protect our community and give them the opportunity to have a home.

[Alex Norris]

Clause 73 has much in common with clause 72 and, again, we are minded to support it when we get to the stand part debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on her efforts to improve the clause, which amendments 79 and 80 certainly would do.

Clause 73 deals with the second home premium. In the light of the housing crisis, as discussed in the previous stand part debate, it is right that we seek to deal with this issue. It is a serious gap in the legislation that billing authorities can currently levy the empty homes premium only on homes that are unoccupied and substantially unfurnished, which could leave out a significant number of dwellings as well as leaving the edge cases to be defined via case law, rather than in statute. It obviously leaves a big gap where there is no permanent occupant but the property is furnished and habitable, allowing the skirting of the empty homes premium in its entirety.

It is right that we seek a second homes premium—as I say, we will support the Government in that venture—but it is also right to try to tighten up the measure on the face of the Bill, as my hon. Friend has sought to do, by drawing a line in the sand at six months’ occupation of the property. This is about seeking a balance between the individual and the broader society, which is always—certainly at its edges—a hard thing to do and to define, because it is right that people are allowed the peaceful enjoyment of their property in the way they see fit. As my hon. Friend said, it is right that we understand that people have different lives, and we in this room know that as well as anybody else. We genuinely spend our week split between two different places, and a one-size-fits-all approach will not work.

As my hon. Friend said, we also have to understand the impact that properties that are long-term vacant and only notionally lived in can have on a community, including the detrimental effect of overgrown places on amenity, problems caused by burst pipes, and antisocial behaviour targeting empty houses. Those effects are frustrating for communities. When we set that problem against the fact that people are crying out for properties, it is clear that a balance must be struck. We are glad that the Government have started to address the problem, but my hon. Friend’s amendments would improve the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will accept them.

09:45

[Tim Farron]

I also agree that the amendments are helpful, and I urge the Government to seriously consider them. There is no doubt in my mind that although the housing crisis is one of supply, the supply that we have is distorted. We live in a strange world in which property is seen more as an investment than places for people to live and have homes. That is the way the market is, but if the market is broken, surely we have to intervene.

Levelling up is an interesting phrase and concept—one that I personally believe in—but we have to understand carefully what drives the absence of opportunity that we are trying to tackle. Housing, more than any other issue that the Government will consider through the Bill, is the cornerstone. There are challenges in every part of our country, so there will need to be an acknowledgment that the market is distorted and broken, and that it will therefore need radical intervention if we are to make best use of the properties we have and maximise opportunities for everybody, in every part of this country.

Empty dwellings—as distinct from second homes and holiday lets—are a challenge. I mentioned that they are a big problem in my community, although not as big a problem as second homes and holiday lets. Properties are empty for a range of reasons, some of which are perfectly understandable, others less so. Having time limits is wise, as is ensuring that homes are effectively monitored. Using fiscal measures—fines, taxation and so on—to encourage people and focus their minds to make the best use of the property they own is also wise.

I encourage Ministers to make the available tools easier to use. They include empty dwelling management orders, which basically allow local authorities to requisition an empty home and turn it into a social rented property. I have seen that work in my own community, but it is hard to do. Such orders are valuable, because a property can be brought back into usage—it effectively becomes a social rented property under the control of the local authority for seven years—but they are most useful because they act as a warning shot to other landlords and show what might happen to them if they do not make good use of their properties. The problem is that the process is lengthy, laborious, expensive and difficult. I encourage Ministers to look carefully at beefing up that existing provision by ensuring that councils can use it more readily.

We want to build more genuinely affordable homes for people, but it is just as important that we made good use of properties that already exist by turning them into formal homes. That is a no-brainer, really. As far as I am aware, empty dwelling management orders are not addressed in the Bill, but I would love it if the Government considered beefing them up and making them more easily accessible, which would draw more homes back into use for local communities.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for her kind welcome to the Committee. It sounds as though I am likely to hear a great deal about York Central—somewhere I am not a stranger to, having been there to present a high streets award to Bishy Road some years ago, in the dim and distant past when I was last a Minister in this Department.

The Government’s proposal for a second homes premium makes clear the situations in which a council may quite properly apply a premium. Those situations are, first, that a property is substantially furnished—distinguishing it from empty property dwellings that may more properly be subject to the empty homes premium—and secondly, that there must be no resident of the property. For the purposes of council tax, a resident is someone who has their sole or main residence in the dwelling. In that case, the resident would pay the council tax normally due on that dwelling as essentially it would be their main home. They would not be subject to a premium as it is their sole or main residence.

Owners of second homes may well occupy those properties during the course of the year, and how much use they make of them will vary depending on circumstances. It may be that the hon. Member’s amendment is to enable the premium to be applied only when the homeowner does not use the property for more than six months a year. If that is the case, it might be helpful to set out how councils already determine what is and is not a second home.

Councils already make judgments as to whether an individual’s property is their sole or main residence and, by default, what might be a second home. That is because they want to be satisfied that any discounts or exemptions are applied correctly and to the right property. In making a judgment on whether a property is a sole or main residence, councils will reflect on legislation and case law and take into account a range of factors including where the person is registered with a doctor, where they are registered to vote and the occupancy of the property.

Given those established processes for assessing what is a second home, I do not believe that a further restriction on the definition of properties that may be subject to a premium is needed. In addition, the assessment of whether a property is a second home will take into account a number of factors and not just the period of occupation. A reference to the number of days may well preclude treatment of the property as a second home when other factors suggest that, in effect, it is being used as a second home. The amendment could result in a reduction in the number of second homes liable for the premium.

Amendment 80 would mean that, where the property has a tenant for more than six months, the premium would not apply. Council tax is usually paid by the occupants of the property and, in cases where a tenant is occupying the property as their sole or main residence, the tenant would be liable for that council tax, not the property owner. Therefore, no premium would be due.

The premium is not aimed at properties that are let out to a tenant as they will be somebody’s sole or main residence. It is right that a second homes premium should not apply to such properties. With those clarifications, I hope the hon. Member will agree to withdraw her amendment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I appreciate the considerations given in this debate, and I am sure that the Minister, knowing Bishy Road, will look forward to getting to know other parts of York. He made an interesting point about the definition of a second home. Later we will look at some of those issues, which our constituents are rightly asking about, because when people do not have homes, they ask a lot of questions about housing. Questions are being asked in particular about unoccupied dwellings, which we are considering here.

The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North, was right to highlight the fact that many empty dwellings can be targets for antisocial behaviour. In drawing out that important point, he also set out the reason to focus on that and disincentivise it. Empty dwelling management orders can be used effectively. Newham Council is probably the local authority that has used them to best effect, by taking properties and turning them into social housing. However, the legislation is clunky and the processes are slow. I would welcome it if we looked at how to use that legislation. In the light of this debate and those to come, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. I am sure that we will return to this issue.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 73, page 82, line 14, at end insert—

“(10) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for and about offences punishable by a fine for people who submit misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information to a billing authority in relation to the occupancy of their dwelling.”

This amendment would provide for fines to be issued to those who fail to provide correct and accurate information regarding the occupancy of their dwellings as an anti-fraud measure.

I will be brief in my comments about this amendment because I think it speaks for itself. My amendment is not particularly about local authorities being vexatious in proposing to use levers to ensure that properties are properly recorded—I am sure that many owners will find it hard to distinguish whether properties are second homes, an empty dwelling and so on. Clarity is needed, and registering properties for the purposes of paying the right level of council tax will benefit the whole community, because the more revenue councils have, the more they can do.

This simple amendment would provide local authorities with an additional lever to incentivise people to declare their property in the right category, to ensure that they are not misleading the authority, and that the information is accurate and complete. It would make the billing authority’s life easier and enable it to recover not only the expected costs, but the additional costs if the information had previously been wrong. The amendment is about local authorities recovering additional revenue, rather than making additional expenditure, as well as acting as a lever for people to correctly register their property.

[Alex Norris]

As we can tell from the discussions so far about clauses 72 and 73, legislating in this space gets fiddly. Previously, it has been easy to skirt the empty homes premium by having a “substantially furnished” residence, and what constituted “substantially” was left to the courts. It is good that we are seeking to tighten things in this space.

In making the case for proposed new section 11C(2)(b) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, the Minister gave a helpful explanation of how it will address that challenge, which is a really good thing. I am more worried about proposed new subsection (2)(a) and the concept of “no resident”. Again, the Minister entered into this space with some of the tools that local authorities will be able to use. I am not sure about data registration; if people were minded to try to skirt these regulations, that test would likely be easy to pass without breaking any laws. He mentioned access to healthcare, which would be a better tool. Will he expand on some of the other ways in which local authorities would be expected to establish when a home is genuinely a second home? My fear is that by closing one loophole we may create another one, particularly one that is undefined in statute, as the Minister did not accept the opportunity provided by amendments 79 and 80 to give a clearer definition.

Legal action is unlikely to be a good risk-reward proposition for local authorities. In general, the clause as constituted offers them a chance to basically double council tax on those properties, which would be in the order of £1,000 to £2,000 a year on a normal property. That is not a great incentive for local authorities to chase.

As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said, the amendment’s importance is not about vexatious regimes or councils being overbearing and entering this space too much. Similarly, the amendment would not require individuals or families to take expensive advice in order to comply with the regulations and know whether they ought to be paying a long-term or second home premium, or neither. The arrangements should be fair and candid, and should be sufficient to guide them to pay—or not pay—in the way that they ought to.

The amendment would provide a second disbenefit to those who might seek to work around the legislation. At the moment, if it is a risk-reward proposition for an individual, then perhaps that amount of money is worth a bit more to them, set against the fact that local authorities might not be minded to pursue them. There must be clarity on the face of the Bill, and in the follow-up regulations, that this is a serious matter, as the amendment specifies, and that the Government look dimly on those who seek to circumvent and evade the regulations by not making a fair and candid assessment. It must be made clear that that is a bad thing, that it is looked upon dimly, and that there is a proper punishment regime that lies alongside that, to provide an extra disincentive to those who seek to work around the rules.

09:54

[Tim Farron]

This, too, is a welcome amendment. It is also a reminder to us all that if we are to take the radical action needed to make the best use of the properties we have in this country, so that we can underpin communities, particularly those such as mine in the Lakes and the Dales in Cumbria, we will have to be wise in ensuring that the radical measures in the Bill are actually enforced. For example, I can think of countless properties in Cumbria with a local occupancy clause on them that are currently being advertised as Airbnbs. I see that the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority recently made great strides forward, making it clear that new properties to be built within the national park must all be for 100% permanent occupancy. I do not think the authority has the power to enforce that, but the fact that it is showing that leadership is something we should massively welcome.

There will be a whole industry built around trying to create loopholes and get around any mechanisms—those either already in the Bill or that might come into it—to control excessive second home ownership, numbers of holiday lets and the presence of unused, empty properties, so we must be savvy and wise, and prevent that. Not all of that will be about the right legislation; it will also be about the right commitment to funding.

The Government talk about funding levelling up and putting money into projects that may involve construction, and so on. That is absolutely right. It is a great use of money—and will probably cost less money—to invest better in planning departments and to make sure we have the quality and the numbers of people to get out there and police the regulations that already exist and those we hope will come in through the Bill.

There is no point having the power in theory to maintain a permanent population in our towns and villages if we cannot enforce that. At the moment, the evidence before our eyes, certainly in Cumbria, is that we are unable to ensure adequate enforcement. The Government must invest, and it would be a wise investment, as it would rescue many homes for local communities to underpin the local workforce.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for York Central for the thought that has gone in to her amendment. I am sure we all agree about the importance of ensuring that people play by the rules and provide accurate information to allow councils to issue the correct council tax bills, and also that when people do not do the right thing, councils can take the appropriate steps.

The proposed amendments would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to create new offences, punishable by a fine, in relation to the submission of occupancy information. I completely understand the objectives of such a measure. However, I assure the hon. Member that existing powers already enable councils to take appropriate action where there is evidence that the individual has taken steps to avoid payment of the premium. The Local Government Finance Act 1992 already provides powers for councils to issue penalties to a person who fails to provide information requested to identify who is liable for council tax on a dwelling, or knowingly supplies information that is inaccurate. In addition, where false representation is made dishonestly for gain, the Fraud Act 2006 may well apply.

I share the hon. Member’s concerns about ensuring that evidence of wrongdoing is tackled and that councils have appropriate powers, and I have described those that already exist. However, if we do become aware of evidence of an underlying problem that cannot be covered by the powers that I have set out, the Secretary of State does have powers to make regulations to create powers for councils to require information and to create offences for a failure to provide information or for providing false information. We have already used those powers in connection with information for local council tax support schemes. We would be able to use them again if evidence were provided that the application of the premium was being frustrated by misinformation that could not be tackled by the existing powers. I trust that, with the assurances that I have described, the hon. Member for York Central will withdraw her amendment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the measures that are already available to local authorities, in particular under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the Fraud Act 2006, and the opportunity to exercise those powers in relation to this set of circumstances. The advice to all people seeking to register their property is to ask for advice from the local authority to ensure that their property is within the right council tax band, and there would then be no need for such measures.

However, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is absolutely right when he talks about loopholes: I have no doubt that individuals will be examining the Bill for such loopholes to exploit. Our responsibility is to close loopholes as we debate the legislation, because we do not want to be back discussing the same measures, when we had the opportunity to bring about change. However, I am satisfied with what the Minister has set out today, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 73, page 82, line 28, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to ensure that that, where a dwelling is occupied periodically as the result of a bereavement, higher council tax is not charged for at least two years.”

This amendment would extend the period of time people would have to make arrangements for their property following a bereavement.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 84, in clause 73, page 82, line 28, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision—

(a) to ensure that that, where a dwelling is occupied periodically as the result of dilapidation, the higher rate of council tax is not charged for at least one year from the change in ownership of the property, and

(b) about appeals against determinations under this section.”

This amendment would give owners of dilapidated properties up to a year after acquiring the property to refurbish before additional council tax rates are incurred.

[Rachael Maskell]

These would be important amendments to the legislation. We have talked about the categorisation of dwellings and whether they are occupied, but we are all aware of circumstances in our constituencies where people are not occupying a dwelling. Amendment 83 in particular is one of compassion, to recognise that if individuals have had a bereavement—typically, that would be of parents, but it might be a child or another relative—part of their grieving process is clearing the house and seeking how best to honour the deceased in the disposal of goods and in ensuring that the disposal of the property itself is in good order and respectful. It can take time for people to go through the memories and the grieving process, especially if they live some distance away or have a job. It can be challenging.

I am sure that we can relate to such circumstances. Therefore, allowing time for that to be gone through—I suggest a period of two years—enables the process to be done with dignity, as opposed to what we often see with people who have to clear out social housing. Literally, I have had cases of notices dropping through the door before the deceased has even been buried. I have had that fight locally about ensuring that we respect the dignity of the family and their needs.

The amendment would build compassion into the clause, being generous in the time that it gives people before recognising that a house is no longer occupied. In particular during covid, it has been challenging for people to empty properties so that they can put them on the market and sell them. There can be extenuating circumstances in which the measure may apply.

Moving on to amendment 84, I recognise that bringing old, dilapidated buildings back into use can benefit the whole community and individuals. Taking time to do that is important, to get it right. I grew up on a building site, with a DIY father. I think the whole of my upbringing was on a building site—it takes time to do up an old property or extend it. I lived on a building site, though many people move out. I am talking about people moving in order to focus on getting a roof on a house, putting in walls or doing essential renovation to bring the property into good use. Therefore, the amendment recognises that there are circumstances when dwellings will be unoccupied and unfurnished for work to be done. It encourages people to bring properties back into use, without having to pay higher rates of council tax.

I trust the Minister will understand the sentiment behind both amendments, and will recognise that they are sensible ways of dealing with some practical and sensitive issues that, if they are not dealt with in Committee or later in the passage of the Bill, will be raised by residents with their local authorities.

[Alex Norris]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on these amendments. There is a certain amount of prescience to them, given when they were tabled. When we debated clause 72, the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, raised a concern that some of my amendments would inadvertently sweep up families that were suffering bereavement, and these amendments are a prescient way of avoiding that.

For all the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for York Central set out, we recognise that sorting estates, untangling and consolidating finances, applying for probate, and even selling a property, can be a long and arduous process that is set against and alongside the grief that families feel when they lose someone. That makes it really hard, and then, as my hon. Friend said, we have to factor in distance and work responsibilities, and I would add caring responsibilities, so it is right that we build as much compassion and understanding into the system as possible. It feels like the two years is a good way of doing that. I note that it is an “at least” period, so there could be plenty of room for understanding from the local authority if, say, at the end of two years, the property had not been sold yet, or was sold subject to contract—certainly if there is a chain, it can take a long time. There is plenty of room in the amendment to ensure that families that have suffered are not caught up in ways that are unfair, unkind and not how the Bill is designed.

On amendment 84, last Tuesday the then Minister raised a similar concern about dilapidated properties that are being done up. Again, this amendment, which was tabled before that debate, is prescient in that regard. It is again an “at least” provision, which means that local authorities could be thoughtful about delays to work because of all sorts of things, including planning concerns and the weather—significant events that can set development back—and the long process of sale. These amendments would put on the face of the Bill some understanding, humanity and common sense, and would ensure that the balance is struck and that the Bill does what it is seeking to do.

[Tim Farron]

These are important amendments for my communities. In dozens of villages in Cumbria, more than half the properties are not lived in, and the damage to the local community and the local economy is immense. We have already talked about that, and we will continue to do so as we go through the Bill.

A proportion of the empty homes—a minority—are not holiday lets or second homes, but are empty and simply not used, and a proportion of those are empty for entirely understandable reasons. It is important for us to state that, because I would not like anybody to get from the things I say—I am sure this is the case for other members of the Committee—that we are not seeking anything other than opportunities for our communities to ensure there is a full-time, vibrant population. It is not about going after people, being envious of them or seeking to be beastly about them. It is important that we get the tone right.

10:14

The hon. Member for York Central gave two examples of why there might be an empty property, and why it is important to be generous, understanding and compassionate. People do find themselves in such circumstances, so it is right to be compassionate. It is also right to recognise, when it comes to people seeking to renovate a property that has been used in the past or acquired by them, that the evaporation of the long-term rented sector in Cumbria in the last two years has devasted our community even more. It has also devasted the workforce. I could cite one dales town in my constituency that had 104 unfilled job vacancies a couple of months ago—that is typical. If that is the case, it is a reminder that it will impact on a landlord’s ability to get the work done. Where is the workforce? They have all been evicted—they are all in a big town 50 miles away. The workforce does not live locally anymore because of the housing crisis.

The problem is circular. If we are not compassionate, patient and reasonable, then we will do things that are not right. It is right to include the amendments so, as we take the radical action that we must to ensure that homes that are not currently full-time permanent homes for our community become so—although I am not convinced the Government are ready to do that—we do so wisely and with compassion.

[Mr Jones]

I will deal with the two amendments in turn. With amendment 83, the hon. Member for York Central’s desire is to ensure that those people who inherit property are not unduly penalised by the rapid imposition of a second homes premium. I will set out what happens with council tax liability when the owner of a property passes away and leaves it empty. Such a property is exempt from council tax as long as it remains unoccupied and until probate is granted. Following a grant of probate, a further six-month exemption can be provided, so long as the property remains unoccupied and the ownership has not been transferred. There are already strong protections in place.

Amendment 83 proposes that in addition to those protections, the property should be exempt from any potential second homes premium for a period of at least two years. A premium would only apply if the property was not someone’s sole or main residence, and if it was furnished. I understand the hon. Member for York Central’s concern. I hope that she will be reassured that the Bill includes powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations that exempt certain classes of property from application of the premium. We will reflect on the points that she made and consider whether to consult on potential exemptions to the premium.

Amendment 84 appears to suggest that someone purchasing a second home that requires some improvement should be able to benefit from an exemption for at least one year. While I fully support homeowners investing in their main or second homes by renovating and improving them, I am unclear as to why such work on second homes should benefit from an exemption to the premium. The premium would only apply if a property was furnished. If it required substantial rebuilding work, it seems unlikely that the property would be furnished. In that case, a second homes premium would not be due in any case since the property would not meet the definition in the Bill.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for the points he is making. It is possible to be in a situation where part of the property was furnished because that is not the area where dilapidation has occurred, but part of it is unfurnished because it needs, for example, a new roof or an extension. There is a situation where there is furnishing, but the property is still unoccupied due to renovation work.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. It seems clear to me that that property would be partly furnished, but not be occupied by the owner. It would therefore still constitute a second home—that is the argument I am making.

On amendment 84, the hon. Lady gave the example of the roof not being on a property. If a property were not in a fit state for habitation and required substantial work to bring it into a reasonable state, it is quite possible that the Valuation Office Agency would consider a request to remove the property from the council tax list, thereby removing its liability for council tax.

I hope I have been able to clarify my understanding of amendment 84, and I hope that with my reassurances the hon. Lady will withdraw both her amendments.

[Rachael Maskell]

I welcome the debate we have just had. For the record, I think it is important that we take forward discussions around these issues and understand the challenges our constituents in sensitive circumstances are facing. The Minister’s response on the powers that local authorities already have until probate is granted was helpful and gives us the opportunity to reflect on that issue. It would be my sincere hope that local authorities will be able to work with families who are bereaved to give them the support they need to dispose of a property in a timely way.

On the dilapidation of properties, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was absolutely right to highlight some of the workforce challenges currently facing the construction industry. We know the Government are making many demands on that depleted workforce, which is taking time to recover and has many challenges pressing down on it. We simply do not have the labour supply to address the multiple demands being placed on construction and maintenance. Even the timescales I suggested in the amendment could be challenged due to that demand on the industry.

The Minister’s comments on the role the Valuation Office Agency can play in removing a property from the council tax list during a period of renovation were quite helpful. I am sure they will be well heard by people in those circumstances, but I think I am perhaps just scarred from growing up in a property where we had a tarpaulin roof for many a winter, and living under it posed real challenges. The suggestions the Minister has made and the direction he has shown through his comments to the Committee have been helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

Clause 73 contains a power for councils to introduce a council tax premium on second homes. We recognise that second homes can benefit local economies and the tourism sector. Second homes can also provide flexibility to enable people to work in and contribute to the local community, while being able to return to a family home in another part of the country on a regular basis. However, the Government understand the concerns that large numbers of second homes, particularly where they are concentrated in a small area, can have a negative effect on the vitality and viability of local communities.

A large number of second homes impacts on the size of the permanent population who help to generate the demand needed for their local services the year round. It creates a hollowing-out effect. The local schools have insufficient pupils to remain open. The local buses do not have enough passengers to maintain the service. The village pubs and post offices do not have the customers to sustain them through the year. These are all arguments that many Members are familiar with and have made to the Government.

The risk is clear that, without action, some communities will become increasingly unviable as local services close due to a lack of a permanent year-round population. The Government are not prepared to stand by and watch that happen. We are investing £11.5 billion in the affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 180,000 affordable homes.

We have introduced a higher level of stamp duty on the purchase of second homes. The clause supports that by providing new powers for councils to apply a premium of up to 100% extra council tax on second homes. The use of that premium will be discretionary, and it will be for councils to exercise their own judgment as to whether to apply a premium and at what level—up to a maximum of 100%. The premium will provide councils with the flexibility to access additional revenue. It will be for councils to decide how best to use this funding. For example, councils may choose to support the local shop or village pub, or they may invest it in new affordable housing for local families, so they can help maintain the lifeblood of their community.

We are clear that second home owners should be given sufficient notice of the introduction of a premium. The clause will require each council introducing a premium to have a minimum period of 12 months between making its first determination and the financial year in which it takes effect. That will give second home owners plenty of time to make plans for how to respond to the forthcoming premium. Of course, there may be circumstances where it is not appropriate to apply a premium. Proposed new section 11D(1) provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing categories of dwelling in relation to which the council tax premium on second homes cannot be charged. We will consult on such categories.

Proposed new section 11D(3) includes a power for the Secretary of State to vary the maximum council tax premium that can be charged on second homes. It is clearly sensible to maintain a degree of flexibility for the future. If circumstances suggest that consideration should be given to adjusting the level, any consequent regulations will be made through the affirmative resolution procedure and will require approval of this House. The power contained in the clause will enable every council to decide whether to apply a premium at a level that is suitable for their own circumstances. It will enable them to generate additional revenue, and they will be able to use it to mitigate the impact of high levels of second homes in their areas. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alex Norris]

We have covered much of the debate through the very good amendments, so I do not intend to detain the Committee for long, but I want to clarify one point with the Minister. As he has said, the clause inserts proposed new sections 11C and 11D in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Proposed new section 11D(1) states:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe one or more classes of dwelling in relation to which a billing authority may not make a determination under section 11C.”

It basically says that the powers we have debated and all the very good reasons for them actually do not apply if the Secretary of State decides they do not want them to. That is a concern we have had in previous debates: this is localism, but only where local communities get the answer right.

It is welcome that the Minister has said the measures will be consulted on before being used, but the Government must have a sense of what properties they have in mind, otherwise there would not be much of a case to reserve the power. I am keen to know how that power will be used or certainly what the Minister had in mind when asking for it. I do not think it is enough for us to detain the Committee because we think the clause is important in general, but that specific point needs to be addressed. There is not much of a case for the provision if it is a power that can only be filled out by consultation. I wonder then: why ask for it at all?

[Tim Farron]

I thought the Minister outlined very well the impact of excessive second home ownership on communities such as mine. There is no doubt whatsoever about the consequences of excessive second home ownership in the Lake district, the Yorkshire dales and other parts of the country, where, as he says, the reduction in the permanent population means a smaller school roll, with schools potentially at risk. These places lose their bus services, pubs and corner shops, and all the services are frittered away because of the lack of a permanent population. I am afraid that the radical situation, which he rightly outlined, is not being radically addressed.

The Minister outlined the positives of the council tax premium. If we analyse it, however, it gets to probably a very small minority of those people we call second homeowners—people who, basically, very rarely make use of those properties. People need to be quite rich to have a second home from which they do not benefit financially through renting it out, or that they do not bother using very often. This might catch 5% of second homeowners, but they are the ones who can afford it, so it will not have much impact on them. I do not think it will do what the Minister says it will do. It does not provide the opportunity to do what we will seek to do in other parts of the Bill, which is to enforce—by using the law, and planning law in particular—a move away from excessive second homeownership. But more on that later.

In many ways, what the Minister has just said has been the best articulation I have heard from a Government Front Bencher of the impact of excessive second home ownership on communities such as mine. I thank him for that, but the action proposed does not address the findings of the analysis, and that is what we will push the Government to do.

10:30

[Mr Jones]

I nearly thought that that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was going to cross the Floor, given his glowing praise of my analysis. I understand his concerns. That is why we have, over time, put in place a number of policies, including increased stamp duty for purchases of second dwellings, and why the Bill introduces a council tax premium. Clearly, there is a wider picture, and we understand that picture. It is a complex issue and we constantly look at it.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North is concerned about the Secretary of State’s involvement. I do not want to pre-empt the result of the consultation, but it might include the points that he has made about probate. I expect the consultation to take place this autumn, and I hope he will look carefully at it and respond to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 73 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74

Alteration of street names: England

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 74, page 83, line 23, at end insert—

“and it has considered the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a name change”.

This amendment requires cultural, historical and archaeological factors to be considered before making a name change.

We are considering many things in the Bill, and we come now to a clause that deals with street names. Needless to say, the issue of street names is one of much interest not only to the population of York at large but to archaeologists and historians, whom I meet regularly in our city. It is probably obvious why that is the case: we are clearly a proud city and there is much history to be debated.

A lot of streets in York have changed their name over time. A case could be made to change some of them back to their original names. In York, the streets are named gates, the gates are called bars, and the bars are called pubs. Our language is slightly different from that used in other places. Many of the names have been changed for good, sensitive reasons. What was Beggargate, for instance, is now called Nunnery Lane, and some names were far worse. Our approach to the naming of streets evolves. We have many layers of history, and there are areas of Roman, Viking and medieval significance in places such as York.

Names could be changed at the stroke of a vote, but it is important to put in place checks and balances, including a consultation process and engagement with the wider community stakeholders and residents, to ensure that streets have appropriate names.

There are examples of those who were once heroes but are now fallen individuals. We may have seen a darker side of them or of our colonial past. The street name can tell a different story and therefore the changing of a name is not only a process but can be a historical or political act in itself. It may be desirable, but to understand the past is important. Therefore, to explain the name rather than change it may be the action to take to reflect that on a newer estate. Perhaps we will look at the industrial past of an area or some event or place of significance, or perhaps point to a new age and opportunity.

There are countless reasons why a street name vote may be sought. However, recognising the significance of a name or a former name could help define a street or an area, as well as the historical, cultural or archaeological significance of a place. My amendment will simply ensure that the history and archaeological understanding of a place is not lost. I am seeking assurances from the Minister that that understanding will form part of a consultation around the name change and the process set out in clause 74.

[Alex Norris]

This is the third time in part 2 that we have addressed names. We addressed alternative names for Mayors and alternative names for combined county authorities. My view on street names is the same as in those cases. My experience in Nottingham is that if we seek to do anything daft with names, the public pretty soon sniff it out and have a good way of correcting it, whether at the ballot box or through more informal means. I have a lot of confidence in our communities to make the right and sensible decisions given the right framework in law.

We are interested in the clause. I may make some more arguments in the next amendments. It is important that the important historical and archaeological factors are not lost. This is probably a de minimis provision and only asks for consideration. It is no greater fetter than that. I hope the Minister is minded to that.

[Mr Jones]

The amendment would add additional criteria for local authorities when considering the renaming of a street. I understand the importance of history, archaeology and culture in this process. However, the Government strongly believe that local people should have the final say on changes affecting street names. We would expect those local views to reflect the historical or cultural associations of the names concerned, and the importance that communities place on them. It is not clear that a freestanding additional requirement to consider heritage is necessary, or how it would work. It could, for example, make it harder to secure name changes that have local support but where new considerations, such as the need to honour a local person or event, take precedence over an archaeological interest. For instance, some Olympians had streets named after them following the 2012 Olympics.

We recently consulted on the prospective secondary legislation and guidance to deliver those changes. Respondents were overwhelmingly positive about our proposals, with 91% agreeing that the regulations and statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name. In view of that support, and the fact that heritage and cultural significance are matters that communities will weigh up, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw her amendment.

[Rachael Maskell]

I thank the Minister for his comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North is right to highlight how our residents will do the right thing and we can depend on people to make the right choices, as I am sure they will in York. It is important to hear the Minister’s comment on the record that he will expect residents to reflect on the historical and cultural aspects of their streets and communities. People wanting to honour people or events of note in their communities will have the opportunity.

It is also important to recognise the place-making ability of a vicinity—for example, if there are quarters in a place, certainly in places as historical as York—to ensure that there is an ambience, an identity, given to a place. That could impact on the tourist aspect and the economic opportunity of a place, as well as the name in itself. I am sure there will always be streets in which to honour local individuals and at the same time balance the cultural sensitivities of an area. I found the Minister’s remarks helpful; I put that on the record. I think it will help with the next discussion, so I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Alex Norris]

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 74, page 83, line 37, at end insert—

“(za) the local authority has carried out the necessary consultation, the necessary publicity, and the necessary notification, before making an order to alter the name of a street, or any part of a street, in its area,

(zb) the local authority has given due ‘regard to the outcomes of that consultation,.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 71 and 72, replaces a power to make regulations about referendums on street names with requirements for local authorities to consult residents and the wider community.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 71, in clause 74, page 83, line 40, at end insert—

“(6A) In subsection (6)—

(a) ‘the necessary consultation’ means consulting with—

(i) whatever community representatives the local authority thinks it appropriate to consult,

(ii) owners and occupiers of residential premises in the street subject to the order, and

(iii) any businesses with premises in the affected street;

(b) ‘the necessary publicity’ means—

(i) publishing the proposed change, including but not limited to publishing the proposal on its website, and

(ii) publicising the proposal, including but not limited to erecting in the street to which the proposal relates such notice (or notices) as it considers sufficient to draw the attention of any member of the public using that place to it.

(6B) In subsection (6A), ‘community representatives’ means any individual or body appearing to the authority to represent the views of people who live in, work in or visit the restricted area.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 70.

Amendment 72, in clause 74, page 84, line 1, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 70.

[Alex Norris]

The Opposition believe it is important for members of the community to have the chance to change their street name and to be consulted on any changes. Whether that is to remove the name of a slaver, to better reflect changed geography, or just because they want to, the power ought to exist. My concern is not about the broad substance, but the method and the way that it is drafted—not just that there be consultation, but that the measure is prescribed in the form of a referendum with a turnout threshold. We are fine up to subsection (8). We are comfortable with the first seven subsections, but then we start to get into trouble, and that is what I am seeking to try and moderate with amendments 70, 71 and 72.

As drafted, the proposal is for regulations to be introduced to require local authorities to run a local referendum before a name can be changed. The Bill sets out that under the regulations,

“a specified percentage or number of those entitled to vote in the referendum exercise that right”—

that is the floor provision—and that

“a specified majority of those who vote indicate their support”

for the change. The wording in the Bill would also introduce a time-consuming and expensive solution to a problem that research by the Local Government Association suggests does not exist and that undermines the fundamental principles of local democracy and will not be workable in practice.

We have seen changes—the measure exists in a context of name changes that are already happening—where councils have previously considered making changes and have involved their communities in the process through their democratically elected representatives and through formal consultations. The LGA research suggests there are no examples of a council changing the name of a street without giving the residents on that street an opportunity to have their say. This is where we get to the problem with the absence of the impact assessment.

The evidence says there is not a problem. Clearly, we are trying to solve a profound problem, but we have yet to see any evidence for that. It opens us up, I fear, to some confusion in local communities because we are saying that to change a street name, not only must there be a referendum, which is quite a significant action, but it will also have turnout thresholds and what not around it, which is pretty much out of context with any other decision being made in this country on this day or any other day.

Lots of us, including you, Mr Hollobone, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and many others in the room have been local authority councillors. Some of the hardest things you do in that role include making changes to residents’ parking schemes, building humps on roads, general road layout, never mind pedestrianisation of streets—or perhaps that relates to inner cities or towns. A decision to change a street name can be significant, totemic and a real cause of fallouts and online arguments.

I would argue, however, that that is of less daily importance in a person’s life than whether their child can park their car in front of their parents’ house. However, it would be very hard to explain to residents why such a decision on parking is not subject to significant controls whereas a street name change is subject to them. The point of having a local democracy and local representatives is to resolve such issues, never mind the consideration of bigger issues such as the closure of a library or a youth centre.

We will table new clauses to add community power to the levelling-up agenda, because the Bill is bald of that right now. I have spoken about the importance of co-design of public services, particularly those that affect local communities, estates and streets. Clause 74 is not offering that, and it is not clear what problems Ministers are seeking to solve with its implementation. They would certainly not accept such fetters of control when making difficult decisions. The current clause will cause a great deal of confusion, and the referendum requirement will impose significant costs and increased demand on electoral registering authorities, returning officers and electoral staff. It would create a whole industry in pursuit of a problem that we are yet to see exists.

10:48

Amendments 70 to 72, which have been tabled after we talked to local government representatives, are designed to offer something that is perhaps more practical and which would deliver what the Government are seeking to do, without imposing lots of burdens. The amendments would allow local authorities to gather feedback from residents, address concerns and perhaps move away from making things false binaries that are subsequently subject to referendums. They would extend the family of people who may have a view—for example, pupils, staff and alumni of a school whose name derives from a road may have views about a possible name change. Likewise, members and supporters of a sports club or social club may feel that they have a stake in a road name. The amendments would improve the scope of those who get a say.

The amendments would retain a statutory requirement on local authorities to consult residents, businesses and others and to have regard to the outcome of that consultation. We could therefore be confident that local voices would be heard. Crucially, the amendments would offer local areas, local councils and local leaders the flexibility to determine the necessary nature and scope of the consultation, and to make it fit the place rather than trying to make place fit the global scheme offered by the Bill.

I do not think that we are at cross-purposes with what the Minister is seeking to achieve, but in this instance the Government are too rigid. I hope that we will hear that common sense will be applied to make the provision a little more user-friendly.

[Rachael Maskell]

I support the amendments, particularly in the light of my withdrawing amendment 85. I believe that what sits at the heart of the clause is proper consultation with community stakeholders, whether they are residents, businesses or wider stakeholders, for instance Historic England, or the city archaeologist in the example I cited. The process of consultation is of key significance, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for Nottingham North for setting out in such detail the type of proper consultation that should be embarked on.

I think we can all recall the naming process of the research boat Boaty McBoatface, and there has certainly been learning from that experience about what could happen with a renaming process. I speak as someone who has a street in my constituency called Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate, which means neither one thing nor the other—in itself curious. Names can be curious, but a rigorous consultation that can flush out the issues could avoid those significant pieces of amusement, ensure that the proper voices are heard and confirm a sensible place name. A name is not just a name; it is an identity. We all think about the addresses we have lived at, and the identity they have given us, so it is important that people have ownership. A thorough consultation by a good local authority is what my hon. Friend seeks through his amendment.

On the consultation exercise, although the digitalisation of processes is welcome, I emphasise how important it is that signs are still placed on street corners, as proposed in amendment 71. People in the community need to know what is happening. It is not an either/or; it is a both. People should be able to engage with a physical notice. We all see signs up across our constituencies and stop to read them, because they are an important indicator of how people can get involved. I urge the Government to consider the breadth of that opportunity.

Finally, I highlight my hon. Friend’s points about referendums. We know that they have costs attached, and a referendum on a street name would place an additional cost on a local authority at a time when resources are thin. Given the time and complexity involved, is that really the right focus for the Government, when a consultation could do the job by utilising the existing democratic process through elected councillors? I trust that the Minister will reflect on the realities of the clause when alternative routes, as my hon. Friend set out, could strengthen the process and enable the right outcome.

[Mr Jones]

The Government are strongly of the belief that people should have the final say on the character of the area in which they live. That must include protecting their local heritage. In this context, I agree with the underlying intent behind the amendments. There should be clear processes for making sure that local views on proposed street name changes are taken into account. It is, however, important that we do this in the right way, so that the processes are robust, but can be adjusted if required.

The Government recently consulted on the prospective secondary legislation and guidance to deliver the reform to street naming set out in the Bill. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the proposals set out in the consultation, with 91% agreeing that regulations or statutory guidance should set out how local authorities should seek consent when changing a street name.

The amendments would remove the Government’s ability to do that and replace it with less specific requirements than we intend. I reassure the hon. Member for Nottingham North that we will be setting out clear, transparent and robust arrangements in secondary legislation. As I said, a significant number of respondents to the consultation want a proper say, and we can understand why. If the name of a residential street was changed, for example, individuals in any particular property would face significant costs from amending the title of their property or the addresses on their car logbook, bank accounts, utility bills, driving licence, and a number of other things that we could all reel off. Such things are important considerations, and that is why we are setting out down our chosen path.

By setting out the detail for how consultation on street naming will work in regulations and guidance, we will maintain flexibility to update processes in line with changes in circumstances, such as new technology. With that explanation, and those assurances, I hope the hon. Member will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for colleagues’ contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central brought up the good example of Boaty McBoatface. That shows, as always, the brilliant sense of humour of the British people—I have an awful lot of confidence in that—but also how in such cases it is rarely the answer that is daft; perhaps the question was less wise. The key thing, which goes to the point of the clause, is that people with a stake ought to have a say. When people have a stake in things, they take them seriously. I am certain that there will be no Boaty McBoatface Avenues. People would much more likely take a slightly different and perhaps more moderated view for their own street. That is why it is important that, as the Minister said, local questions about the character of a community are addressed.

I agree with the Minister that local residents should have the final say on the character of an area, but that can work in a number of different ways. We have a representative democracy, and change in the character of an area could be about a decision to cut back a tree, or to put bins in collective storage, leave them in the back ginnel or put them outside the house. Every day, there is a combination of hundreds of small actions that are seemingly unimportant until someone gets excited about them, but in aggregate they are substantial to people’s lives. We do not put them to daily referendums with turnout thresholds—we could not operate like that—so we have representatives who are accountable to their communities, and if they do not seem to be doing their job, they are changed for others.

I am not sure that the Minister’s stated aim is measured by what is in the Bill. He said that amendments 70 to 72 would weaken the Government’s ability to meet what was wanted in the consultation. I am afraid that I do not accept that, because 91% of people wanted to have a proper say and to have that set out. I completely agree with them—I am surprised that 9% did not agree—that the worst situation would be one where a local authority could make merely the narrowest compliance effort and not really listen. There is not much evidence of risk there. Again, the Minister could not make the case as to why, in general, there is a problem to be solved—and, absent the impact assessment, there is no case for that. The experts in the field say that there is no problem to be solved. I hope that he will reflect on that. My amendments would in no way restrict the ability to ensure that those 91% of people got what they wanted: a proper say. However, the Minister has gone a step further in prescribing how that looks, which is a disproportionate approach that will not serve.

The Minister has committed to further consultation and engagement. I hope that he will engage with colleagues in the Local Government Association and listen to them about the practical realities. If he has not already had a chance to do so, he should engage with their research about what is really going on and how we might achieve the aims without putting something onerous in the Bill. They will be willing to have those conversations.

I hope that this might be an ongoing part of the conversation as we move through the Bill’s stages, and that the Minister will at least carry this issue away and find a bit more detail. We will not detain the Committee by dividing it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

The Government are committed to giving a voice to residents over the naming of their street, and we are strongly of the belief that people should have the final say on the character of the area in which they live, which must include protecting their local heritage. Although street names play a fundamental part in representing the rich history of a neighbourhood, the relevant legislation has not been fundamentally reviewed since the early part of the 20th century. The matter is spread over three Acts, rendering the process of changing street names not only opaque but obsolete. I believe it should be uncontentious, if nothing else, to say that a lot has changed since 1907, and therefore a modern framework will be of benefit to local authorities.

11:00

The current legislation means that there are three systems, with different rights, that may apply depending on where people live. In London, authorities can change the name of a street at their discretion. The right of appeal in the current legislation is so vague that, in practice, it is difficult for anyone to appeal the wide discretion that has been given to local authorities.

We have discussed the importance of names in our consideration of the Bill previously, as I have heard from my predecessors, particularly in relation to the title for combined county authorities and Mayors. Street names can form a central part of an area’s character and identity, which is why explicit local support should be obtained before local authorities can change the name of a street. That is what this clause requires, supported by the technical changes in schedule 5.

Preserving cultural heritage across the UK is a Government priority and we support all efforts to inspire pride in the places in which we live. The clause makes it clear that a local authority may only change the name of a street if it has sufficient local support. We will set out in regulations the detailed operations of this framework and how sufficient local support can be obtained by local authorities.

We have consulted on the principles underpinning the clause. Our response to the consultation was published earlier this week. Respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the propositions set out, with 75% agreeing that those on the electoral roll for a street should have a decisive say on whether a proposed name change can occur. Giving communities and those most directly affected the final say on preserving, enhancing or creating their area’s identity is vital, and I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alex Norris]

I will not repeat any of the arguments I have made. We agree on the substance of allowing people to decide their street name, but we are troubled by the process and its rigidity. I hope the Minister will keep reflecting on that in the following stages.

I am labouring a point I made the last time I rose, but this is the last time I will make it today—I promise, Mr Hollobone. This is the end of part 2 of the Bill. The Minister made a welcome commitment that we will see the impact assessment before the end of Bill Committee, but I gently say that it will not be much use for parts 1 and 2. Frankly, there be no impact on part 1, because that was a plan to make a plan, but part 2 will make combined county authorities, which presumably are supposed to be quite impactful. It is a problem that we have not been able to argue those in the round.

The next part of the Bill, which is on planning, includes really significant decisions that will shape communities. I am not sure that colleagues on the Government Benches, never mind the Opposition Benches, should be comfortable making those decisions without an impact assessment. I hope to prevail on the Minister that if the impact assessment is not going to appear before part 3 of the Bill today, we may at least have it before the summer recess so that we can have it for our discussion about the remaining clauses.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for Nottingham North for his comments, which I will look at carefully and consider, and see what more can be done to expedite the impact assessment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)

11:04

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Mark Hendrick, Mr Philip Hollobone, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Ian Paisley

Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

† Benton, Scott (Blackpool South) (Con)

† Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

† Fletcher, Colleen (Coventry North East) (Lab)

Gibson, Patricia (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

† Henry, Darren (Broxtowe) (Con)

† Johnson, Gareth (Dartford) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Marcus (Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† Maskell, Rachael (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)

† Mortimer, Jill (Hartlepool) (Con)

† Nici, Lia (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)

† Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

† Smith, Greg (Buckingham) (Con)

† Vickers, Matt (Stockton South) (Con)

Bethan Harding, Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 12 July 2022

(Afternoon)

[Sir Mark Hendrick in the Chair]

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

14:00

[The Chair]

The usual rules and conventions on food and drink apply. Water is obviously acceptable. You have already been given permission to remove your jackets.

Clause 75

Power in relation to the processing of planning data

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 118, in clause 75, page 85, line 9, at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations under this Chapter may require relevant planning authorities to process data in accordance with approved data standards relating to the number and nature of—

(a) second homes, and

(b) holiday let properties

in the planning authority area.”.

This amendment would enable planning data regulations to provide for the collection of data to national standards about second homes and holiday lets.

The amendment seeks to aid transparency and therefore accountability on some of the issues that the Committee has already discussed regarding the number of homes that are not used for permanent dwelling.

I could give the Committee various statistics on excessive second home ownership and holiday lets. For example, estate agents in Cumbria tell me that up to 80% of all house sales since the pandemic began, two and a bit years ago, have been in the second homes market. In one year, from June 2020 to June 2021, there was a 32% rise in the number of holiday lets in the district of South Lakeland. Hon. Members can imagine the number of holiday lets that existed to start with in a district that includes the biggest chunk of the Lake district and a large chunk of the Yorkshire dales; 32% is a huge number. Across England, there has been a 50% reduction in the number of long-term rental properties available. Outside London, there has been an 11% rise in rents; in London, the increase is nearly double that.

All those figures come from local councils, housing charities and research I have carried out myself; none of it comes from central Government sources. The amendment would ensure that there is a real sense of the scale of the problem. I feel it and I know it, from talking to people in my constituency. From Grasmere to Garsdale, from Coniston to Arnside, every community is suffering a haemorrhaging of its working-age population. They have experienced that for years, but in the last two years the situation has been especially awful.

What do we need to know? What are we looking for? Someone who owns a second property that they rent out for 70 days a year counts as a small business, which means they do not pay council tax and they do not pay business rates either. I can think of thousands of homes in my constituency where someone who is, by definition, comfortable—to say the very least—is being subsidised by people working every hour God sends, with two, three or four different jobs, often on minimum wage. Those hard-working people are subsidising second home owners, who do not have to pay any kind of tax whatsoever, either to the Government or to the local authority, on their dwelling, and that is not on. It is not right and we must do everything we can to prevent it.

We can dig down, via various routes, to get the number of holiday lets, give or take, but we do not know anything about second homes—for a slightly good reason. After a Liberal Democrat by-election win in Ribble Valley in 1992, Mr Major abolished the poll tax and introduced the council tax, and gave 50% relief—a subsidy—to anyone with a second home. The Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 reduced that to just a 10% subsidy, so people had to pay 90%. The coalition got rid of the subsidy altogether, so now, in most authorities, second home owners pay full council tax. As a result, there is no incentive to register a home as a second home, so we just do not know; broadly speaking, the information we have is anecdotal.

The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that we know formally the scale of the problem, so that the Government can be held to account and we can take action to alleviate the problem, in order to ensure that there are homes for the permanent populations of our communities.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I take the opportunity to echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North in warmly welcoming the new Ministers to their places and in thanking their predecessors—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien)—for the constructive way in which they engaged with us and the thoughtful manner in which they approached the consideration of the Bill. On the basis of this morning’s proceedings, I am confident that we will continue in that vein.

Turning to amendment 118, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is a doughty champion for his constituents on this issue. He will know from previous debates in the House on this subject that we are in complete agreement that the Government need urgently to commit to far bolder action. It is not in dispute that a balance needs to be struck when it comes to second homes and short-term holiday lets; no one is arguing that they are of no benefit to local economies, but the potential benefits associated with them must continually be weighed against their impacts on local people.

At present, the experience of a great many rural, coastal and, indeed, urban communities makes it clear that the Government have not got the balance right. The problem is not second homes and short-term holiday lets per se; as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, it is excessive numbers of them in a given locality. While individual hon. Members will have a clear sense of the communities in their constituencies that are affected by this problem, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight with the amendment the fact that we do not know the precise number of second homes and holiday lets across the country, or their distribution.

Members have heard me say this before, but council tax records are likely to significantly undercount second homes, both because there is no financial incentive to register a property in areas where a council tax discount is no longer offered, and because second home owners can still avoid council tax altogether by claiming that their properties have moved from domestic to non-domestic use.

The estimates of second home ownership produced by the English housing survey are more reliable, but even they are based on a relatively small sample and rely on respondents understanding precisely what is meant by a second home and accurately reporting their situation. Similar limitations apply to short-term lettings. There is no single definitive source of data on rates for what is, after all, an incredibly diverse sector, with providers offering accommodation across multiple platforms.

It therefore strikes us as entirely logical that as well as considering what more might be done to mitigate the negative impact of excessive rates of second home ownership and short-term and holiday lets, the Government should consider whether digitisation of the planning system could allow us to better capture data on overall rates and provide a better sense of which parts of the country face the most acute challenges. We therefore very much support amendment 118, and we hope the Minister will give it serious consideration.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, support the amendment. Data is key to everything: we cannot make good, informed, evidence-based decisions unless we have data before us. In my community, I have seen my boundaries change because of the number of empty properties and people not registering. I have seen a real change street by street as well as community by community. Second homes, commuter homes and holiday homes are taking over residential properties, which my local residents cannot afford to live in any more due to the lack of supply. As a result, they are having to move out of my city. We have to look at this extraction economy through the eyes of the people it impacts the most, and collecting data is absolutely key to that.

There is another reason I think data is really important. The Government are driving their whole housing policy through numbers. They are saying, “We are going to build x units in each of these locations across the country.” We have heard hon. Members in various debates discuss whether those levels are right, but if those housing units simply become empty units, second homes or holiday lets, that will not resolve the housing crisis we are dealing with. It will not add to our communities or make a difference to them. It will not have an impact on Government targets for addressing the housing crisis. It is essential that we can identify the issue in the detail it deserves, not just in whole areas but drilling down to understand what is happening in different parts of the community.

In York, we have around 2,000 Airbnbs—last time I checked, the number was 1,999. The vast majority are concentrated in my constituency of York Central. I can name the streets where those properties are. The number of homes is increasing in those areas. We will go on to talk about measures that the Government can introduce—measures that I very much hope they will introduce—to address this serious problem, which is sucking the life out of our community. If we have up to 350,000 Airbnbs nationally, what does that mean for Government targets for house building? How are they going to say they are building additional homes when we are seeing that sharp increase in Airbnbs, second homes and so on?

The Government need the data to drive their own housing policy and to ensure that they are delivering on their targets for improving the housing situation, rather than just watching it get worse while they busily tick boxes and say, “We are delivering, delivering, delivering,” when it is not making a scrap of difference on the ground. That is the feeling in my community. I welcome the amendment. It is a helpful start and a helpful guide to the Government about some of the considerations they should be taking into account in the planning system.

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Mr Marcus Jones)]

I thank the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his kind welcome and good wishes. I look forward to working with him across the Dispatch Box, in a reasonable and constructive way.

We spoke at length earlier about second homes, which I suspect will be a running theme for the Committee. We talked about the importance of addressing the issues that can be caused by second homes and holiday lets in an area. I want to focus on why the amendment is not needed.

We acknowledge the importance of data on holiday lets for supporting tourism and manging the impacts on local communities. However, I believe that there may have been some misrepresentation of the intent of clause 75. The clause aims to require planning authorities to process their planning data in accordance with approved data standards, whereas the amendment seeks to regulate for the collection of data by planning authorities. Nothing in the clause can require the collection of data by planning authorities.

Having said that, let me add a point of reassurance: where planning authorities have holiday let data, subsection (2)(b) provides the ability for data standards to be set for it. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is not necessary to achieve his intention. Regulations will specify which planning data can be made subject to data standards and require planning authorities to comply with those standards once created.

We will turn to the substance of second homes and short-term let policy in due course. We take the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale seriously. I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurance at this point to allow him to withdraw his amendment.

[Tim Farron]

I will not press the amendment to a vote at this point, but I may bring the measure back later in another guise. I am very grateful that the Minister has accepted the need for this data, so that decisions can be made and otherwise.

As I and other hon. Members said earlier, the existence of second homes and holiday lets is not, by any means, an unalloyed bad. The holiday let market, in particular, is crucial to the economy and the hospitality and tourism industry in Cumbria, which is worth £3.5 billion a year and employs 60,000 people, but we have to get the balance right. There is not a lot of point in having holiday cottages where people go on holiday but find they cannot get a bite to eat, because it turns out that their holiday cottage was the chef’s house last year, and they have been evicted and the balance is all wrong.

One assumes that, if the Government were to accept further amendments that might be proposed later, there would be powers available to local authorities to restrict the number of second homes or holiday lets in a community. We would not want to do that carte blanche; it would have to be done on the basis of information. We might decide that up to 20% of a community could be second homes. How would we know whether that was the case and be able to make a judgment, unless the data were available?

I will not press the amendment to a vote now, and I am grateful for the Minister’s remarks. It is important that we make decisions to save our communities based on the reality of the situation out there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

14:14

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 75, page 85, line 14, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would prevent the Government from using the powers in this Chapter for information other than that provided or processed by a planning authority under a relevant planning enactment.

Having had just over four productive and, I am sure the Committee will agree, stimulating days of line-by-line consideration of parts 1 and 2 of the Bill relating to levelling up, local democracy and devolution, we now turn to the first of the Bill’s parts on planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North remarked during, I think, our second session, in practice this is not wholly, or even largely, a levelling-up Bill. Indeed, I would even go so far as to describe the legislation before us as essentially a planning Bill in all but name, albeit in a shiny but ultimately flimsy levelling-up wrapper.

To the extent that this is essentially a planning Bill, it is, as hon. Members are aware, a far different beast from the legislation the Government had in mind when they published the “Planning for the future” White Paper in August 2020. The remnants of that White Paper that have found their way into this Bill, augmented with several new initiatives of varying quality, amount collectively to a rather modest set of proposals that we fear fall far short of the kind of reform that is required to meet the multiple challenges we face as a country.

Some of the planning provisions in the Bill are extremely controversial, and we will consider several of those in the hours and days that remain before the summer recess. Others are less so, and chapter 1 of part 3, which we are now considering, falls squarely in the latter category.

The clauses in chapter 1 seek to digitise the planning system, with the objectives of raising standards across planning authorities, facilitating cross-boundary engagement—particularly around infrastructure by better enabling the comparison of planning information—and, perhaps most importantly, making it easier for members of the public to access and easily comprehend information about specific local planning matters. This represents a real step forward, and I want to make it clear at the outset of the Committee’s consideration of clauses 75 to 81 that we strongly support in principle the digitisation of the planning system.

As Dr Hugh Ellis rightly put it to the Committee in our final oral evidence session:

“There are some very archaic practices in the planning process”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 125, Q157.]

As things stand, the planning system is overwhelmingly reliant on outdated software that places a considerable burden on the sector. Often, progress on local planning matters is almost entirely reliant on individual council planning officers and their familiarity with a particular scheme, rather than transparent and accessible information that can be drawn upon by all. Given that the systems in planning authorities more often than not sit on separate platforms, they frequently prevent cross-referencing of data by other council staff and local councillors. More generally, the planning process is too heavily reliant on documents rather than data, and this has a direct impact on the speed and quality of decisions.

Provision for public interaction with the planning system can, in many cases, appear to have been designed to actively discourage engagement, as anyone who has tried to analyse a local plan map will know. Even in cases where online access to information is possible through local authority portals, the data available is often inconsistent, confusing, and a barrier to community participation.

If any hon. Member has had to trawl their local council’s website to find information on a given planning application—I have, many times—they will know that documents often come in the form of hundreds if not thousands of pages of material spread across multiple PDFs, putting off anyone other than committed souls determined for one reason or another to trawl through reams of uploaded documentation to try to understand precisely what changes are being proposed in their local area. In short, there is an unarguable case to upgrade the technology that underpins the planning system in England. Doing so would have myriad benefits.

Perhaps most importantly, digitisation could go a long way to boosting engagement in local planning matters, particularly at the local plan phase, incentivising residents who, as things stand, would not dream of involving themselves in a planning matter. As Tony Burton from Neighbourhood Planners London put it to the Committee in oral evidence relating to local and neighbourhood plans,

“we would point to the opportunities it presents around new, complementary forms of community engagement…and more effective ways of pooling and analysing the evidence that is required”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 80, Q107.]

A digitised and integrated system would make it easier to find and search through the detail of a given application, and to see associated data and drawings, and it could well facilitate opportunities to directly interact or submit feedback. New interactive digital services and tools could even allow members of the public to submit their own ideas or take part in discussions and design workshops at an early stage of a proposal, and to explore different site distributions, massing and densities themselves.

Digitisation could also deliver huge benefits for the development and distribution of local plans. If done well, the roll-out of, for example, 3D model platforms could support the creation of local plans by changing the way councils visualise and make assessments of their localities, as well as aiding the monitoring of their delivery. Similarly, making local plans digitally available and interactive across England could help standardise processes and offer greater accessibility, collaboration and community engagement.

I add a small caveat at this point, in that the clauses in chapter 1 really cover only how data will processed and standardised. The Bill contains no indication of how the Government see consultation and decision-making processes being opened up to a more diverse audience as a result of digital technologies. I hope the Minister will give us a sense of the Department’s thinking in that respect, on issues such as digital mapping, when he responds.

However, that the clauses in this chapter present such opportunities is undeniable. That said, we are firmly of the view that a series of safeguards are necessary to ensure that the digitisation of the planning system does not have adverse consequences, intended or otherwise, and amendment 65, along with amendments 66, 67 and 68, seeks to provide some of those safeguards.

The particular concern that amendment 65 is intended to address is the potential for the broad powers provided by clause 75—to regulate the processing of planning data—to be used as a surreptitious way of prescribing the length, layout and content of local and neighbourhood plans. That concern arises in part from the ways in which the Bill, in other places, centralises the planning system by effectively downgrading the status and the scope of local planning—a theme will we return to many times over the course of this Committee’s life.

Given our concern that the powers in clause 75 give scope for excessive central control of local development plan formulation, we believe it is essential that the Bill clarifies that the powers are to be utilised only for the purposes of technical data handling and processing—hence the suggested removal of the broad language in subsection (2)(b) specifying that planning data can mean any information provided to, or processed by, the authority

“for any other purpose relating to planning or development in England”.

The key point here is the need for the Bill to better define what functions can be regulated by the powers set out in this clause.

Binding “approved data standards” applied to a limited range of technical functions, such as standardising contributions to the preparation of a local plan or how local plans are made accessible, is all to the good and will aid access, engagement and cross-boundary comparison. However, if not more tightly circumscribed on the face of the Bill than at present, our concern is that the proposed regulation of the processing and provision of planning data may, inadvertently or otherwise, enable the central imposition of what can and cannot be in a local or neighbourhood plan.

I appreciate the distinction is a subtle one, but I hope the Minister understands the concern we are trying to highlight. I also hope he will accept the amendment or, if not, at least provide the Committee with robust assurances that the powers in this clause will only ever be used for the narrow purpose of regulating the handling of technical data, rather than in any way dictating the form of local plans.

[Mr Jones]

I understand and share the desire to ensure that the information in scope of these new powers is proportionate and focuses on digitising the planning system.

Amendment 65 gets to the heart of our digital reforms—how we define planning data—and would narrow that definition. I fear, however, that the amendment underestimates the breadth of information upon which planning authorities rely. It is important to remember that these powers are designed to underpin the entirety of the planning system. We need to encompass information that will support plan making with interactive map-based plans; the flow of information, such as from the heritage sector, to planning authorities; and accessible environmental outcomes monitoring and reports.

As such, information relevant to planning may not in fact arise from a planning enactment. For example, it may come from activities of local authorities under their general power of competence or from information provided or used by that authority for the purposes of other legislation, such as the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Equally it may come voluntarily from other public sector organisations or from private companies and individuals for purposes that are not clearly related to a statutory planning function. We want to ensure that we do not accidentally exclude any of that valuable information from being made even more valuable to planning authorities and others as a result of our reforms.

As we will cover in subsequent clauses, there are underlying safeguards to protect all the information from inappropriate use. That includes protecting against inconsistency with data protection legislation. Equally, as I am sure we will discuss, our continuing pilot work with planning authorities will ensure that data standardisation can be implemented by them.

We will consult to ensure that we hear a diverse range of voices on how this part of the Bill is put into guidance. We will produce new guidance on community engagement in planning, which will describe different ways in which communities can get involved and highlight best practice.

The hon. Gentleman had some concerns about what is covered in a local or neighbourhood plan. The intent of creating the data standards is to ensure that local and neighbourhood plans can contain more information in a standardised format for the benefit of their communities. Data standards will be introduced gradually, and local authorities will not be prevented from using planning data where standards are yet to be introduced.

I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that amendment 65 is not required, and I would be grateful if he withdrew it.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I think the best way to put it would be that I am slightly reassured, but not wholly reassured. I welcome what he said about the recognition that the powers need to be used proportionately. I welcome the clarity on the intent. What I did not hear was a cast-iron guarantee that the powers will not, inadvertently or advertently, in any way end up constraining the length, layout and content of local development plans. Therefore, we still think and are concerned that they could be used to do such. While I will not be pressing the amendment to a vote, this is an issue that relates to our wider concerns about the status and scope of local planning, which we will come back to. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

The planning system currently relies on information presented in various formats and contained in lengthy PDF documents from which it is hard to extract. Local plans alone can be hundreds of pages long. As the hon. Gentleman said, they can contain dozens and dozens of PDF files, which are difficult for experts to navigate, let alone members of the public.

This clause is the foundation for changing the way planning authorities hold and present their planning information, moving the planning system from being document based to being data driven. The clause does this in a manner that allows the planning system to keep pace with the innovation we hope to promote. The clause grants the Secretary of State the power to specify in regulations which planning information must meet set data standards.

I know that some are concerned that the data standards will outstrip the ability of planning authorities to meet them. I therefore want to reassure the Committee that the very reason for the approach I have just set out is to allow us to bring information into scope as it is ready. We will proceed incrementally and take into account planning authorities’ capabilities and innovation in property technology. I hope that reassures the Committee on that point.

In order to reduce the burden on planning authorities, clause 76 gives them the power to require those submitting planning data to do so in accordance with new planning data standards. In addition to enabling information in the planning system to flow freely, following that approach will help authorities perform their crucial role more effectively, with more ability to compare and co-ordinate with other authorities; will empower more local people to engage with planning, with better tools to support them in meaningfully shaping their areas; and will drive private sector innovation, improving the efficiency of the housing market as well as the planning system.

In summary, the clause begins the modernisation of the planning system, creating accessible, reusable data to the benefit of planning authorities, communities, central Government, developers and the wider private sector. I commend it to the Committee.

14:30

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be brief, but I have some questions for the Minister. Clause 76(1) allows planning authorities, by published notice, to require a person to provide them with planning data that complies with an approved standard that is applicable to the data. Subsection (4) allows planning authorities to reject all or any parts of planning data from a person if they fail to comply with the requirements under subsection (1). Subsection (5) requires that planning authorities must serve the person with a notice by writing to inform them of any such decision, specifying which aspects of planning data have been rejected.

The two examples in the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill relate, respectively, to local plan creation and the identification of conservation areas nationally, rather than to individual planning applications. Given that the aim of this chapter is the creation of a data-led planning system, as the Minister said, and that the White Paper specifically referenced the intention to create a

“national data standard for smaller applications”,

it strikes me that there is a need for clarity over what “data not documents” means for individual households in the context of clause 76.

As such, I would simply like to get a sense from the Minister of what impact he believes these provisions will have on households seeking planning permission for projects such as extensions and conservatories, or garage and loft conversions. Specifically—this relates to a point that I will return to when speaking to amendment 66 to clause 77—what does the Department have planned, if anything, to ensure that residents making such applications who may lack the requisite digital skills or access to the internet are provided with appropriate support? Is any element of discretion provided, or other means of assisting such people?

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. With regard to that last one, we will probably discuss that as we go through the next few clauses. However, there is no intent to exclude those who do not have the ability to use digital equipment—those we consider to be digitally excluded. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that as we deal with further clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Power in relation to the provision of planning data

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

Too often planning information is hard to use for all the purposes it should serve. The clause helps to address that problem.

The large amount of information received by planning authorities often comes to them requiring manual intervention to make it usable. Re-entry is then required to use that information later in the system. That is bureaucracy at its worst, actively detracting from the ability of planning authorities to perform their core role, taking time and resources away from the decisions that matter to communities.

The clause works to achieve three effects. First, it works with clause 75 to ensure that complying with data standards does not create a new bureaucratic burden for planning authorities receiving information and then having to render it compliant. Secondly, it gives planning authorities the power to require information in a manner that best suits their systems and the data standards to which they are subject. Thirdly, it protects against the risk that some may attempt to use the requirements under clause 75 to inconvenience authorities’ decision making by deliberately submitting information in a problematic format that is difficult to extract.

The clause also sets out the process that planning authorities must follow to exercise their powers. Planning authorities will be required to publish a notice on their website or through specific communications to inform participants about what planning data will be subject to data standards when it is submitted to a planning authority. If the data fails to comply, a notice must be served specifying the reasons for rejection.

I will touch briefly on the power of planning authorities to refuse information as non-compliant. Planning authorities are not obliged to refuse non-compliant information, although for the reasons that I have outlined we expect them to accept such information only exceptionally. The Committee will see that information cannot be refused where the provider has a reasonable excuse. That is to protect those who, for whatever reason, cannot use the means of submission stipulated by a planning authority or cannot comply with the data standards in the submission. In that way, planning authorities will be under a duty to accept and fully consider such information. Those with a reasonable excuse will not therefore be disadvantaged.

Where authorities refuse information, the clause provides them with discretion to accept a complaint resubmission, although again there is no general expectation that they should do so. The result of the clause will therefore be that, by default, the information received will be usable for all purposes to which planning authorities need it to be put. That will make their work faster and easier and will allow them to focus on planning rather than data entry.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77

Power to require certain planning data to be made publicly available

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 77, page 87, line 3, at end insert—

“(4) On the day any regulations under this section are laid before Parliament the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement explaining the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that the regulations do not exacerbate digital exclusion.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining how the provisions in this Chapter do not exacerbate digital exclusion.

As we discussed in relation to development plans, Labour believes that a series of safeguards are necessary to ensure that the digitisation of the planning system does not have adverse consequences. One of the most adverse consequences that could arise from digitising the present system—we have already touched on it—is of course the exacerbation of digital exclusion, which several of the witnesses who gave oral evidence to the Committee highlighted as a concern. Digital exclusion is already a serious problem and one that does not simply affect a minority of the population. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.8% of UK adults have either never used the internet or last used it more than three months ago—that is 4.2 million people. The amendment seeks to address the digital divide in the context of the planning system.

When we discuss digital exclusion in the context of the Bill, it warrants saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central did, that a democratic planning system that takes seriously the right of communities to be heard and to participate effectively in every aspect of development plan formulation can never be entirely digital. As Dr Hugh Ellis told the Committee:

“We can have as much digital information as we like, but we also need access to the arenas where decisions are made”.”––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2022; c. 126, Q157.]

I make that point simply to stress that meaningful engagement with the planning process requires in-person access to key decision-making forums, and the Bill erodes that right in important respects. That is why we will seek to amend clauses 82 to 84 and schedule 7 in due course.

When it comes to planning data, it is evidently not the case that everyone will be able to access information digitally even once it has become more accessible, as the Bill intends. For some people, that might be because they are digitally literate but do not have the proper means to engage with online data, and that concern was raised by Jonathan Owen, the chief executive of the National Association of Local Councils, in his evidence to the Committee, who suggested the potential need for capital investment to enable remote communities such as his own to engage with online material. Otherwise, it might simply be because a small but significant proportion of the population would not be able to engage with online data even if they had the means of accessing it.

In short, digital exclusion is not merely about whether people can access the internet but about their ability to use it, and a small but significant proportion of the population struggle to do so. The most recent UK consumer digital index published by Lloyds bank estimates that 21% of adults—11 million people—do not have the essential digital skills needed for day-to-day life.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making this point. It is so important that we ensure that the planning process is accessible to everyone. The all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people carried out a mini inquiry into the issue of digital exclusion. Its findings show that being able to access the planning process will be excluded from so many people. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is so important because often it is older people, who have slightly more time available to them—we all recognise that from our own constituencies—who do the heavy lifting on planning for everyone else in their community? If they cannot access those planning documents and the data, that will have an impact on their whole community’s ability to access the planning system.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I very much agree that, potentially, some of the proposed reforms could exclude those on whom we rely most in our communities to engage with the planning process. My hon. Friend also touches on the wider point that digital exclusion is inextricably linked to wider inequalities in our society. It is more likely to be faced by those on low incomes, disabled people and, as she said, people over the age of 65. Indeed, so close is the link between digital exclusion and other facets of poverty that it has been argued that it should be considered a key index of deprivation.

Evidence collected by the Local Government Association found that when the pandemic struck, only 51% of households earning between £6,000 and £10,000 a year had access to the internet, compared with 99% of households with an income of over £40,000. Even when poorer households had access to equipment and the internet, they were less likely to have the skills to utilise it. Clearly, to the extent that the pandemic drove many aspects of life online in ways that appear to have stuck, albeit in many instances in a hybrid form, the problem of digital exclusion has correspondingly become more acute.

I fully appreciate that the challenge posed by digital exclusion extends far beyond the issue of access to and engagement with the planning system in England. I am also fully aware that there are a range of policy initiatives beyond the remit of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that have been put in place to address the problem—for example, funding for adults to gain a first qualification in essential digital skills. Although, as you might expect, Sir Mark, we would urge the Government to do far more to reduce the prevalence of digital exclusion. However, in the context of the Bill, the fact that digitisation of the planning system is a key feature of it, and the rationale for that is in part boosting engagement and participation, we believe that the Government need to address digital exclusion explicitly. We believe that they should do so in two ways.

First, there should be an explicit recognition that digitisation should enhance more traditional ways of communicating with the public about local planning matters, rather than replacing them entirely. Even if digitisation of the planning system proceeds apace, many people will still want and need practical help and support with understanding and engaging with the system. Simply being furnished with the opportunity to access vast quantities of data online is unlikely on its own to encourage more people to get involved in local planning. Given the chronic lack of capacity within local planning authorities, peer-to-peer, face-to-face support is extremely challenging. But established formats for communication, such as site notices, which were referenced earlier, have a role to play. We believe that they should not necessarily be removed as requirements from the system.

Secondly, there needs to be a focus on ensuring that digitisation is as inclusive as possible. In the context of clause 77 and the other related clauses, that means a focus on ensuring that planning services, data and tools are accessible to all, including those without the confidence or skills to use digital. Amendment 66 is designed to force the Government to engage more directly with those issues, and it does so simply by specifying that on the day any regulations under the section are laid before Parliament requiring certain planning data to be made publicly available, the Secretary of State also publishes a statement on how the provisions do not exacerbate digital exclusion.

I appreciate that this is not the most elegantly crafted amendment, but the issue it seeks to tackle is a real one, and the need to do so is pressing if the Government are serious about making the planning system accessible to as many members of society as possible. As such, I hope that it will elicit from the Minister a clear response, and that the digitisation that the Bill will facilitate will not exacerbate digital exclusion. I hope that by implementing new data standards reporting requirements and transparency measures in the Bill, Ministers will be actively working to adhere to digital best practice and ensure that digital planning tools are built and designed to be easy to use for all, regardless of age or accessibility needs.

[Mr Jones]

I entirely agree with the spirit of the amendment. As we discussed previously, digital exclusion is an important consideration for the design of public services. The statement proposed by the hon. Gentleman would, however, be unnecessary. Currently, as we know, published planning information is often difficult to access. It is inconsistently presented and hard to use for everyone in the planning system. Too few of our constituents engage with planning. We want as many people as possible, and as diverse a range of people as possible, to participate in our planning system, and our digital reforms are central to this endeavour. We can all agree that in a world in which an increasing emphasis is placed on using digital services and tools by default, those who have to use alternative methods can be at risk of exclusion.

14:45

As I have already said to the Committee, the core purpose of our data standards is to make planning data easier to find, use and trust for everyone. By standardising how information is presented, we can design ways to make the planning system more inclusive than at present. We are actively working with planning authorities to accelerate the adoption of tools to digitally engage communities. We are already working with planning authorities in some of the most deprived housing estates in the country. The PropTech engagement fund is supporting the creation of hybrid digital engagement tools, which aim to provide solutions for digitally excluded people and for public engagement. It is also important to remember that clause 77 is only one part of the picture when protecting against digital exclusion. As has been discussed previously, clause 76 ensures that planning authorities can accept information non-digitally, based on individual circumstances.

I turn now to clause 77. If the concern is that there is potential for digital exclusion around making certain planning data publicly available, the clause does not prevent any other means of publishing information—it does not override any provision allowing or requiring information to be published in other ways. It also cannot authorise the publication of information that would otherwise not be disclosable. The clause simply ensures that accessible and comparable information will be available in a digital format to everyone across the country. Additionally, if the concern is about the means of digital engagement having an impact on digital exclusion, digital engagement will not replace the need for traditional forms of engagement, as currently undertaken by planning authorities. Therefore, those who are not able to engage digitally will still benefit from traditional engagement methods that currently exist.

As a consequence, our view is that the statement envisaged by the amendment would be unnecessary, because the regulations could not, by definition, exacerbate digital exclusion. In the light of this and the reassurance I have given about the attention that the Government are giving to this important issue, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I am glad that he agrees with the spirit of the amendment. As he might expect, I am somewhat disappointed that he has not agreed to the publication of a simple statement addressing how the Government are responding to this serious problem, but I am reassured by his assurances that traditional methods of information publication will not be ruled out by these clauses, and by the various initiatives he has mentioned that are already under way to tackle digital exclusion. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 77, page 87, line 3, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in this section.”

See explanatory statement for NC32.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 32—Duty to provide sufficient resources to local planning authorities for new burdens: planning data—

“(1) The Secretary of State must provide commensurate additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 3.

(2) Where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes in that Chapter, the Secretary of State must provide compensation for this additional cost.”

This new clause, along with Amendment 67, would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by Chapter 1 of Part 3.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Clause 77 provides powers to require certain planning data to be made publicly available. Along with new clause 32, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient additional financial resources to local planning authorities to enable them to implement the changes required by chapter 2 of the Bill and, where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes sought, to ensure that the Secretary of State provides compensation for the additional cost incurred by its replacement. As I argued this morning, although we believe that a series of safeguards are necessary—two of which we have just discussed in relation to amendments 65 and 66—we strongly support the digitisation of the planning system and the introduction of new data standards, reporting requirements and transparency measures as part of that process.  

It stands to reason, however, that a transformation of the kind that the Government are seeking to achieve when it comes to digitising planning will place extra demands on local planning authorities, primarily for their planning departments but also, by definition, for their IT support services. It is therefore important to require that they are provided with additional financial resources and investment. That would be the case irrespective of the current position of local planning authorities when it comes to skills, capacity and resourcing. After all, the kind of change that clauses 75 to 81 seek to facilitate, whether that be the harnessing of new digital technology, new digital engagement processes, or the integration of spatial, environmental and other datasets across England, will by their very nature frequently involve software upgrades as well as investment in other related services.

Yet the need for significant additional investment to meet the new demands that will result from the provisions in chapter 1 is made all the more acute by the parlous present state of local planning authorities when it comes to resources. The Department is well aware of that long-standing problem. For example, it has established a skills and capacity working group to determine what response is required, but precious little urgency is evident. In that respect, will the Minister tell us, when he responds, when the Department intends to publish a skills and capacity strategy and, if so, how much funding will be put behind it?

That answer aside, I am sure the Minister would agree that in general terms the pressures on local planning authorities are acute already. A report published by the National Audit Office in February 2019, entitled “Planning for new homes”, found that between 2010-11 and 2017-18 there was a 37.9% real-terms reduction in net current expenditure on planning functions by local authorities. Even when the income that authorities generated from sales, fees, and charges or transfers from other public authorities was taken into account, the report concluded that total spending on planning had fallen by 14.6% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2017-18, from £1.125 billion to £961 million.

A 2019 research paper published by the Royal Town Planning Institute found much the same, concluding that

“total expenditure on planning by local planning authorities is now just £900 million a year across England. More than half of this is recouped in income (mostly fees), meaning that the total net investment in planning is now just £400 million, or £1.2 million per local authority. This is fifty times less than local authority spending on housing welfare, and twenty times less than estimates of the additional uplift in land values which could be captured for the public during development.”

That same RTPI report also detailed the staggering regional imbalance in funding for planning, finding that the average investment in planning by local authorities in some regions is three times more per inhabitant than in others.

Put simply, as a report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in January of this year put it, there is an “evolving crisis”, with local planning authorities under-resourced and consequently unable to undertake a variety of skilled planning functions effectively.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the amendment. City of York Council has dispensed with the role of the chief planner, so now not only do we not have the skills, but that is really slowing down development. The Government are trying to reach their objectives and to see economic investment, but that just cannot happen without the infrastructure and, crucially, the people in place to see this forward. The amendment is excellent.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which is well made. Not only are local planning authorities overstretched, but they are often outgunned in their relationship with developers and in having that capacity to interrogate properly what is happening in order to get the best deal for local people.

The simplest answer as to why that has happened is a general lack of resourcing for local authorities. At the same time as dealing with budgets cuts, they have had to cope with growing responsibilities, not least in relation to social care. That general lack of resourcing is largely the result of reductions in central Government grants, which have been the most sharply cut component of local government revenue since 2009-10, falling by 37% in real terms between that year and 2019-20, from £41 billion to £26 billion in 2019-20 prices.

We therefore have a situation in which the resources dedicated to planning within local planning authorities—never particularly high by international standards, even before 2010—have fallen dramatically as a result primarily of local authority belt-tightening in response to central Government funding cuts. The Bill does not provide an opportunity to resolve the wider problems of inadequate local authority funding, but we believe—I am certain this is not the only time that we will consider this issue—that any new burdens placed on local planning authorities by this legislation must be adequately resourced and that specific commitments to that end are put on the face of the Bill.

On the new burdens associated with the planning data requirements in the Bill, there are two facets to the argument. First, local planning authorities will need sufficient additional resources to comply with the new work pressures that will be placed on them as a result of the Bill. Without such additional resources, I suspect that many local planning authorities will struggle to comply in practice with the provisions of chapter 1. Without a commitment to new funding, it is not difficult to imagine, to give a practical example, that planning departments in local planning authorities will face a Herculean task to ensure that their already hard-pressed IT services comply with all the new requirements.

Secondly, many local planning authorities will already have purchased software and tools that may ultimately not be approved under the powers provided by clause 78. As such, proposed new clause 32 explicitly specifies that where local planning authorities have made investments in planning data software that is incompatible with the changes sought, the Secretary of State will provide compensation for the additional cost incurred by its replacement.

There is widespread support—if not enthusiasm—in both the public and private sectors for the digital transformation of our planning system. There is also an obvious need to ensure that the requirements in this chapter that will facilitate that transformation can be enacted in a way that will not add further burdens to already overstretched local planning authorities. I trust that the Government accept as much and we will hear from the Minister that he is content to make these changes to the Bill.

[Tim Farron]

This is a good and wise amendment that looks at the additional responsibilities placed on planning departments and how important it is that the Government ensure adequate resourcing for these new functions so that the digitisation of the planning system is performed adequately. It really opens a window on the wider issue that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich rightly highlighted into the staffing, resourcing and competence of planning departments across the country.

The Bill introduces many measures—perhaps many more than some of us would like. How frustrating will it be to developers, proposers, local residents, members of councils and local communities—everyone—if it turns out that the new powers and functions that might come about simply cannot be enacted? We see around the country a reduction in the quality of planning decisions, not because planners are not good people but because there are too few of them.

There is not the capacity for planners to go and spend a semi-formal hour with a potential developer or householder to scope out what may or may not be possible. That would save people putting in an application that was always doomed to fail, or ensure that an application is more likely to be in line with planning policy and the wishes of the local community. We get bad decisions that end up being appealed, which is more expensive for everybody and sucks all the energy out of that planning department when it should be focused on trying to preserve and promote the community’s priorities.

We will have many debates—we have had some already—about what planning provisions should be in the Bill and what powers local communities should have. It will all be pretty meaningless if there is no way whatsoever of ensuring that the new provisions are enforceable.

[Mr Jones]

In considering the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, the Government recognise the need to ensure that planning authorities are well equipped and supported to successfully deliver these reforms. The Department has already adopted a joint approach with local authorities to modernise the planning system. Examples include the work to reduce invalid planning applications, the back-office planning system software projects and our local plans pathfinders.

We will continue to fund and run pathfinders and pilot projects to test and develop the standards, tools, guidance and templates needed by planning authorities. Central to that, we will work with planning authorities to ensure that the reforms and the legislative requirements we are placing on them work as we all want and intend. We therefore agree on the need to support planning authorities. That work is already under way and will continue. I am unconvinced that putting a vague requirement of doubtful enforceability into law would meaningfully add to that commitment.

15:00

New clause 32 also proposes compensation for planning authorities’ expenditure in the event that software is not approved under clause 78. We will touch on clause 78 in more detail shortly. However, it is worth noting that the clause is designed to ensure that the provision of software is compatible with the requirements under the data standards and publication powers, enabling planning authorities to adapt to working in a digital planning system.

The power under clause 78 forms part of and reinforces the joint approach that we are already taking with planning authorities and software suppliers. Its use would therefore follow the setting of data standards, which, as we have discussed, will themselves be introduced gradually. That will all be preceded by further work with planning authorities and software suppliers, in addition to that already under way, to establish realistic implementation timetables and the trialling of new software.

Given the time required for the work, planning authorities will have sufficient notice to prepare for any change. It would therefore be inappropriate to prejudge decisions that we need to make further down the track. Although I can understand the concerns of the hon. Member, I fear that legislating for that requirement could be unhelpful.

I appreciate that my responses are not what the hon. Member would ideally want to receive. Nevertheless, I hope that I have reassured him. As he has rightly pointed out, we have committed to the skills strategy. We are developing a comprehensive strategy to make sure that local authorities are properly equipped to deliver reform and places that the people who live in them can be proud of. We will publish the details of the strategy in due course. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am glad the Minister understands the concerns that the amendment seeks to highlight. I welcome his recognition that local planning authorities need to be well equipped and supported to make the changes. In all honesty, I was not reassured by his answer, which I found to be quite vague. We know that, as has already been said, local planning authorities face real challenges in resourcing new capacity. That is a pre-existing problem. They are being given a set of new responsibilities and there has been no reassurance that we will get any additional financing for those new burdens. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but we will come back to the issue of adequate financial resourcing for some of the changes that the Bill seeks to enact many times during its passage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

The planning information that is currently published is often difficult to access, inconsistently presented and hard to use, limiting its wider usefulness. Clause 77, in combination with clause 75, changes that by requiring standardised information to be openly available to anyone for free. The Secretary of State will set the licence under which the information is to be published and regulations will specify the information to which the requirements apply. There is a limitation on the information that may be made available to ensure that sensitive data, such as where the planning authority has an obligation of confidence or where data protection legislation applies, cannot be subject to the regulations.

We believe opening planning data will drive greater productivity and efficiency levels across the housing, planning and land sectors, which will deliver significant benefits to a wider range of groups. Benefits include time savings, the development of new tools, and increasing accessibility to the information required for decision making.

Without accessible planning information, both local and central Government cannot make faster, better-informed decisions to meet the needs of local communities and understand national demands and challenges. Likewise, the development of innovative digital tools and services that better engage communities and allow planners to work more productively is hampered.

Open, consistent and comparable planning information will unlock a more transparent planning system where communities can better understand, contribute to and, as a result, have greater confidence in planning for their areas. I therefore commend the clause to the committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

Power to require use of approved planning data software in England

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 68, in clause 78, page 87, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) On the day any regulations under this section are laid before Parliament the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement setting out—

(a) the reasons why the planning data software in question has not been approved for use by the Secretary of State,

(b) the steps that the Government has taken to ensure that the decision not to approve the planning data software in question does not undermine effective competition in the procurement of planning data software in England.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a statement explaining why the provisions in this section were used to restrict or prevent the use of planning data software and setting out the steps taken to avoid the creation of a Government-granted monopoly in planning data software.

Clause 78 permits the use of regulations to restrict or prohibit relevant planning authorities from using software not approved by the Secretary of State. We have just considered one possible adverse outcome of the use of these powers, namely that local planning authorities who have purchased software and tools may find that in the future they are not approved for use and that their investment has been made redundant as a result. However, we are concerned that another adverse consequence might potentially flow from the use of the powers and that is the limitation of fair and open competition among software providers.

Amendment 68 would add to clause 78 a requirement that on the day any regulations under the clause are laid, the Secretary of State must publish an accompanying statement setting out, first, the reasons why the planning data software in question has not been approved for use and, secondly, the steps that the Government have taken to ensure that the decision not to approve does not undermine effective competition in the procurement of planning data software in England.

The effect of the amendment would not be to prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the powers in clause 78 but simply to ensure that the holder of that office properly justifies their use and has due regard to the need to maintain healthy market competition. The reasoning behind the amendment is that as benign as the provisions in clause 78 might appear to be, in the sense that taken at face value they are merely a means of rolling out new data standards and enforcing standardisation, they could, deliberately or inadvertently, create a Government-granted oligopoly or monopoly in planning data software. We believe the Government should be clear that the intention of the powers is not to foster an oligopolistic or even, dare I say, a monopolistic market in planning data software.

I appreciate fully that the Government are bound by public procurement rules, albeit ones that they intend to overhaul by means of the Procurement Bill that is progressing through the other place, and that within the general procurement framework there is a specific set of rules and handbooks for technology procurement. However, the powers in clause 78 strike us as so expansive, enabling Ministers by regulation to restrict or prevent the use or creation of software used by planning authorities to process planning data, that a further check to their use is required.

Assuming the Government do not wish to fetter rigorous competition in the planning data software market, amendment 68 should be an easy one for the Minister to accept and I hope to hear that he will do so.

[Mr Jones]

We wholeheartedly support the principle embodied by the amendment, although I think there may be a slight misunderstanding about the mechanics of clause 78. Clause 78 aims to ensure planning authorities are supported by modern software that complies with the requirements created by our digital reforms. We will set out clear criteria that the Secretary of State must then apply in deciding whether to approve any given software to which the regulations apply.

The expectations of the Secretary of State will therefore be public and clear before any software is submitted. Likewise, the reasoning of the Secretary of State’s decision to grant or withhold approval will necessarily be the compliance with those criteria. In that context, a statement on individual software decisions would be superfluous and could risk inappropriately disclosing commercially sensitive information. That could, for example, deter submission for approval, undermining the intention of the provision.

That brings me to the second aspect of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich’s amendment—the statement about the effect on competition in the software market. Regulations could not lawfully be made, nor could decisions lawfully be taken, under that power with the aim of conferring a monopoly. The Secretary of State cannot use the powers other than impartially between software suppliers to foster the innovative market our reforms are designed to achieve. The criteria for approval will be informed and refined by continuing—and continual—work with planning authorities and software suppliers on trial planning software. We have, for example, already funded planning authorities for the creation of new software and supported programmes for local authorities to improve their existing development management software.

We have started to engage with the technology sector through local authority-led pilots and pathfinders. We will continue to engage meaningfully with them and others to establish a realistic adoption timetable for any planning data software that the Secretary of State may wish to approve for use by planning authorities. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to allow him to withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I note that he only said that the clause would prevent the advent of a monopoly and not an oligopoly. I still worry, reading the text of the Bill, that we could inadvertently find that the Government restrict what software can be used by local authorities. That said, I welcome the clarification and reassurances that the Minister has provided. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

We have already discussed some aspects of the clause in relation to amendment 68. Many planning authorities are reliant on outdated and expensive software and systems that do not work with one another, forcing manual re-entry of information while locking that information away in formats that are not reusable. Clause 78 allows the Secretary of State to change that entrenched status quo. Without the right software to support processing standardised data, the benefits from the chapter across the planning system will be thwarted.

Clause 78 relies upon, and will therefore follow from, the introduction of data standards set under clause 75. Those data standards will take time to develop. The aim of our reforms is to create a virtuous circle whereby better software enables better information to be published, which in turn allows better tools to be developed for planning authorities. As such, it is not our intention to require approval for all planning data software. We will work with planning authorities and the technology sector to determine where and when the use of that power will most benefit the planning system. The clause enables the creation of the effective, high-quality system that the public rightly expect of Government at all levels. I commend clause 78 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 78 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79

Disclosure of planning data does not infringe copyright in certain cases

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 80 and 81 stand part.

[Mr Jones]

The Government want to encourage innovation in the property technology sector. That is one of the key benefits expected from opening planning information to the public. The clause provides a narrow expansion of the existing protections against copyright infringement by planning authorities for the purposes of their statutory role in planning functions. It is primarily intended to put the position beyond doubt that any use of planning information by planning authorities and software developers in developing or maintaining software to comply with approval requirements under clause 78 does not infringe copyright. The clause is grounded in and maintains the existing scheme for the protection of copyright that allows the use of copyright works for statutory purposes. It does not prejudice the rights and protections afforded to copyrighted works, and supports the innovation for planning authorities that we all want to see. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

15:15

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a few questions for the Minister about the three clauses. Clause 79 provides that a local planning authority that makes planning data available to a person does not, in doing so, infringe copyright if making the data available is necessary for certain purposes such as the development of planning data software. Will the Minister explain the rationale for restricting the circumstances where planning data will not be in breach of copyright solely to those purposes set out in subsections (1)(a) and (b)? Will he also comment on whether he foresees any other circumstances where it may be desirable for copyright to be limited, for example in relation to academic research?

Clause 80 stipulates that the Secretary of State may only make planning data regulations that contain provision within devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly after consultation. I presume—the Minister can correct me—that legislative consent is not required for the provisions, but perhaps he could clarify what engagement his Department has had with the devolved Administrations about the planning data aspects of the Bill.

Finally, clause 81 provides definitions of key terms. Will the Minister confirm that the definition of relevant planning authority to include any public body with functions relating to

“planning or development in England”,

as laid out in paragraph (n)(i), covers community and parish councils, and neighbourhood planning forums? If so, what support, if any, will they be provided with to ensure that any plans or priority statements they produce conform with the regulations, given they are generally voluntary organisations?

[Mr Jones]

On the point about devolving planning to neighbourhood planning level, I expect that support will be provided by local planning authorities in that regard.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the type of copyright material that is in scope of infringement protection. Any information with the purpose of approving and maintaining or upgrading the planning software that falls under the definition of the planning data defined within the Bill, in which copyright subsists, is in scope of the power. One such example is architectural drawings, where the planning authorities are required to consult on new proposed developments.

The hon. Gentleman raised one other point. I am not able to confirm at the moment but will certainly write to him about the discussions that my predecessor has had with the devolved Administrations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 79 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 80 and 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Development plans: content

[Rachael Maskell]

I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 82, page 91, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) After subsection (4) insert—

‘(4A) A local planning authority must review and update the development plan no less regularly than once every five years.’”.

This amendment would require local authorities to review and update the development plan at least every five years.

This is a probing amendment and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. York has not had a local plan for 76 years—that is another issue that will no doubt come across the Minister’s desk—and I am trying to work through why that has been the case. There has often been a complex and rapidly changing political context in the city.

We seem to talk about local plans, development plans, minerals and waste plans, transport plans and so on as events, rather than in the context of a place’s evolution. Therefore, if there is a 10-year period—or even longer in the case of York—between plans being updated, the task is so great that it can be very challenging indeed. Thinking about how we can get some sequencing and timelines for how data is produced and how development and supplementary plans are put in place could improve the process.

I have some observations about why it has not worked in York and about the task ahead. For our city, the situation has presented many challenges because developers have taken advantage. It has caused a lot of difficulty over the years, but it has also dominated the political environment and destabilised our city, rather than stabilised the way forward.

I want to touch on the supplementary plans, which feed into the data, and to think about the pace at which things are moving forward. The local transport plan, which feeds into our development plan, dates back to 2011, and the data was gathered two years earlier, so it is already 13 years out of date. That is informing the local plan, which is being discussed with the inspectors is this week. Thirteen years ago, we did not have micromobility, e-scooters and e-bikes. Electric vehicles were not really a thing and bus services were very different. Even our major roads have changed over that time, and we have seen deepening congestion of late.

We now know that climate pressures are bearing heavily on our environment, whether in respect of housing, economic development or transport infrastructure. Anybody who was at the briefing yesterday with Sir Patrick Vallance will understand how pressing it is that we address the climate issue at this moment. Leaving plans for too long could mean that they are not responsive to the call of our time, particularly on climate issues. They will also not recognise the changing environment we are in. I have to hand it to the Government: some of the things they are putting forward on national infrastructure and housing are ambitious. Whether they can deliver is another question altogether, but they are certainly putting out a rapid change, and we need to reflect that in our planning system.

A supplementary plan that is 13 years out of date is not responsive to the logjams that we see in York today—the increase in the volume of traffic and the consequences of that on our air quality—and developments that have happened. We have an outline plan for the York Central site, with 6,500 jobs and 2,500 dwellings. We are talking about placing this new city within York in the middle of our old medieval city, as well as the infrastructure routes feeding into it, but with transport planning that is 13 years out of date, we will rapidly see that bringing all those cars into the city centre will just create a car park. Therefore, it is not responsive enough to the reality of what we are doing. At rush hour, York will come to a complete standstill, yet these supplementary plans are meant to inform what is happening.

I could talk about environmental plans and what is happening on flooding. Fortunately, we have been putting in mitigation to address the flooding challenges in our city, but the Environment Agency tells me that we have 17 years until we are challenged again, unless upstream infrastructure is put in place and we take water out of the rivers, improve soil quality and so on. We really need to think about the rapid changes and pressing issues that we face.

Therefore, we need some time. I put five years as a suggested time period for us to start thinking about how we move on to the next stage of our planning. That is why it is a probing amendment. I am trying to build a culture in our planning system of a thinking process, as opposed to having rigid timetables.

Our major routes around York will have an impact on the way traffic flows in our city, whether it is the dualling of the ring road or the widening of some of the A roads—not in my constituency but on the outside of York. At the same time, we have a city centre that has been declared car-free. That will have a massive impact too, with blue badge holders being locked out of their city. We have changes of routes through various parts of the city, building pressure and volume on some of the core routes through York.

It is important to recognise the pace of the change that is occurring and to think about how we can best address that in the planning system. We can do that through a timetable, and that is why I have said it is a probing amendment. We have to start addressing what is happening on the planet around us in the context of planning. In particular, I am thinking about scheduling and the evolution approach, as opposed to this being an event. It certainly will be an event in York if we do get that local plan over the line. [Laughter.] I am sure the Minister will want to come and celebrate with us all at that moment.

A conversation is needed about planning and about how we bring together our supplementary plans—our minerals and waste plan, and our local transport plan—in sequence for a local plan process. More thinking needs to be done. I thought it was necessary to table an amendment to make that point today and to see how the Minister responds, because this may be something we want to explore at later stages of the Bill.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central on making a strong case for her amendment. The problem she highlights is a very real one—that of out-of-date plans based on out-of-date data and analysis. The Opposition believe that local development plans are vital ways that communities can shape and agree a vision for future development in their area and properly account for the specific housing, employment and infrastructure needs within them. We want to see the proportion of England covered by a local plan increase. We believe it is important that each plan should evolve over time to take into account changing circumstances affecting the area in question, whether it be changes in the level of housing need or new infrastructure requirements.

Paragraph 33 of the national planning policy framework makes it clear that:

“Policies in local plans and spatial development strategies should be reviewed to assess whether they need updating at least once every five years, and should then be updated as necessary.”

I appreciate the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central that this aspect of national guidance should be put on a statutory footing in the Bill. We are certainly sympathetic to that, and I hope the Minister responds to her amendment favourably, with the proviso that, as with so many other measures in the Bill, sufficient resources flow down to local authority planning departments to enable them to carry out a review and an updating exercise at least once every five years, given how onerous a task it is to prepare a local plan or to revise it.

[Tim Farron]

I, too, think this is an important amendment, as it allows us to get a sense of how important the Government consider development plans to be and what support they will give communities to not just have them, but ensure that they mean something. In Cumbria, both at local authority level and in the national parks, we consider development plans to be important. Not having a development plan means basically sub-letting it to the market. The reality is that the developers decide what gets built in people’s communities. We end up seeing development for demand, not for need. In a community like ours—pretty much anything can be built in the lakes and the dales in Cumbria and there would be a market for it—we do not get the buildings that are needed to meet the requirements of a community that will otherwise dissipate, and is doing so.

I suspect one reason a number of authorities are reluctant to have a development plan, or are not as committed to having one as they might be, is that they often think they are not enforceable. Very often, a development plan will outline the priorities in a community. I mentioned earlier the Yorkshire Dales national park authority boldly saying only the other week that it wants to ensure that every new development needs to be 100% for permanent occupancy. That is a brilliant endeavour, which I totally support, but there is a great deal of doubt as to whether the authority will ever be able to enforce it. In fact, I think we all know that it will not be able to do so, unless the Government were to change the law through this or some other process.

15:30

Likewise, in South Lakeland, we set aside land to ensure that a development near Grange-over-Sands had a significant number of affordable houses. Not to make light of this, but the developers arrived at the site, turned over a bit of turf, found a few rocks underneath and—surprise, surprise—said, “We can’t afford to do this after all.” We tried to push them to deliver the viability assessment, but they got out of building all but two affordable houses on the development, which is not acceptable.

Development plans are important because they are a defence against the untrammelled market and give a community some sense of control—or sovereignty, if you like—over its land, but they are not foolproof or failsafe. They do not give ultimate power to the local community and are often riddled with holes. That is not the fault of the local planning authority or the local community; it is because the Government do not give communities the power to make sure that development plans come to pass. The Government need to address that very seriously.

[Mr Jones]

It is extremely important that local planning authorities ensure that policies in their plans remain up to date, so that they can effectively address the needs of local communities. We have certainly heard one example where the policy is not just out of date; it sounds like it has not been in date for some decades. That causes significant challenges, as has been outlined by the hon. Members for York Central and for Westmorland and Lonsdale.

In the current system, local planning authorities are required to review their plans once every five years from their adoption, as is set out in regulation 10A of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. We have made it clear in the Bill’s policy paper that we intend to require, through regulations, authorities to update their local plans at least every five years. Although I fully understand the spirit of the amendment, these are procedural matters that have traditionally been addressed via regulations, and we intend to retain that principle. I therefore ask the hon. Member for York Central not to press her amendment to a vote.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful for the debate and for the Minister’s response. We all recognise the importance of development plans and supplementary plans in shaping our communities. Ultimately, we want the best for our communities and to make sure that providers that have profit in mind do not come and take advantage of an area, which is why such plans are really important. We must ensure that they are timely and kept up to date, and that they are of great use in shaping the future. Therefore, having a process whereby we start to think more about the evolution of our communities, as opposed to five-year or 10-year events that we have to race around to prepare for, is really important.

To get a different culture in planning, we need sufficiency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, we need to ensure that the resourcing is there for local authorities to do a proper job at planning, because if they can build a robust local plan and some of the supplementary plans, it protects them. It also protects their community and enables them to drive change—something I think we all want to see.

As I said, however, I tabled amendment 117 as a probing amendment. I am grateful for the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

The Government want the planning system to be truly plan-led, to give communities more certainty that the right homes will be built in the right places. To achieve that, plans will be given more weight in decision making. They will be faster to produce and easier to navigate and understand. Currently, communities and applicants can face an alphabet soup of planning documents, leaving all but the most seasoned planning professionals pretty baffled.

The clause provides an important change to the definition of the development plan set out in section 38(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It outlines the elements that, collectively, will comprise the development plan for any given area of land. It replaces the terminology used to describe constituent documents to align with that used in schedule 7 to the Bill, as introduced by clause 87. It paves the way for a system without local development documents, local development frameworks, area action plans, and local plan part 1s and part 2s. Instead, we will have a simpler approach, with specific references to neighbourhood plans, local plans, spatial development strategies, supplementary plans, and minerals and waste plans, as defined in schedule 7.

That change will leave communities and applicants in no doubt about which are the key planning documents for an area, and will lay the foundation for the later reforms of the planning system through this Bill. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83

Role of development plan and national policy in England

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 83, page 91, line 28, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—

“(5C) But the development plan has precedence over any national development management policy in the event of any conflict between the two.”

This amendment gives precedence to local development plans over national policies, reversing the current proposal in inserted subsection (5C).

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 57, in clause 83, page 91, line 30, leave out “national development management policy” and insert “the development plan”.

This amendment would require any conflict between a local development plan and a national development management strategy to be resolved in favour of the local development plan.

[Matthew Pennycook]

In moving to chapter 2 of part 3, “Development plans and national policy”, we confront an altogether more contentious set of issues than planning data, as the new Minister will be acutely aware.

Let me start by making it clear that, in general terms, we welcome efforts to strengthen development plans. Building on clause 82, which updates existing definitions and references to provisions in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to reflect changes proposed in the Bill, clause 83 makes amendments to that Act in two important ways relating to development plans.

First, proposed new subsection (5B) provides that any determination of a planning matter under the planning Acts must be made in accordance with the development plan and any new national development management policies, unless

“material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.

In other words, departures from a plan will require stronger reasons than at present, thereby giving residents more confidence that plans will be adhered to and that any safeguards woven into the fabric of such plans will be respected. That is an entirely sensible measure, and we fully support it.

Secondly, however, that measure is immediately undermined by proposed new subsection (5C), which stipulates that at the point an individual planning application is determined, if there is any conflict between a formulated development plan and any new national development management policy that the Government might introduce,

“the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”

The Bill makes it plain that we are not talking only about significant conflicts between local and neighbourhood plans and national development management policies.

Proposed new subsection (5C) is clear that conflict “to any extent” must be resolved in favour of national policy. That is a far more problematic measure that the sensible strengthening of plans provided for by proposed new subsection (5B), in that it clearly accords precedence and a large measure of control to the national over the local. The result is that, in the clause, the Government are giving with one hand while taking away with the other, making it harder to deviate from the local development plan at the same time as giving themselves powers to exert greater control over them.

The amendment would replace proposed new subsection (5C) and, in doing so, reverse the proposition currently in the Bill by making it clear that the development plan would have precedence over any national development management policy in the event of any conflict between the two. We believe that that is one of the most essential changes required in revising the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I explain why in some detail.

The Government contend that the creation of national development measurement policies will help to make local plans simpler and easier to produce by providing greater certainty on the question of whether policies in any individual development plan are consistent with national policy. There is a glaring paradox there, however, because to simplify all local plans sufficiently, NDMPs would have to cover an extensive range of issues in enough detail to be readily applicable to the huge diversity of local circumstances found across England. If they do ultimately cover the broad range of diverse policies that apply “in most areas”—as the policy paper suggests they will—they risk becoming meaningless.

Nor is it clear how NDMPs will actually enable the Government to prevent local planning authorities from duplicating large swathes of national policy in local plans. We should bear in mind that the national planning policy framework already instructs local planning authorities not to duplicate national policy, but most authorities—understandably—like to make it clear how national policies apply to their local area, which highlights the fact that one person’s duplication is another person’s tailoring to local circumstances.

When the Minister responds, could he explain—referring back to the debate we had earlier today—whether duplication of national policy in development plans is an issue that the Government believe can be addressed by the processing of planning data as provided for by chapter 1? Are clauses 75 to 81 intended, in part, to be a means of making local plans shorter? I struggle to see how NDMPs will, in and of themselves, lead to a simplification of local planning.

In any case, when it comes to local plans, the laudable objective of simplicity and certainty should not also require that development plans be subordinate to national policy, as clause 83(2)(5C) clearly renders them in the event of any conflict between the two. The Committee might wonder why such subordination is problematic, because should national policy not be clearly set by central Government, with local planning authorities given no discretion whatever to depart from it? Well, I would make two points in response.

First, we have absolutely no idea from the Bill, from the accompanying notes, or from the non-existent impact assessment, what might be covered by a national development management policy in future, other than that they are likely to relate to policies that, as set out in the policy paper, “apply in most areas”. The fact that none of us knows what future NDMPs might cover is deeply problematic.

As Victoria Hills, the Royal Town Planning Institute chief executive, put it to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee on Monday 20 June:

“As I sit before you today I could not tell you if 20%, 50% or 80% of local plans are due to be nationalised.”

That is an incredibly concerning state of affairs given the powers provided for by clause 84, which we will come to next, and it should trouble every member of the Committee.

The new Minister is a diligent parliamentarian, and I know that he will have read his brief over the weekend. I fully expect him to stand up and argue that the concerns expressed across the House about this matter are misplaced; that there is no need to worry because NDMPs will only ever relate to areas of policy that are naturally and incontrovertibly matters for national decision making; and that there are already legal protections in place that simply need to be interpreted for planning—policy relating to aspects of the protection of heritage assets, for example.

However, I say gently to the Minister, who I am incredibly fond of, that he will not be around forever. Indeed, as things stand, he is unlikely to make it past early September. Even if he does, on the basis of the average tenure of a Housing Minister under Conservative-led Governments since 2010, whoever replaces him will, by my reckoning, have until the summer of next year before they are also moved on. I am afraid that any personal reassurances that Ministers might offer—as the now previous Secretary of State did, including to the Select Committee—count for little. What matters is what the legislation says, and it offers us no guide to what will be covered by NDMPs.

Let us take as an example a particularly contentious area of policy: the green belt. Will rules on development in the green belt be the subject of an NDMP? If so, what will they specify? At the moment, we have no idea. That matters for the simple reason that there are no limits in the Bill on the scope of the national development management policies; the legislation enables them to be about anything that is common to most areas, which brings me to my second point.

As the Bill specifies no limit to what might be covered by an NDMP, there is potentially no corresponding limit to central interference in areas previously considered to be firmly within the preserve of local decision making. There is therefore no certainty whatever that the changes proposed will mean that local plans will deal with local problems, and national policy will deal with national problems.

15:44

It is worth pausing and considering just how radical a departure from the status quo proposed new subsection (5C) of clause 83 is. Its effect is clearly not to afford national policy equal status to the development plan. Indeed, in a response dated 30 June to a letter from the Chair of the Select Committee, the former Secretary of State acknowledged that NDMPs “would have precedence”. It is therefore not the case, as some have argued, that the measures in the clause simply have the effect of ensuring that national guidance matters as much in local planning decisions as rules contained in a local plan. If the Bill passes unamended, such guidance will matter more.

As things stand, national policy is set out in the national planning policy framework, and it is a material consideration throughout the entirety of the planning process. However, as much as it is implied by various provisions in various pieces of legislation, there is no statutory provision for the scope or legal weight of national policy; it is simply guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

As such, while the NPPF has to be considered alongside the development plan, while developments plans have to be seen to be consistent with the NPPF to be approved in examination, and while NPPF guidance has to be taken into account when determining individual planning applications, it is all policy rather than law. As such, it is extremely influential but accordance with it is not required by statute and, as a result, when there are good reasons to set aside particular elements of NPPF guidance, that can be done in an entirely lawful manner if adequately justified. In short, it is possible under the existing system to bring forward a local plan that departs in some ways from the NPPF.

In contrast, clause 83 will ensure that element of discretion is lost. It is therefore not correct to assert, again as the previous the Secretary of State did several times over recent months in the Chamber and to the Select Committee, that national policy already supersedes local discretion in a number of areas. And if it were the case, then what precisely is the rationale for national development management policies? Why not simply continue to utilise the NPPF as at present or, if its legal status is the problem, put it clearly on a statutory footing?

The reason is that what is proposed in clause 83 is a wholly different proposition from the current application of the NPPF. The clause says that areas of policy covered by NDMPs, which again I stress the Bill as drafted allows to be about almost anything, will not only have legal status but will trump local development plans in any instance there is found to be a conflict. That is what the Bill plainly says, and it is a very significant change from the current relationship of the NPPF and local development plans because it represents a radical centralisation of planning decision-making and a corresponding erosion of local control in a way that threatens to transform what is currently a local plan-led system into a national policy-led system.

It is firmly the view of the Opposition that the effect of the provisions in this clause fundamentally alter the status and remit of local planning and that that is deeply problematic—not because local is always and invariably best in every instance, but because giving NDMPs legal primacy over local plans could have a number of potentially damaging consequences. These include the stifling of local innovation on issues such as affordable housing, energy efficiency and nature conservation in cases where local planning authorities seek to be more ambitious than nationally determined policy; the erosion of local democratic control of, engagement in and scrutiny of the planning process in a way that further damages public trust and confidence in the planning system; the very real potential for significant legal delays where conflict between development plans and national policies is contested; and the prospect that new devolution deals will be undermined as a result of local leaders being prevented from exercising discretion over development management policies in way that would better stimulate growth.

Responding to the concerns that have been raised about the effect of these provisions on local planning in recent evidence he gave to the Select Committee, the previous Secretary of State urged the House to wait for the publication of the NPPF prospectus in July

“to make judgments about whether the protections”

That the Government intend to put in place “are sufficient”. However, we do not have that prospectus today, and even if we did, the policies it sets out would in no way be binding, so we must arrive at a judgment based on the text of the legislation.

On the basis that the Bill provides unlimited scope for what is to be covered by national development management policies and that it accords those policies both legal status and primacy over local development plans, we believe clause 83 represents an unacceptable centralisation of development management policy that will afford communities no protection from central interference in what is currently locally decided planning policy.

We absolutely recognise the need for national planning policy in a number of discrete areas but there is a fundamental difference between the freedom for local planning authorities to diverge within strict parameters and dictating what local planning authorities must do in any area of policy that Ministers see fit. Unless and until the Government clearly delineate, on the face of the Bill, the limits to what can be covered by a national development management policy and constrain the scope of such policies to override local development plans, we believe proposed new subsection (5C) should be removed from the Bill.

The Government clearly know that they have a problem here: concerns about this matter were raised by a significant number of hon. Members on Second Reading, including a great many on the Government Benches. As attested to by amendment 57, in the names of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and the hon. Members for Buckingham and for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), it is not just this side of the Committee that is seeking to force the Government’s hand on this matter. I therefore hope to hear from the Minister that the Government are minded to substantially overhaul the clause, even if they will not accept our amendment.

[Tim Farron]

This is an important amendment, as is the one in the name of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I will not go into a great amount of detail on this matter as we talked in earlier debates about the motivation for devolution. Who is it for? I am hoping to be persuaded otherwise, but my suspicion is that the legislation is mostly about trying to make local government a more efficient agency. What we really ought to be talking about is developing and delivering greater levels of power and control to local communities. Who is the Bill for? Who are development plans for? Is this even devolution, or is it just a form of delegation—tidying up the process to help Whitehall?

Plans have to mean something. One of the reasons I suspect some authorities do not have the plans that they should have, or that their plans are not as up to date as they ought to be, is that there is a lack of confidence in them. As we said earlier, there is a belief among communities that: “We may set out our priorities, but they will be overridden because they are in conflict with national policy, or the Government simply will not stand with us as a local community if we seek to enforce zero-carbon homes, to maximise the number of affordable homes being built or to ensure that infrastructure is provided for developments before they are made.”

There will be some who say, “If you give local communities the ultimate power over development plans, things won’t happen at all.” I think that is baloney. The evidence is that that is not true. If we give communities the ability to specify and enforce their priorities—for example, for the huge majority of homes being built to be affordable and zero-carbon, and to have the infrastructure provided for them in advance—we will find that those communities are much more likely to be willing to play ball in the first place. It is the opposite of nimbyism. I can name sites in Coniston, Hawkshead and Grasmere where people have fought to get hold of sites to provide affordable homes, because they were given agency. They were in the national park, where there was more power as a consequence.

That is why this question is important. Do we want to see the Bill as being about empowering local government, and therefore national Government having to step back and genuinely trust communities? Or are the Government going to simply see the Bill as an opportunity to exert more control, just in a slightly more efficient way? If the Government refuse amendments at least of this sort, then we will know that the Bill is not about devolution, but delegation, and that it is not for the communities or for levelling up, but for the convenience of Whitehall.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I will not take up much of the Committee’s time on this issue, because we have already explored many of the key points that go to the nub of why these two amendments—57, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, which I have been happy to sign and support; and 86, in the name of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—are so essential.

I spoke on Second Reading to say that the Bill was fundamentally good, but that it needed some considerable polishing. This section of the Bill is one of those elements that, in my opinion, just has to change. None of the points I am going to make will come as any surprise to the Minister, given that, up to four days ago, he was my Whip—he has heard it all before. I do not doubt the cartwheels of delight across Nuneaton when the Minister, having been relieved of whipping me, found himself on the Bill Committee, where there are indeed a number of amendments that I have supported or tabled myself.

This group of amendments goes to the heart of whether we are serious about localism and the principles of subsidiary, or whether the default position is still “Whitehall knows best.” There are countless examples of developments across my constituency—this is before I even get on to High Speed 2—where the local council has said no, parish councils and town councils have said no, and the case against them has stacked up with the local plan, be it in the former Wycombe district or the former Aylesbury Vale district. They have even contravened the NPPF.

However, by the time those developments have got to the inspector, the rubber stamp has come down in the opposite direction. As the shadow Minister said, it is already a problem, and I fear that the clause will seek only to bake and lock into the legislation the ability—no matter the cause or the reason and no matter how strongly a community, neighbourhood, parish, town, borough or metropolitan authority feels—of Whitehall to come down and impose a different will on those neighbourhoods and communities.

I give the example of the village of Ickford in my constituency, which is to the very west of Buckinghamshire on the border with Oxfordshire. Every single person in that village knew that that land currently under development floods—not once in a blue moon, but four or five times every autumn and winter. The people who back on to that land know that it floods, because it floods their back gardens, too. The people who drive through that village know that it floods, because the roads flood when that field floods. Locally, that development from Deanfield Homes was turned down because, among other reasons, the land floods. By the time the inspector got his hands on it, it was approved with a peculiar statement that the development had a chance of flooding once every 100 years. Within days of that judgment being passed—guess what? The land had indeed flooded. I know, because I stood in it, and the water lapped up to the top of my Wellington boots.

I give that as an example of why local control and decision making must have primacy in planning, because local people, local councils, local parishes and towns—or whatever tier of local government—actually know what happens in their own back yard. They understand it. They see and feel and breathe and touch the problems that any proposed developments could come across. Therefore, as we look to the summer recess and to coming back in September to finish the Bill’s passage through Committee before it gets to Report, I really urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the real implications of baking into the Bill the position that national planning policy can overrule local people’s decision making.

If we are serious about making the Bill truly about localism, we need to seriously amend clause 83. As the great Ronald Reagan once said:

“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

I really do not mind which amendment is chosen, because fundamentally they do the same thing, but I urge the Minister please to reflect on this serious, fundamental point that underpins the Bill and to see if we can find a better way of ensuring that it is local decisions that are made, and not with national overriding.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Buckingham, and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments. Ultimately the clause comes with an air of arrogance from the Government. I am not looking at the Minister on that as I appreciate he is new in post, but it says to a community, “We, as Government, know best.” I think back to a few years ago, when many of us were involved in the debate about fracking, which was being imposed on our communities. We fought back on those measures. Fracking would clearly have impacted on the environmental and climate situation we are facing. That was a fight from within communities to protect themselves. The communities knew best about the impact that would have.

16:00

We should think about where that debate has gone over the subsequent years. If the national development management policy covered the area of fracking—I say “if” because the real problem is that we do not know what will be in scope—we can see that a detriment would have been created. There are many more examples that I could give.

Although I obviously understand why the Government want to control everything—it is in the nature of Governments to suck in powers to themselves—the reality is that the Government will forever be in a tug-of-war with the communities of our country. The Government should be thinking about co-production and working with communities, as opposed to fighting them. Listening to the heartbeat of our country—the people who live in those areas and know those communities so well—is really important. Therefore, I find it slightly obtuse that we are being asked to accept a clause on national development management policies and where they sit in the hierarchy of powers when we do not have the tight definition required to understand what that will achieve.

I therefore ask the Minister to reflect on that hierarchy of authority in the planning system and where those powers should really sit, because such reflection would give the Government the opportunity to think about how to work better with communities to ensure there is a win-win, as opposed to a tug-of-war that we all know will end up in the courts. That will be expensive and time consuming, and will create a lot of anger. That could be avoided if some of these provisions, such as clause 83, were reviewed, and the Government tabled amendments, perhaps after the recess or on Report, to placate some of that feeling and build a stronger planning system and a stronger outcome for communities.

I considered High Speed 2 as the shadow Minister at the time, and I understand why the Government want to have an upper hand on some of the planning decisions. However, we have seen what has happened with HS2, particularly in Yorkshire, in that we are not seeing a continuity. But a very suitable, alternative plan has been put forward by communities, which would have dealt with many of the challenges that Government were trying to wrestle with behind the scenes. That listening by a Government is important. We do not hear or see enough listening by Governments. We see a lot of telling, and actually, that is not what our communities want. They want respect and dignity.

The amendments provide an opportunity for the Government to really have a think. Earlier in the Bill, we were talking about new layers of authority, particularly with the county combined authorities, and giving them more responsibility. But if CCAs are created and do not have a real voice, what is the purpose of that additional tier of governance? Of course, planning is the most important thing that any authority deals with in building for the future and meeting community needs. I trust that the Minister has heard the deep cries from all of our communities across the House, and will give this issue some significant reflection in order to put us in a better place for a stronger planning system.

[Mr Jones]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions on the amendments. It has been a somewhat lively debate. I will miss the conversations that I have had week on week with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, but I am sure that those calls from me to him will now turn into calls from him to me as he pursues me, probably weekly if not on a more frequent basis.

The amendments, which aim to make the same change to clause 83—namely, to ensure that development plan policies always take precedence over national development management policies—come from the collective commitment of the hon. Members for Nottingham North and for Greenwich and Woolwich to support local democracy in planning. However, it is the Government’s view that it would be counterproductive to amend the Bill as proposed. Clause 83 reforms decision making, strengthens the role of the development plan, including local plans and neighbourhood plans, in practice. It states that the relevant decisions, for example, on planning applications will only be able to depart from the development plan where

“material considerations strongly indicate otherwise”.

It would no longer be enough for those other considerations merely to “indicate otherwise”, something that can be exploited to override local decisions. This will be the biggest change to the basis of planning decision making since the early 1990s, and will ensure local and neighbourhood plans have greater primacy.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I am curious as to whether the Minister can give us an example of what will be designated a national development management policy?

[Mr Jones]

I am not in the position to give the hon. Lady that example today. As she knows, such policies are often developed through the process of making primary legislation, and then are developed beyond the process we have before us today. I take her comment.

As part of the reform, we are also introducing statutory national development management policies. Those policies would sit alongside those in local plans when relevant planning decisions are made, with clear statutory weight. National development management policies will be primarily those nationally important policies used for making decisions. The hon. Member for South Shields should note that a current example is green belt protection.

There are several reasons why we think national development management policies are an important and positive reform. First, they will make it easier for local authorities to produce their local plans. By dealing with universal planning considerations nationally and giving them the same weight as the plan, local authorities will no longer need to repeat those matters to ensure they have sufficient force.

Secondly, introducing national development management policies means that local plans can focus on matters of genuine local importance to communities—saving time and money for authorities, and making plans more locally relevant and easier to use. Thirdly, it will be easier for applicants to align their proposals with national and local policy requirements—something which we expect to be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized builders.

Fourthly, it will provide greater assurance that important policy safeguards that apply nationally, or to significant parts of England, such as protections for areas at risk of flooding, policy on climate change, and policies to protect the green belt, will be upheld with statutory weight and applied quickly across the country, including when any changes are made.

That brings me to the heart of the issue outlined by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about the national development management policy taking precedence over local plans. It is extremely important to reiterate that where we have local plans that become very out of date, it is important that the protections set out in national policy continue to be reflected in the decisions.

Finally, this framework of basic national policies can guide relevant planning decisions if a local plan is significantly out of date and cannot be relied upon in certain respects. Introducing national development management policies and giving them statutory weight is, therefore, important to creating much greater clarity around the role of national policy in decisions. Increasing this clarity is crucial to reducing the number of planning appeals local authorities face, and therefore reducing the number of unanticipated developments communities face on their doorstep as a result. That point has been made a number of times this afternoon. That clarity also reduces the cost associated with those appeals, enabling local authorities to divert their resources to planning positively for their area. I think I can safely say that that is an outcome that we all want to deliver.

The amendment deals specifically with what to do in the event of a conflict between national development management policies and the development plan when a planning decision must be made in accordance with both. As I have indicated, I believe the current clause is a necessary safeguard in situations where plans are out of date and important national policies on the environment or other matters need to be reflected fully in decisions.

To explain that more fully, some local plans are woefully out of date. We heard one example in Committee this afternoon and there are a number of examples across the country where the plans, although not quite as out of date as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central, have been out of date since the 1990s.

[Matthew Pennycook]

How does the Minister believe that this clause specifically will address the fact that there is not sufficient coverage of local plans across England? How will the provisions in the clause incentivise people to take up a local plan if they have not already done so?

[Mr Jones]

We have just discussed a clause that will compel local authorities to put in place an up-to-date local plan every five years. What we are discussing here is making sure that, where we get outliers and places with out-of-date local plans, green belt protection and other such things can be maintained through the national development management policies. This is a crucial point. We wish to use national policy to drive higher standards where those standards at the moment are not as they should be, especially on the environment and to tackle climate change. It is important that those policies can take precedence in the event of conflict with the out-of-date policies in plans.

I would nevertheless expect such conflicts to be limited in future, because we are making it easier to produce plans—we have discussed a number of situations today in which that would be the case—and because the Bill makes sure that new plans will be drawn up consistently with national policies, including the new national development management policies.

As I said at the outset, I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. Last week, the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), published his response to the letter from the Chair of the levelling-up Select Committee in which clarification was requested on this question. I have spoken to the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who took office this week. His view is the same as that expressed in the letter. We will provide a copy of that letter to members of the Committee.

We are also committed to providing more information about how we expect national development management policies to work in the future, which is why we plan to publish shortly the prospectus I referred to earlier, if not as articulately as I could have, so that we can look at our approach to the preparation of that prospectus. We will welcome views from hon. Members. With those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

Given how long the Minister has been in post, I do not blame him, but the arguments he makes in defence of clause 83(2), and proposed new subsection (5C) in particular, are the same ones we have heard over many months. Frankly, I do not think they stack up. I note with interest the points he made about the new Secretary of State taking the exact same view. I do not think his line that it would be counterproductive to amend this aspect of the Bill will hold.

I do not intend to press amendment 86 to a vote, because we will almost certainly come back to this issue on Report, but I just ask the Minister to go away and satisfy himself that the powers in subsection (2) are appropriate and justified. Will he think through, as the hon. Member for Buckingham said, not only the implications for democratic control of planning, engagement and scrutiny of planning, and the impact on trust and confidence in the planning system, which we know is an issue, but the implications in terms of innovation, undermining devolution deals and the legal delays that I am certain will come if the Government try to use this power? They will have to think about this issue again, and we will certainly come back to it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

16:15

[The Chair]

Does the Member who tabled amendment 57 wish to move it formally?

[Greg Smith]

I have heard the assurances that the Minister has given but agree with some of the reticence of the shadow Minister, so I urge my hon. Friend to consider these points very carefully over the summer. I will not press amendment 57 to a vote right now, but I underline the importance of getting this right for the whole Bill and its meaning.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 83, page 91, line 30, at end insert—

“, subject to subsection (5D).

(5D) But any conflict must be resolved in favour of the development plan in an area if—

(a) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 16 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for the town and country planning function and the highways function and any functions exercisable under the Environment Act 2021 of a county council or a district council that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,

(b) if, in relation to it, regulations under section 17 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 have been made to provide for at least one function of another public body that is exercisable in relation to an area which is within a county combined authority area to be exercisable by the CCA in relation to the CCA’s area,

(c) it has a joint spatial development strategy, or

(d) it is in Greater London.”

This amendment would place limits on the primacy of national development management policies over the development plan where a Combined County Authority had been handed planning, highways, environmental powers and at least one function of another public body under a devolution deal, in areas covered by a joint spatial development strategy and in Greater London.

This is a probing amendment. Given that the Government have just declined to accept amendments 83 and 57, and reconfirmed their intention to have national development management policies override local development plans in the event of any conflict between them at the point of determination, amendment 98 is designed simply to try to elicit from the Government whether they will consider allowing any specific exemptions to that general principle.

The amendment would do so by specifying that any conflict between an NDMP and a local development plan at the point of determination must be resolved in favour of the latter in an area where a combined county authority has had key powers transferred to it under a devolution deal, where a joint spatial development strategy has been agreed, or in Greater London. The idea is that an exemption from the primacy of national policy in the form of NDMPs would be the reward, so to speak, for agreeing a devolution deal with the full panoply of powers available or for engaging in strategic planning by putting a spatial development strategy in place—or, it should be said, for taking part in a new joint spatial development strategy across authority boundaries.

Let me explain my reasoning further by using the example of an area where an SDS or a joint SDS might be taken forward. As the Minister will know, once a spatial development strategy is in place, it provides for a strategic framework for the development plan or plans, which should in theory supersede or take primacy over NDMPs that the Government might happen to bring forward.

While we remain of the view that no local development plan should be made subordinate to national planning policies in the form of NDMPs, if the Government are determined to ensure that they are—it sounded that way from the Minister’s comments in the previous debate—we believe that they should at least consider exempting from that centralising approach areas that have proactively taken on greater powers, including powers to plan strategically, so that they can use them to the full to reflect local priorities and innovate, having regard to national policy but not being unduly constrained by it.

On that basis, I hope that the Minister will give our amendment due consideration.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his amendment 98, which relates to higher-tier authorities with planning powers. During the debate on amendments 86 and 57, I set out our case as to why it may be necessary for national development management policies to outweigh the development plan in the event of a conflict. Amendment 98 would prevent that from happening where there is a conflict in an area covered by a Mayor or a combined authority.

I understand that the argument behind the amendment is that it would support our efforts to promote devolution by exempting Mayors and combined authorities from any situation in which national development management policies might have precedence over their own. While I understand that argument, it is not one that we are able to agree with at this point. It makes complete sense for Mayors and combined authorities to use their strategic planning powers to make policies that support proper planning in their areas, but it does not follow that those should automatically outweigh national development management policies, given what those policies aim to do.

National development management policies will be nationally important policies, such as for the green belt or flood protection, as I have already mentioned. It remains important that those are not duplicated through strategic plans, which should restrict the chances of conflict occurring in the first place, especially where plans have been kept up to date. More details on what national development management policies could look like will be set out in the prospectus coming this summer, which will also indicate the scope for policies in plans to address matters that are locally important, or of strategic importance in the case of a Mayor or combined authority.

The other arguments made in relation to amendment 87 also apply here. There will be occasions when circumstances arise that mean the Government need to make an urgent change. That became apparent during the pandemic, when we had to act very quickly to protect temporarily closed theatres and live music venues from the threat of development. In those circumstances, it is right that national development management policy is able to override the development plan, even where there is a strategic plan-making body.

I hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich understands those reasons and will withdraw his amendment.

[Matthew Pennycook]

The Minister will appreciate that I am, naturally, disappointed that the Government will not countenance any exemption from the precedence that clause 83 affords to national development management policies, but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. The root of the problem is the powers in clause 83, rather than the specific issue raised by the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

On the basis that we have debated this matter at significant length, I commend clause 83 to the Committee.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will be extremely brief because a Division is due in the main Chamber, but also because schedule 6 is largely a tidying-up exercise, amending the Town and Country Planning Act to add requirements for local planning authorities to have regard to material considerations in NDMPs when modifying or removing permission, granting outline permission, and enforcement and appeals.

However, reading the schedule prompted two questions in my mind. First, paragraph 12(b) to schedule 6 amends paragraph 8(2) to schedule 4B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to insert paragraph (da), requiring neighbourhood development orders, which implement neighbourhood plans, to be in general conformity with NDMPs. Given that the Government are explicitly legislating in the Bill to ensure that neighbourhood development orders are consistent with NDMPs, can the Minister give the Committee a sense of what kind of national policies covered by an NDMP would have direct relevance to extremely local, sub-district plans, such that conformity with them needs to be required by the Bill?

Secondly, paragraph 15 to schedule 6 amends section 337(2) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to insert new paragraph (ca), which adds NDMPs to the list of matters that may require modification of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy prior to its publication. Given that the supposed thrust of the Bill is to enable greater devolution to regional authorities and leaders, could the Minister explain the rationale for making the London spatial development strategy subservient to centrally mandated policy?

[Mr Jones]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about neighbourhood plans, as I have mentioned a number of times, a prospectus will be brought forward in the summer to explain how national development management policies may work. I urge him to wait and see those documents. When he sees the prospectus, he will no doubt provide a response. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Can we have order?

[Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

I am sorry, Sir Mark. I am trying to switch my phone off but I cannot.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It’s another leadership video, isn’t it? [Laughter.]

[Mr Jones]

I reiterate the point that I made with respect to amendment 98. For the reasons I mentioned then, national development management policies will be nationally important policies, and like those for the green belt and flood protection, it remains important that they are not duplicated, so that we restrict the chances of conflict occurring in the first place, especially where the plans have not been kept up to date. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham in particular mentioned a number of situations in which planning decisions had been made and overturned, and clearly policies conflicting can quite often be the reason why that happens. It is therefore extremely important that we try to restrict the chances of such conflicts. With that, I commend clause 83 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gareth Johnson.)

16:27

Adjourned till Thursday 14 July at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House

LRB19 British Property Federation (further submission)

LRB20 Asylum Matters, Medical Justice and the Helen Bamber Foundation (joint submission)

LRB21 Linda Scarbro and others (submission from Linton-on-Ouse resident re: clause 97)

LRB22 Chartered Institute of Housing

LRB23 London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies

LRB24 Professor Olga Matthias

National Security Bill (Fourth sitting)

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Rushanara Ali, † James Gray

† Bell, Aaron (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)

† Eagle, Maria (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)

† Elmore, Chris (Ogmore) (Lab)

† Everitt, Ben (Milton Keynes North) (Con)

† Hart, Sally-Ann (Hastings and Rye) (Con)

† Higginbotham, Antony (Burnley) (Con)

Hosie, Stewart (Dundee East) (SNP)

† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

† Jupp, Simon (East Devon) (Con)

† Lynch, Holly (Halifax) (Lab)

† McPartland, Stephen (Minister for Security)

† McDonald, Stuart C. (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)

† Mann, Scott (North Cornwall) (Con)

† Mohindra, Mr Gagan (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)

† Mumby-Croft, Holly (Scunthorpe) (Con)

† Phillips, Jess (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)

Sambrook, Gary (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)

Huw Yardley, Bradley Albrow, Simon Armitage, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 12 July 2022

(Afternoon)

[James Gray in the Chair]

National Security Bill

Clause 7

Meaning of “prohibited place”

14:00

[The Minister for Security (Stephen McPartland)]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 7, page 7, line 3, at end insert—

“(ca) any land or building in the United Kingdom or the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia which is—

(i) owned or controlled by the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ, and

(ii) used for the functions of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or GCHQ;”.

This amendment and Amendments 7 and 8 make provision for sites used by the intelligence services to be prohibited places.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 6 to 8.

Clause stand part.

Clause 8 stand part.

[Stephen McPartland]

Amendments 5 to 8 make critical additions to the definition of “prohibited place” in clause 7. The sites used by the UK’s intelligence services are some of our most sensitive locations and must be afforded the measures and protections given by the wider prohibited places provisions. These measures will mean that those who commit unlawful conduct can face prosecution under either of the two new prohibited places offences in clauses 4 and 5. Moreover, the police will have powers to stop people engaging in conduct in relation to a prohibited place that may harm the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. While the Government initially intended to add these sites by way of regulations, on reflection we concluded that it would be preferable to give Parliament the opportunity to debate the provisions up front—lucky me!

The amendments make provision for sites used by the intelligence services to be prohibited places under the meaning of “prohibited place” in clause 7. Under amendment 5, any land, building or part of a building used for the functions of the intelligence services will be designated only if it is also owned or controlled by those services. That offers safeguards so that places used temporarily for the functions of the intelligence services would not be designated; that would not be proportionate. I will not dwell on amendments 6 to 8, which are consequential, centralising the definition of a building for the purpose of the clause and providing a definition of GCHQ.

Turning to clause 7 stand part, section 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 sets out the places that are, or can be by declaration, a prohibited place under existing legislation. They are mainly defence-related sites or those that are used, or can be used, in times of war. Clause 7, which replaces those provisions, defines what sites will be prohibited places for the purposes of the two offences in clauses 4 and 5 and the police powers in clause 6, and it has been drafted to continue to capture the majority of the sites that are set out as prohibited places in the existing provisions.

The language and drafting has been simplified to ensure that there is clarity about what is or is not a prohibited place under the clause, removing long lists of terms that are less relevant for modern legislation. The definition in the clause includes Crown land or a vehicle in the UK or the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri or Dhekelia used for UK defence purposes or for the defence of another country. That covers the range of defence sites, including military barracks, bases and military headquarters.

Limiting prohibited places to Crown land in the UK or the sovereign base areas ensures that the provisions retain a focus on places important for UK defence, and that the range of sites covered does not become disproportionate or impractical. The definition is extended to sovereign base areas in Cyprus because there are several military bases there that are important for UK defence and should be covered by these provisions, as they are now.

Clause 7 also ensures that we can continue to capture defence vehicles as prohibited places. A vehicle used for defence purposes would include military transportation that is either sensitive in itself—for example, aircraft, vessels, submarines or tanks—or used for the purposes of transporting sensitive defence technology, equipment or weaponry. That may include trains or convoys used for the purposes of transporting weaponry. It is crucial that those vehicles are afforded the protection that the prohibited places regime provides.

Clause 7 also designates Crown land or vehicles in the UK or the sovereign base areas used for the purposes of the defence of a foreign country or territory. It is imperative that these provisions extend to and protect the sites and vehicles that the UK’s allies use and operate. For example, there are several military bases in the UK out of which our allies operate; those need to continue to be afforded the protection given by the prohibited places regime. Lastly, clause 7 covers buildings or vehicles designated by regulations made under the clause 8 designation power.

Clause 8 provides for the Secretary of State to declare additional sites as prohibited places by way of secondary legislation. In order to do so, the Secretary of State is required by the clause to reasonably consider the designation necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. The designation can be made either by listing specific sites or vehicles or by introducing a description of sites or vehicles. Any site that met such a description would thereby be designated—for example, the listing of UK defence vehicles would capture military aircrafts, tanks, submarines and vessels. The clause maintains our existing ability to designate sites while ensuring it is appropriately modernised and futureproofed, as recommended by the Law Commission.

When deciding whether a designation to declare an additional prohibited place through the power in clause 8 is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State must have regard to certain matters, including the purpose for which the place is used; the nature of the information held, stored or processed on the land or in the building or vehicle; and the nature of any equipment, technology or material that is located on the land or in the building or vehicle. That requirement provides safeguards to ensure that only sites at risk of harmful activity can be designated as prohibited places.

The power to designate additional prohibited places is limited to land or buildings in the United Kingdom or the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, or any vehicle. Although it may seem broad to enable the designating of any vehicle around the world as a prohibited place, in most instances it would be possible to capture harmful activity at such vehicles only within the United Kingdom or in countries with which we have extradition agreements, given the difficulty of enforcing the offence overseas. It is beneficial to be able to designate a vehicle anywhere in the world because, unlike land or buildings, vehicles are clearly capable of being moving targets at different locations.

In the near term, the Government intend to designate as prohibited places certain sites in the nuclear sector, including major licensed nuclear sites. Specific nuclear sites such as Sellafield and Dounreay are currently designated as prohibited places under the existing provisions of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The Government want to ensure that sites in the sector continue to be afforded protection under the reformed prohibited places regime. Consultation is currently ongoing with the nuclear sector to ensure that the range of places that require designation as prohibited places are captured and that the impact of any designation is fully considered before a decision to designate is made.

Given that in rare cases it may be necessary to rapidly designate a site as a prohibited place in response to intelligence about an imminent threat at a certain location, the reformed designation power is subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. The power could be needed to rapidly designate, for example, medical research facilities used during a public health crisis that may be the target of state threat activity. Even in such rapid cases, the Secretary of State must still reasonably consider designation necessary to protect the safety or interest of the United Kingdom and we would expect that, where reasonably practicable, the Secretary of State would consult with the landowner.

A designation power to declare additional prohibited places is a crucial part of the reformed regime. By futureproofing the provisions in such a way, we can continue to capture and deter those who seek to conduct harmful activity at the United Kingdom’s most sensitive sites, as the threat landscape will undoubtably evolve over the coming years. I ask the Committee to support the inclusion of clauses 7 and 8 in the Bill and to agree to the amendments.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

Let me take clauses 7 and 8 and Government amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 together. As the Minister has outlined, clause 7 defines a prohibited place for the purposes of clauses 4 to 8. The definition includes Crown land and vehicles used for defence purposes; places used for the invention, development, production, operation, storage or disposal of weapons; and land, buildings or vehicles designated by regulations made under clause 8.

Clause 8 provides for the Secretary of State to declare additional sites as prohibited places by way of secondary legislation. This will ensure that additional sites that are vulnerable to state threat activity can be designated when it is considered necessary. The Committee will note that, historically, the list of prohibited places has had a strong, if not total, military focus.

We just need to read the legislation to be struck by how dated it is. The Official Secrets Act 1911 defined a prohibited place as:

“any work of defence, arsenal, naval or air force establishment or station, factory, dockyard, mine, minefield, camp, ship, or aircraft belonging to or occupied by or on behalf of His Majesty, or any telegraph, telephone, wireless or signal station, or office so belonging or occupied, and any place belonging to or occupied by or on behalf of His Majesty”

and so on. While reflective of the contemporary climate and the threats posed to the UK, this list has long been out of date. We therefore welcome this expansive update for defining what a prohibited place is, as well as giving the Government the ability to adapt the list where there is a reasonable case to do so. In the light of that, we recognise that Government amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 complement the clause in that aim.

That said, I did probe the Law Commission during last Thursday’s evidence session on this point. It is important that this legislation is laid in such a way that it is not used by Government or future Governments to infringe on other democratic freedoms. During the consultation period of the Law Commission’s report on the Official Secrets Act, a number of stakeholders expressed concern about giving the Home Secretary such powers to designate a new site as a prohibited place.

The Trinity Mirror raised concern that an unchecked power to create designated sites based on national security may create a new criminal offence without parliamentary debate and could potentially stifle legitimate investigations in the public interest. WhistleblowersUK stated that the list should not end up being widened to include council officers or schools, for example. It would be incredibly worrying if a Home Secretary interpreted this power to allow himself or herself to mark places that served a purpose in the execution of an unpopular Government policy, for example, as a prohibited place. I outlined these concerns to Dr Nicholas Hoggard of the Law Commission, who provided some reassurance. He said,

“What is good to see about the powers under this Bill is they are quite principled powers. The basis on which the Secretary of State can define something as a protected place is much more transparent. There are just three limbs that are easy to understand. That basis for affording the Secretary of the State the power is much more useful. It is more transparent, but it also enables us to capture within the offence places where

there is actually a real risk of harm arising from hostile state activity. On that front, I would say the power is good in so much as it aligns with the spirit of our recommendation. The fact that there will be parliamentary oversight of this process is important. It was a fundamental feature of our recommendations, and the negative resolution procedure is an important part of that process. The Secretary of State’s powers are more effective than is permitted under the current law, but also there is sufficient oversight.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 51, Q96.]

I look to the Minister for the same political assurances: that such powers would not be used should the Government find that to declare somewhere a prohibited site would serve a purpose in the execution of an unpopular Government policy, for example. Having gone through the prohibited places National Security Bill factsheet on the Government website, I have already asked the Minister what information should be in the public domain to confirm that somewhere is a prohibited site.

I completely accept that somewhere might be so secure that extensive signage and its inclusion on any such list might not be appropriate. However, in the event of our Pokémon GO example, it is about being able to check without needing to travel to a prohibited place to observe the signage to find out, which might itself bring someone in scope of earlier offences. I want to ensure that the status of such a site, the restrictions and the consequences of not adhering to those restrictions are appropriately and clearly communicated to the public.

Before closing, I want to bring the Minister’s attention to clause 7, where we have sovereign based areas overseas for UK defence purposes. He has made the undertaking to consider military powers within the earlier clauses on police powers. It is my understanding that the Ministry of Defence police would not provide that service to these sites deemed to be prohibited places within clause 7. Once again, he might need to write to us to work through some of that detail further.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Mr Gray, we know that it is officially summer when you remove your jacket.

[The Chair]

Order. In 25 years in this place, I have never once removed my jacket until now. I am embarrassed!

14:15

[Mr Jones]

Possibly this historic day shows the effects of global warming.

I was a little surprised at some of these amendments, to say the least. I want some clarification first of all, and then I will come to some other issues. Clause 7 says that a “prohibited place” relates to Crown land used for the extraction of

“metals, oil or minerals for use for UK defence purposes”.

I would like to define why it has been outlined in that way in the Bill.

I found Government amendment 5 quite surprising. There are quite a lot of assets that our defence and intelligence use around the world that are not known about, and it is important that they are not in the public domain. Government amendment 5 identifies a military area or base, but the Minister will know—or he might not yet have been briefed on this—that many sites around the world are used for defence and intelligence purposes; those are not in the public domain for very good reasons. How do they come into the scope of the Bill? I would not suggest for one minute that we should list them all—if we knew where they all were, that would be wrong. But I want to know how the legislation intersects with the protections that those sites clearly need.

The Bill talks of the Crown estates that we actually hold or control, but there are a number of occasions where we are collocated with other forces. We do not control those areas, although our defence and intelligence services will be using them. I am trying to think of a couple of examples. A few weeks ago I was in Lithuania with the rapid reaction force, a coalition of different nations under NATO, and the UK contingent was located in a wood outside Tallinn. That deployment was a temporary arrangement. How would that be defined under the Bill? Technically, that area is under the control of the Lithuanian defence force. Would that operation be classified in the Bill?

Likewise, I look back to deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq and the green zone, for example. We clearly had defence and intelligence assets there, but we did not control a lot of those areas in terms of force protection or even areas shared with other nations. How does the Bill cater for the jointness of those operations, some of which will be temporary and some permanent?

I accept that it would be completely wrong to put all these sites into the Bill but it is important that we understand how those sites—temporary or permanent—interact with the Bill. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax mentioned the Pokémon question and I raised the flying eagle. How will the Bill be effective when it comes to such a person being seen to penetrate a prohibited area? Will it catch people who end up there by accident?

I support the amendments, but think they need a bit more clarification. If the Minister does not know the answer to my questions, I will be happy for him to write to me.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Clause 7 and the Government amendments to it seem to make sense; my concern is about clause 8. I read the exchange that the shadow Minister referred to, when she asked the Law Commission about the broad powers in clause 8; it was one of the very rare occasions when I was not absolutely convinced by the answer that came back. At the end of the day, clause 7’s definition of “prohibited place” is very defence oriented, and it will now be defence and security oriented. But clause 8 opens the definition up to any sort of land at all and the nebulous concept of the safety or interests of the United Kingdom: if the Secretary of State considers it reasonably necessary for the safety of UK interests, a place can be added to the list.

I worry about immigration detention facilities or a fracking site being added to the list. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the policy, that is a fairly significant extension to how the whole policy area operates. That is where our concern lies. Has it been opened up too broadly? I appreciate that the Minister says we need flexibility and to be nimble, but I worry that we have left it too open to potential—abuse is probably too strong a word—overgenerous interpretation.

[Stephen McPartland]

I commit to write to the hon. Member for Halifax—and the whole Committee—to answer her point about the police. I totally accept the genuine concern I am hearing from across party lines about what safeguards are in place to ensure that a place is designated for reasons of defence as opposed to Government embarrassment. The safeguard is that the power to designate only be exercised may if the Secretary of State reasonably considers it necessary to do so in order to protect the safety or interest of the United Kingdom.

[Holly Lynch]

There is that difference between safety and interest; it would be quite easy for a Home Secretary, if she has an unpopular deportation policy—to give a topical example—to argue that that it in the UK’s interest rather than its safety. That gives us cause for concern.

[Stephen McPartland]

I appreciate that. We have heard this morning and in previous sittings about that tension in respect of the Government interest and defence. There is case law that defines it. The purpose of the Bill is to provide the intelligence services with the tools they need to keep the country safe. They feel that they need these tools to do that. There are safeguards. The idea behind the number of factors is that there are a variety of checks on the Secretary of State, so they would have to demonstrate all the way through that they have considered that multitude of factors and that it was necessary for the defence of the country.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham, I cannot believe I am going to say this but I cannot tell him what I have been briefed, for national security reasons. The reality is that in these clauses we have moved away from designating places to categories. One of the categories is unavowed sites. That means that some of the sites that he suggested would be covered by the category.

[Mr Jones]

As long as they are covered, that is fine. I do not want the Minister to start referring to any of them.

[Stephen McPartland]

Another query raised was about oil and metal, which I understand are already in the existing provision for use in defence. That is why we refer to those areas. Finally, we are not designating military bases abroad, other than sovereign bordered areas, purely because of difficulties with jurisdiction and making that work.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendments made: 6, in clause 7, page 7, line 4, leave out

“(including a part of a building)”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 7.

Amendment 7, in clause 7, page 7, line 24, at end insert—

“‘building’ includes any part of a building;”.

See Amendment 5.

Amendment 8, in clause 7, page 7, line 37, at end insert—

“‘GCHQ’ has the meaning given by section 3(3) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994;”—(Stephen McPartland.)

See Amendment 5.

Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Power to designate a cordoned area to secure defence aircraft

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 10 and 11 stand part.

[Stephen McPartland]

The power set out in clause 9 allows a constable to designate a cordoned area around a military aircraft, part of an aircraft or related equipment. Regrettably, there have been several aircraft crashes over the past several years, including an F-15 aircraft crash in Lincolnshire in 2014. In such cases it is common for sensitive technology or material to be dispersed, and a specific power to cordon an area will ensure that such material is sufficiently protected until it can be removed.

Under the clause, a constable may designate an area under the cordon power only if they consider it expedient for the purposes of securing an aircraft, parts of an aircraft or equipment relating to such an aircraft, used for military purposes. The clause goes on to describe the process for designating a cordoned area this power, including ensuring that the boundary is appropriately marked and that a written record is made of the relevant decisions.

Members will appreciate the interest that hostile actors would have in accessing military technology. A cordon power that allows us to protect sensitive military aircraft technology beyond prohibited places—for example, in the event of a crash—is a tool that our armed forces and police can use to prevent harmful activity from taking place if sensitive technology is exposed and becomes vulnerable to access or inspection.

Clause 10 sets out the duration for which a designation of a cordoned area made under the clause 9 power may have effect. The end of the cordon must be specified in the designation, and initially an area can be cordoned only for a maximum period of 14 days. The initial period of the cordon specified in the designation may, in many cases, be adequate for the secured military aircraft, parts or related equipment to be safely removed. Should the process take longer—for example, if more time than originally anticipated is required in the event of a criminal investigation or an investigation by the Defence Accident Investigation Branch—the duration can be extended up to a maximum of 28 days from the point of the initial designation. Setting out the duration for which a designation of a cordoned area may have effect is an essential provision as part of the wider military aircraft cordon power. It prevents the provisions from being implemented for longer than is justified or proportionate.

Clause 11 provides the police with the powers to enforce a cordoned area that has been designated under the clause 9 power. The powers are similar to those that the police are able to use to protect prohibited places under clause 6. They include requiring a person not to carry out specified conduct, such as entering or inspecting a cordoned area; requiring a person or persons in charge of a vehicle or device to leave a cordoned area or an adjacent area immediately; and arranging for the movement or removal of a vehicle from a cordoned area.

It is especially important to have powers in relation to an area adjacent, given that people are able to take photographs, videos or other recordings of a crashed aircraft that is within a cordoned area from outside the cordon perimeter. The powers to prohibit such activity allow for enhanced protection against the threat that may be posed when sensitive technology or information is exposed—for example, hostile actors may still be able to gather potentially damaging information from outside a cordon through the use of long-range cameras, or may use photos and videos obtained by others and posted on social media.

Alongside the powers I have outlined, clause 11 will make it an offence to fail to comply with an order given by a constable under the powers. There may well be instances in which a person has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with such an order, so the clause includes a defence to protect those who have a legitimate reason to be within a cordoned area.

The police powers in relation to a cordoned area in clause 11 are crucial, as they give our law enforcement agencies the tools needed to deter hostile actors from accessing the sensitive defence technology or material that may potentially be exposed—for example, following the unfortunate event of a military aircraft crash.

[Holly Lynch]

Clause 9 provides a power for the police to create a cordoned area around a defence aircraft, presumably, as the Minister outlined, if it has crashed or had to make an emergency landing outside a prohibited place. We agree that the powers in clause 9 are entirely appropriate and that the ability to cordon off scenes of that kind is necessary to ensure that the aircraft and any equipment or material relating to it can be sufficiently protected until removal has been completed. Under subsection (2) a constable may designate an area under the cordon power in subsection (1) only if they consider it expedient for the purposes of securing an aircraft used for military purposes, or part thereof, or equipment relating to that aircraft.

I have explored this clause with a recently retired senior police officer, and I will relay his query. Why is this provision needed, given that the police already have the ability to cordon off such areas through common law powers? Where is the gap that needed to be closed by the clause? What does it do that was not there previously? The Minister may outline the differences we have missed; further to that point, the explanatory notes make it clear that the power will not be applicable to aircraft other than those used for military purposes. Say, for example, a civilian fixed-wing light aircraft has raised espionage concerns, having flown over a prohibited place without clearance before making an emergency landing: although it would not be a military aircraft, I would be quite comfortable with clause 9 powers being used in such circumstances. Will the Minister consider that in his response?

14:31

The clause and the explanatory notes are not explicit about whether the clause applies only to British military aircraft and equipment, or whether it applies also to foreign military aircraft, should we find ourselves in that worrying position. Will the Minister confirm that for the Committee?

Clause 11 outlines the powers that the police will have in relation to a cordoned area. They include the powers to require a person not to carry out specified conduct, such as entering the cordoned area; to require a person to leave a cordoned area immediately; and to arrange for the movement or removal of a vehicle from a cordoned area. Subsection (2) clarifies that inspection of a cordoned area can be undertaken by way of taking or procuring photos, videos and other recordings. Subsections (4) and (5) provide that it is an offence to fail to comply with an order under subsection (1).

Again, nothing in clause 11 explicitly allows a constable to seize a device that has been used to photograph, film or record details of the cordoned-off area. That, too, would require scrutiny and consideration, and a proportionate balance would need to be found, but that seems to be an omission that I cannot see addressed elsewhere in the Bill. Could a person be instructed to leave an area, but potentially take footage or photos away with them? Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? We are minded to consider the matter further. For the avoidance of any doubt, we are comfortable with clause 10 and the designation of a cordon.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

I wish to speak briefly to the clauses. In Lancashire, we are home to BAE Systems Air, in Samlesbury and Warton. That is a significant manufacturing and assembly location for the fourth generation Typhoon aircraft, the fifth generation F-35 and, looking ahead, potentially the sixth generation of the future combat air system. Manufacturing and assembling those aircraft brings a requirement to test them and put them in the air. With any new aircraft, we run the risk of some kind of emergency landing, so the clause is entirely necessary and proportionate to allow the police to put a cordon in place, should that be required. We have to remember the highly sensitive nature of some of the aircraft, recognising in particular that many contain not just UK technology but technology from our friends and allies around the world.

Not that long ago, as we may all remember, one of the F-35s fell off the deck of the Queen Elizabeth carrier as it was meant to be taking off. On the news, we all saw that other allied warships had to go towards the area to ensure that unfriendly or hostile states could not go to find that aircraft on the seabed and try to take some of its technology. The clause seems to do something similar: it will ensure that in the event of an emergency, we have the ability to protect a site so that we can clean it up and investigate it in a controlled way. That control is important, because hostile states are always looking at ways to take advantage of unforeseen circumstances.

Will the Minister confirm that the area where the cordon is put in place will be as tightly defined as possible? We must recognise that in Lancashire, for example, where such events might happen, there is a significant amount of farmland and land used for other things, so we must try to find a balance. It is about proportionality and recognising that although a site is controlled—not just in terms of where it is but recognising that parts might be spread over a significant area—the land might have another use. Will the Minister confirm that the Government expect there to be a balance and that an area will not be so widely defined that it becomes unusable for a significant number of people?

I was pleased to see that there is a 14-day limit for the cordon zone in clause 10, with the potential to expand it to 28 days if needed. That properly tries to balance the different access requirements that the police will have during the clean-up. We all recognise that these will sometimes be complex sites to try to clean up. I very much welcome the clause. For an area such as Lancashire, which has aircraft test flights all the time because of BAE, it will put lots of residents’ minds at ease that if the worst happens, there is a controlled, legislative way to make sure that the site is managed.

[Stephen McPartland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution. The maximum time period is 14 days because we are trying to put in place a limit. The idea is to restrict the areas as tightly as possible to protect the sensitive material without having an impact on other issues. A cordon around the military area will cover a much tighter area. There are already other cordoning factors, which is why the provision is not wider in scope.

The clauses have been drafted because of the experiences in Lincolnshire with the crashed F-15 aircraft in 2015, and the gaps during that period. My understanding is that the pilot lost control of the aircraft, successfully ejected and crashed into farmland adjacent to a village. Once the fire was extinguished, because there were no fatalities Lincolnshire police left it to the relevant military teams to run the area. As result, potentially sensitive debris was left vulnerable to harmful hostile actors over quite a wide range of areas. The purpose of the clauses is to address the direct experience of what happened during that unfortunate aircraft accident.

The hon. Member for Halifax asked a range of questions, including one on civilian light fixed-wing aircraft. The answer is that the provision currently applies only to military aircraft and does apply to foreign aircraft. The powers in the Bill enhance the powers in common law to try to compensate for what happened with that F-15 aircraft. Although the hon. Lady made an incredibly good point about search and seizure powers, as it stands they are not included in the clauses. I will go away and think about that point and ask my officials to look into it in more detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Sabotage

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Holly Lynch]

Clause 12 is a substantial addition to the Bill so warrants further consideration. It introduces a new bespoke offence of state-sponsored sabotage, capturing activity conducted for, on behalf of or for the benefit of a foreign power, resulting in damage to property, sites and data affecting the UK’s interests and national security, which we are happy to support. What has taken the Government so long? It is an extremely welcome provision.

The need for a specific criminal offence of sabotage on the UK’s statute books is long overdue. The necessity for it has increased over time. Over recent years, the nature of sabotage—most notably, the nature of cyber-attacks and sabotage—has changed rapidly. Subsection (3) outlines all the ways in which the act of sabotage can manifest. Subsection (1)(b) is explicit, covering a person’s intent and whether they are

“reckless as to whether their conduct will result in damage”.

As MI5 director general Ken McCallum highlighted,

“cyber is no longer some abstract contest between hackers in it for the thrill or between states jockeying for position in some specialised domain...cyber consistently bites on our everyday lives.”

I was struck by the evidence provided by Paddy McGuinness, the former deputy national security adviser, when I asked him about clause 12 last week. He said:

“one of the difficulties with this grey space activity…is that if you have a presence for an intelligence purpose, you can flick it over and turn it into a disruptive or destructive attack. That is where that preparatory bit is quite important, too: understanding that the simple fact of engaging and being present quickly takes you towards sabotage. I think these are absolutely vital powers.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 24, Q47.]

The sense that someone engaged in espionage on behalf of a hostile state could just as easily be instructed to engage in sabotage reminds us why the new offences are necessary as a package of measures. A report published by Lloyd’s of London only last month crystalises the threat posed by cyber-attacks and sabotage. The report, entitled “Shifting powers: Physical cyber risk in a changing geopolitical landscape” and written in partnership with the Centre for Risk Studies at the University of Cambridge, warned that:

“Whilst most cyber-attacks are digital, physical cyber-attacks–defined as virtual attacks which trigger physical disruption–are becoming increasingly commonplace. The rise of state-sponsored cyber-attacks is a significant focus for businesses and governments, driven by an evolving geopolitical landscape in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

The UK’s national cyber strategy, published in February this year, also demonstrates the potential threat posed by cyber-sabotage. It states:

“The threats we face in and through cyberspace have grown in intensity, complexity and severity in recent years. Cyber attacks against the UK are conducted by an expanding range of state actors, criminal groups (sometimes acting at the direction of states or with their implicit approval) and activists for the purpose of espionage, commercial gain, sabotage and disinformation.”

From this, we can see that cyber-activity could be prosecutable under a number of the new offences, but I know that the ability to robustly take on sabotage with clause 12 is welcome to those on the frontline of mounting the UK’s defences.

Although outside of scope of the Bill, I will briefly make the point that the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which was the first major legislative attempt to tackle cyber-crime and criminalise hacking, is now also long overdue an update. May I suggest that we have another look at that legislation alongside the Bill and the provisions in this clause, to ensure that we are meeting the cyber-challenges we face as a nation as robustly as is required?

Existing legislation largely fails to accommodate for state-sponsored acts of sabotage. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 defines sabotage as:

“A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.”

We therefore welcome the foreign power condition in subsection (1)(d), which will allow police to bring to justice those who work for or conspire with hostile Governments to prejudice the safety or interests of the UK.

We welcome that the offence will link to the preparatory conduct offence to give law enforcement and the intelligence agencies the powers to intervene at an early stage. Despite the changing nature of sabotage, we also welcome that the clause contains provisions to tackle acts of physical damage on sensitive sites, such as critical national infrastructure, property belonging to Her Majesty’s Government, military buildings and sites, other defence assets, or acts that impact goods, systems or services supplying the UK, such as data centres or undersea cable infrastructure. If I have not been clear enough, we very much welcome the addition of clause 12 to the Bill.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I echo much of what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax, said. As ever, I have slight concerns about the breadth of the foreign power condition and how that might interact with sabotage—for example, if a protest on behalf of one of the aforementioned non-governmental organisations causes some damage to a site. Of course, such protestors should face criminal law, but I would hope it would be general criminal law rather than the sabotage offence set out in clause 12 and the heavy sentence that comes with that.

For all the reasons set out by the shadow Minister, we support the inclusion of clause 12. The Minister moved the clause formally, but it would be useful for us to talk it through because this is a new departure for us, and it would be interesting to hear the Government’s thoughts on the nature of the offence.

[Stephen McPartland]

I will go through clause 12 in a bit more detail. As hon. Members have outlined, the clause makes provision for an offence of sabotage. It is designed to capture intentional reckless activity resulting in damage to assets including property, sites and electronic systems where the person is acting in a way that they know or should know is prejudicial to the UK’s safety and interests.

A state-linked saboteur poses as much of a potential risk to the UK’s national security as someone undertaking terrorist activities. Working to further the interests of a foreign state by damaging something of importance to the UK is sabotage and therefore should be reflected as such.

Although there are offences in legislation that cover similar activities, sabotage as a crime is not an offence under domestic legislation, which was a surprise to me. The existing related offences were not developed to address the specific threat of state-linked sabotage, and the new offence more appropriately addresses the threat that this type of state threat poses. For example, none of the existing offences has a link to a foreign power. Clause 12 resolves those issues by giving law enforcement and the intelligence agencies the tools to tackle sabotage that is carried out for a purpose that the saboteur knows, or should know, prejudices the UK’s safety or interests.

14:45

Subsection (1) provides that an offence is committed where a person engages in conduct that results in damage to any asset and the person intends their conduct to, or is reckless as to whether it will, result in damage to an asset. In addition, the person’s conduct must be for a purpose that they know, or ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and the foreign power condition must be met in relation to the person’s conduct. The clause is structured so that each of the four limbs must be met for the offence to apply.

Sabotage may be conducted directly by members of a foreign intelligence service, but it could also be conducted by agents, co-optees, or other individuals or organisations working for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit, a foreign state. Sabotage could be caused by cyber-means, such as by overriding critical systems, but would also include the deletion or corruption of data, the installation of malware or the introduction of vulnerabilities into systems or ransomware. As those can also be put in place without being implemented, the offence will link to the preparatory conduct offence, to give law enforcement and the intelligence agencies the powers to intervene at an early stage.

Sabotage is often conducted through the use of cyber-actions and physical damage. Sabotage can be conducted from anywhere in the world but still prejudice the UK’s safety or interests. Subsection (2) addresses this issue, which is why the offence applies whether the person’s conduct takes place in the UK or elsewhere, or whether the asset is located in the UK or elsewhere. The sabotage offence aims to tackle damage that might take place in sensitive locations, such as critical national infrastructure, or that impacts goods, systems or services supplying the UK, such as data centres or undersea cable infrastructure.

Subsection (3) provides non-exhaustive definitions of “asset” and “damage”. An asset can be tangible or intangible, and that includes real and personal property, electronic systems, and information. We considered listing assets such as water systems, nuclear, and transportation, but considered that to be too restrictive. Damage is not defined exhaustively, but includes destruction, alteration, contamination, interference, loss of or reduction in access or availability, and or loss of or reduction in function, utility or reliability. This applies whether the damage is temporary or permanent, which allows us to tackle cyber-activity that results in, for example, the temporary loss of access to data.

Clause 12 does not specify a level of damage. Defining the asset and damage in this way provides flexibility for investigating saboteurs and adds a degree of future-proofing. Well-resourced states will find ways around our legislation if we define things too narrowly, such as the types of assets that they may target by conducting sabotage. The assets targeted by foreign powers for sabotage could change, and the way in which they are damaged could also evolve beyond a narrow definition.

We need a bespoke, modern offence to tackle a modern and evolving threat. A person’s conduct must meet the “prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom” test in subsection (1), which is designed to capture harmful activity such as a cyber-attack on Her Majesty’s Government data, or a physical attack on data servers resulting in widespread disruption and damage to national security, not legitimate protesting. Clause 12 makes provision for a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or a fine, or both. A fine is included to allow the prosecution of a company if it engages in conduct amounting to an offence. We expect the maximum penalties to apply only in the most serious cases, such as where an act of sabotage has resulted in a threat to or loss of life, or damage to UK critical infrastructure that compromises our national security. This is in line with existing maximum penalties in comparative legislation and the proposed penalty in clause 1.

Clause 12 will provide law enforcement and the intelligence agencies with a vital tool against harmful state-linked sabotage. It makes provision for an offence that reflects the global threat posed by saboteurs through cyber-means, as well calling out physical damage for what it is.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Foreign interference: general

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 13, page 11, line 26, leave out “England and Wales” and

“any part of the United Kingdom”.

This amendment would mean that “condition A” for the offence of foreign interference would be met by conduct outside the UK that would be an offence in any part of the UK.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 9.

Clause stand part.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will be brief. Clause 13 introduces a general offence of foreign interference that is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. As with clause 12, we support the broad idea—indeed, the structure of the offence appears to make sense—but it is a fairly novel departure for this country. I look forward to hearing the Minister talk us through precisely how the provision will work given that it is so novel and fairly complicated. I have said my piece on my concerns about the foreign power condition and the rather nebulous concept of the interests of the United Kingdom, so I will not repeat it.

The amendment asks a short, sharp question. Condition A applies if the foreign offence takes place outside the UK, and it is met only if the conduct is an offence under the law of England and Wales. The simple question is: why does that apply to England and Wales only? It does not apply to Scotland or to offences under the law of Northern Ireland. I genuinely do not know what the thinking behind that is. There may be a perfectly reasonable answer, and the amendment is designed to tease it out. I look forward to hearing much more from the Minister about how the offence will work. On the whole, the clause provides a justified and welcome new offence that we would support.

[Holly Lynch]

Clause 13 is quite substantial, and creates a new and general offence of foreign interference. Under the clause, someone who behaves recklessly but for whom an intention to aid a foreign intelligence service cannot be proven would not be committing an offence, unlike under clause 12.

The hon. Member for Hastings and Rye has a particular interest in that element of the offences. She will remember that in last Thursday’s evidence session, she asked Professor Sir David Omand, the former director of GCHQ, about the question of recklessness in clause 13. He said that he

“looked to clause 24, ‘The foreign power condition’, and there is quite a lot of scope in it for a successful prosecution to demonstrate that the individual who has, as you say, acted recklessly, could reasonably have been expected to know that their act would benefit a foreign power, for example, so I was not so concerned about that particular question.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 17, Q34.]

However, in response to a very similar question, Carl Miller, the research director of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media at Demos, made the interesting point that introducing recklessness in such a way may make businesses or service providers take their responsibilities on those types of risks more seriously when agreeing to take on commissioned work. I put that example to the Minister in our discussions on clause 3.

We will propose later in proceedings, through new clause 2, an independent reviewer to look annually at all the powers in the Bill—not just part 2—and not only check that we have the right balance when using the powers, and consider any unintended consequences, but make recommendations. I think clause 13 is viewed as fair by both sides of the Committee, but I hope that our debate about recklessness has shown that new clause 2 would make a great deal of sense.

Government amendment 9 is a welcome step—if somewhat presumptuous—that would make foreign interference a priority offence in the “Online Safety Act”, as on the amendment paper. It is slightly odd to amend the Online Safety Bill through this Bill, given that that Online Safety Bill is only just out of Committee—it is on Report in the Chamber as we speak—but the change is a very welcome development none the less. Reset.Tech’s Poppy Wood spoke in evidence of her hopes for that provision, and was pleased to see its addition.

Later in proceedings, we will come back to what more could be done in the disinformation space when we discuss new clause 3, which addresses the reporting of disinformation originating from foreign powers. Alongside clauses 13 and 14, we have discussed separately with the Minister that we are still awaiting further news about the planned foreign influence registration scheme, which has been called for since the aforementioned 2020 Russia report. It was a big focus on Second Reading, when the Minister’s predecessor was under a great deal of pressure from the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and others for not having produced the detail in time for the whole House to be able to discuss and debate it. The practical outcome of the implications of clause 13 is that we would like to see the detail as soon as possible, and the Minister knows our views on that.

Before closing, I want to touch on the issue of foreign interference. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke extensively about the need to tackle shell companies. The new offences outlined in these clauses will mean little if they cannot be detected or if measures are rarely enforced. Again, we urge the Government to remove the loophole that allows shell companies to be used to make donations to political parties, and to hide foreign donations and donations linked to hostile states. I expect the Minister will say that further work on interference of that type is under consideration as part of a second economic crime Bill, but I am looking to him for further assurances on that type of foreign interference.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I rise to support some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. Given the Minister’s recent arrival, I am sure that this is not his responsibility and would not have happened had he been in charge, but it is particularly bad for a Government amendment to seek to amend a Bill that is still going through its Commons stages and has not reached the other place. In fact, it is still on the Floor of the House. It is a particularly poor practice that I hope the Minister, in his new role, will deprecate among his officials and seek to prevent from happening in the future.

It is really bad for the Committee to seek to amend a Bill that is still on the Floor of the House and has not been passed yet, when it is quite clear—unless the Minister has a good reason why it is being done this way, which I would be interested to hear—that it is not sensible for us to amend a Bill that has not yet even passed its Commons stages. It seems to be a recipe for incoherence and confusion. I hope that the Minister will agree and seek to prevent us from seeing such amendments in the future, because it is just rank poor practice.

The clause introduces an important defence for the country and fills a gap that has needed to be filled for many years, so I very much support it. However, it is noticeable that, unlike clause 12, which we have just discussed and approved, the offence set out in clause 13 does not include recklessness in the same way as some of the other offences set out in the Bill. There must be a reason for that, but it is not immediately apparent what that is, and it would help the Committee a great deal if we could hear the rationale for recklessness being left out.

Obviously, the offence also does not include where an individual is unwittingly used to conduct the activity that the person who is engaging in the interference is seeking to conduct. I can understand that a bit more, because if someone is a dupe—perhaps without any intention or recklessness at all—one can understand why the offence might not extend to that person. However, given that some of the offences being introduced by the Bill do include recklessness, it would still constitute an offence if there was recklessness rather than intent. Why has recklessness not been made a part of the offence? I am sure there is an explanation, and I think it would help the Committee a lot to hear what it is. If there is no good explanation, perhaps the Minister might go back and produce an amendment that includes “recklessness” in clause 13.

15:00

[Stephen McPartland]

Clause 13 provides for a criminal offence of foreign interference. It is and always will be an absolute priority to protect the UK against such interference. The principal aim of the clause is to create a more challenging operating environment for, and to deter and disrupt the activities of, foreign states who seek to undermine UK interests, our institutions, political system and our rights, and ultimately prejudice our national security.

Clause 13 will act as a tool for disruption and deterrence, raising the cost to foreign states of carrying out interference activity by holding those responsible to account for their actions. I noted the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood very clearly. I have raised that issue myself, and it is something that we will talk about in the Home Department, because I understand those concerns. I will address the issue of recklessness later in my remarks. Reference was also made to the foreign power condition, which we will debate in much more detail later in our proceedings.

On the foreign influence registration scheme, I have spoken to hon. Members about that. The Home Secretary has committed to its formal introduction during Committee proceedings, and I put on record that I would like it to introduced during Committee proceedings in the Commons, so that it can be debated properly and dealt with here before being considered in the House of Lords. Donations from shell companies will be dealt with in the economic crime Bill.

We know that states around the world, including the UK, conduct open and transparent influence activities, such as using diplomacy to shape and align policy to benefit shared interests. That is a welcome part of transparent international engagement and is vital to the UK in achieving its interests. However, some states seek to further their strategic interests by going further than overt political influence, such as through cultivating and manipulating relationships with individuals and entities in the UK where power and influence lies and undertaking deceptive lobbying operations to shape public policy making. Although not necessarily hostile, those “interference” activities are typically non-transparent and outside the norms of diplomacy.

In our approach to legislating against foreign interference, we have chosen to target the intended effect of the foreign interference rather than the specific method used to achieve that result. We considered whether it would be more appropriate and effective to create specific offences, such as a bespoke “hack and leak” and disinformation offences, but that approach risked leaving gaps in our ability to prosecute foreign interference. Disinformation campaigns seek to sow discord and undermine public confidence in our institutions and values. Often, the damage caused by disinformation cannot be measured until long after the information is in the public domain. Our approach to foreign interference is intended to enable harmful behaviour to be disrupted at an early stage, before significant damage occurs. That is yet another reason to focus on the intended effect of foreign interference, as opposed to focusing on specific actions and methods of a state actor.

Clause 13 has been constructed with three conditions that must all be met in order for a person to have committed an offence. As is the case throughout the Bill, there must be a link to a foreign power, that is to say where conduct is undertaken for, or on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit, a foreign power. A person must intend that their conduct, or that a course of conduct of which their conduct forms a part, will have a specific effect. I will now turn to those effects to more detail.

The first stipulated effect is interfering with the exercise of a convention right as it has effect under the law of the United Kingdom. The aim of encompassing such intended effect is to catch activities that interfere with a right that is already protected from unjustifiable domestic interference under UK law such as freedom of speech. It has been evidenced that foreign states have engaged in activity that seeks to intimidate or threaten diaspora communities to stop engaging in lawful protest activities, or to embrace their home country or face punishment. It is our aim that such hostile activity can be stopped through this targeted approach.

The second and third effects look at affecting the exercise by any person of their public functions and manipulating whether or how someone uses services provided in the exercise of those public functions. The first of these two effects could relate to the functions of a person who holds public office, such as a Member of Parliament. The type of activity this effect could capture, subject to the other legal conditions being met, is conduct that seeks to affect a political decision. The second of the two effects could be manipulating whether or how any person makes use of vaccination services. In isolation, this is of course not a crime, but sophisticated and well-resourced state actors will choose topics that divide public opinion and pit us against one another. As I have already touched on, this clause focuses on the person’s intention, as opposed to the vector or means they use to achieve it. That is at the very core of what foreign interference is.

The fourth and fifth effects capture conduct that manipulates whether, or how, any person participates in a political or legal process under the law of the United Kingdom respectively. Examples of the type of activity that we consider those effects capturing, subject to the other legal conditions being met, would be threatening a member of a jury in order to prejudice a trial, stealing evidence of a crime in order to disrupt an investigation, or intending to secure the election of candidates with views favourable to, or favoured by, the foreign power.

The sixth effect is consistent with other offences in the Bill and could cover foreign interference in UK defence and security interests or trade deals being negotiated with countries around the world.

In addition to the foreign power condition needing to be met and an intention to cause one of the effects in subsection (2), the person’s conduct must meet at least one of three specific conditions: A, B or C. Condition A is that the person’s conduct constitutes an offence or, if it takes place in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence if it took place in England and Wales. That reflects the potential for foreign interference to be conducted through a range of methods, all with different outcomes. In seeking to bring about one of the effects in subsection (2), a foreign state actor could, in theory, commit an offence such as fraud or bribery in the course of their conduct.

Condition B is met when a person’s conduct involves coercion of any kind. The term coercion captures aggressive and violent forms of conduct such as damaging or destroying, or threatening to damage or destroy, a person’s property, or damaging or threatening to damage a person’s reputation. In addition, the term “coercion” also encompasses activity that causes spiritual injury to, or place undue spiritual pressure on, a person. This term follows existing precedents, as debated during the passage of the Elections Act 2022.

Condition C is met when a person’s conduct involves making a misrepresentation. A misrepresentation may include making either a statement or by any other kind of conduct and may be either expressed or implied. This covers a misrepresentation as to the person’s identity or purpose, as well as presenting information in a way that amounts to a misrepresentation, even if some or all of the information is true. As the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated, information can be weaponised. The new offence of foreign interference is a significant step forward in the UK’s response to tackling state-sponsored disinformation. We believe that the vast majority of state-sponsored disinformation captured by this clause will be done so by meeting condition C.

It is right that the framework we have devised consists of three high legal tests, which must all be met for an offence to apply. That is an effective and appropriate way to safeguard against capturing legitimate forms of influence or undermining and eroding the freedoms and values we are actively seeking to safeguard.

Additionally, this clause provides that the offence applies regardless of whether a person’s conduct takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. This important component reflects the threat landscape of the 21st century and enables activity conducted overseas to be captured. I must reiterate that if this component did not apply to the clause as drafted, vast swathes of hostile activity could go unpunished, which could ultimately undermine the UK’s safety and interests. The provision in clause 13(10) is consistent with other offences in the Bill.

As I have said, clause 13 is not about restricting the rights and liberties of the British people. It reinforces such protections and privileges we care so deeply about. As I have noted, the offence consists of a framework with three explicit legal conditions that must all be met in order for a person’s conduct to be caught. Furthermore, the measures underpinning this clause also include the requirement of Attorney General consent in England and Wales, and Advocate General in Northern Ireland, in order to bring forward a prosecution.

Turning to the penalty, we propose a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment on conviction, or a fine, or both. That reflects the seriousness of the harm that state threats can have on the UK and its interests. This is about activity that intends to interfere in our democracy, and we must not be complacent in ensuring that sentencing judges have available to them penalties that can reflect the potential harm caused by this type of conduct.

Therefore, the best way of tackling the significant threat we face from hostile activity by states is to ensure that we have appropriate and proportionate measure that do not overshadow our freedoms. As previously stated, I am committed to ensuring that we have a full suite of provisions in our arsenal to protect our national security. I hope the Committee will agree on the clear requirement for clause 13.

Government amendment 9 creates a bridge from the offence in clause 13 to the priority offences in the Online Safety Bill, which will strengthen the Government’s response to the state-sponsored disinformation that seeks to undermine the UK’s interests. The new offence of foreign interference will criminalise state-sponsored disinformation affecting the UK, allowing us to disrupt and deter foreign actors engaging in disinformation campaigns against the UK. As well as prosecuting perpetrators where possible, we need online platforms to take action against the content. Designating the offence as a priority offence in schedule 7 to the Online Safety Bill will require online platforms to guard against and act swiftly to remove content that amounts to an offence.

The risk assessment and safety duties provided for in the Online Safety Bill include the use of proportionate measures to reduce and manage the risk of harm to individuals and prevent users from coming across priority illegal content on the service. Where priority illegal content is present on the service, providers must minimise the length of time for which it is present and also swiftly remove the content on being alerted to it.

Officials in the Home Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport continue to work closely with Ofcom and platforms to ensure that guidance is produced to allow platforms to take proportionate steps towards removing state-sponsored disinformation. To comply with these duties, platforms will have to consider the design and features of their service and the operation of their algorithms. In the context of the foreign interference offence, that could include measures to ensure that platform manipulation, such as engaging in artificially co-ordinated messaging campaigns, is more difficult, thus mitigating the risk of co-ordinated inauthentic behaviour and disinformation more broadly.

While amendment 9 ensures robust action on state-sponsored disinformation, it must be set in the context of a regime that will also defend freedom of expression and the invaluable role of a free press. Platforms and Ofcom will have duties relating to freedom of expression for which they can be held to account. Platforms will not be able to arbitrarily remove harmful content. They will need to be clear what content is acceptable on their services and enforce the rules consistently. Users will have access to effective mechanisms to appeal the removal of content without good reason.

It is right for the Government to go further in addressing disinformation and wider information operations undertaken and amplified by foreign states. Amendment 9 will address the most concerning information campaigns being amplified by foreign powers who are seeking to advance their interests and harm the UK.

On the point about recklessness, my understanding is that we are trying to get the balance right between legitimate and illegitimate restrictions. The concern was that including recklessness would possibly widen the scope and would then move into the political and diplomatic arenas. There is a reason—it may not be the best one, but there is a reason.

Amendment 51 seeks to modify condition A subsection (4), so that conduct outside the UK is within the scope of condition A where such conduct would amount to an offence in any part of the UK, not just England and Wales. Condition A

“is that the person’s conduct constitutes an offence or, if it takes place…outside the United Kingdom, would constitute an offence if it took place in England and Wales.”

Conduct taking place in Scotland or Northern Ireland that constitutes an offence in Scotland or Northern Ireland would be covered here. It is only where the conduct takes place outside the UK that the criminal law of England and Wales is currently used as the benchmark. The clause has been drafted this way for operational effectiveness and to ensure no unintended or complex consequences where, for example, a prosecution is brought in one part of the UK but relies on a charge from another part of the UK. We expect the amendment would have little practical impact on prosecutions.

However, that said, I accept the spirit of the amendment and I personally believe that we should be seeking to legislate for all parts of the UK. If the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will withdraw the amendment, I propose to take the point away to consider further. In particular, I want to ensure that there are no unintended practical difficulties for investigators and prosecutors that may make bringing charges for foreign interference, which can often emanate from overseas, harder than necessary. Another consideration is ensuring that any amendment does not affect the utility of our Government amendment to add the offence of foreign interference to the Online Safety Bill, where platform operators will be under a duty to guard against and swiftly remove content that amounts to an offence of foreign interference.

I will consider those points and hope to be able to come back favourably at a later stage. I ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 9, in clause 13, page 12, line 13, at end insert—

“(12A) In the Online Safety Act 2022, in Schedule 7 (priority offences), before the italic heading “Inchoate offences” insert—

“Foreign interference

32A An offence under section 13 of the National Security Act 2022 (foreign interference).”—(Stephen McPartland.)

This amendment amends the Online Safety Act expected to result from the Online Safety Bill currently before Parliament to make foreign interference a priority offence for the purposes of that Act.

Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Foreign interference in elections

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

15:15

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 10 and 11

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill

New clause 3—Reporting on disinformation originating from foreign powers—

(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a person or body to review the extent of disinformation originating from foreign powers which presents a threat, or potential threat, to national security.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the extent of foreign interference in elections.

(3) A review under subsection (1) may include—

(a) examining the number and scale of offences committed, and estimating the number and scale of instances where an offence is suspected to have been committed, under—

(i) section 13, where Condition C is met, and

(ii) section 14,

and,

(b) any other matters the person or body considers relevant to the matters mentioned in subsections (1) and (2).

(4) The person or body appointed under subsection (1) may be the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, or another person or body the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) A review must be carried out under this section in respect of—

(a) the 12-month period beginning with the day on which section 13 comes into force, and

(b) each subsequent 12-month period.

(6) Each review under this section must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable after the period to which it relates.

(7) The person or body must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review carried out under this section as soon as reasonably practicable after completion of the review.

(8) On receiving a report under subsection (7), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.

(9) The Secretary of State may pay to the person or body—

(a) expenses incurred in carrying out the functions of the reviewer under this section, and

(b) such allowances as the Secretary of State determines,

except where financial provision is already made to the person or body for the discharge of the person or body’s functions, of which this section may form part”

[Stephen McPartland]

The clause provides for substantially increased maximum penalties where a person commits any of the existing electoral offences set out in schedule 1 and the person’s conduct meets the foreign power condition found in clause 24. I will also deal with amendments 10 and 11 and new clause 3 in the course of my speech.

As I touched on in highlighting the necessity of clause 13, activity that interferes in our elections, political processes and democratic events reflects the most egregious form of state threats activity. It is therefore absolutely right that we have the tools and powers at our disposal to be able to deter, disrupt and withstand the actions of foreign states who seek to harm the UK and its interests. The clause’s primary aim is to provide for substantially increased maximum penalties where a person commits any of the existing electoral offences set out in the related schedule and the person’s conduct meets the requisite foreign power condition. That will help to create a more challenging operating environment for those who seek to do the UK harm, raising the cost to foreign states of carrying out interference activity by holding those responsible to account for their actions.

We have constructed a provision that applies to a range of existing electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The offences remain unaffected, but, where the foreign power condition is met, a substantially increased maximum sentence will be available. For example, existing offences under the Representation of the People Act criminalise interfering with elections—for example, undue influence in section 114A, bribery in section 113, and tampering with ballot or nomination papers in section 65—but the maximum penalties available do not reflect the significance of malign political foreign interference at the hands of a foreign power. Where a person commits any of the existing electoral offences set out in schedule 1 and their conduct meets the requisite foreign power condition, the maximum sentence available to the court will be substantially increased.

As I mentioned, part 1 of schedule 1 sets out a table that lists the relevant electoral offences in column 1 and the specified maximum term for each relevant offence in column 2. Part 2 of the schedule provides for necessary amendments to the Acts from which the offences are taken, where the clause applies. Let me turn briefly to the table in part 1 of schedule 1. In respect of the relevant electoral offences from the Representation of the People Act 1983, there will be a seven-year maximum sentence for offences relating to personation, postal and proxy voting, tampering with nomination papers, and handling of postal voting documents by political campaigners. There will be a four-year maximum sentence for offences relating to providing false statements in nomination papers, bribery, treating, and undue influence.

In respect of the relevant electoral offences from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, there will a four-year maximum sentence for offences relating to information about donors, providing a false declaration about source of donation or a false declaration as to residence condition, failing to return donations, evading restrictions on donations, failing to comply with requirements about recording donations, providing a false declaration in a donation report, donating to individuals and members associations, loaning to individuals and members, donations to recognised third parties, and donations to permitted participants. There is also a two-year maximum sentence for an offence relating to incurring controlled expenditure in contravention of restriction.

These offences and associated penalties have been determined following robust engagements between the Home Office, other Departments and law enforcement agencies, highlighting that the provisions under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 signify the most egregious conduct associated with political and electoral interference. Therefore, if such conduct has been carried out for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit, a foreign power, it fundamentally changes the seriousness of the conduct already criminalised, and therefore requires a greater and more severe sentence. Obtaining the strongest possible deterrence is essential to deliver our broader objectives of pushing back on state threats and making the UK a hard operating environment in which to conduct hostile activity.

The offences in clause 14 are excluded from clause 16 —dealing with the aggravating factor where the foreign power condition is met—to aid investigations and create clarity for prosecutions. Many of the offences in the Bill have the foreign power condition built in, such as clause 13, and we have replicated that approach for the offences in part 1 of schedule 1. Many of the offences under part 1 of schedule 1 have a time limit for investigations. We have removed that to reflect the complexity of state threat investigations, but that also means that we must exclude the offences contained in that schedule from clause 16.

I now turn to Government amendment 10, which is concerned with the relevant electoral offences referenced in clause 14 and contained in part 1 of schedule 1 to this Bill. For context, clause 14 provides for substantially increased maximum penalties where a person commits any of the existing electoral offences set out in the related schedule and the person’s conduct meets the foreign power condition in clause 24. These offences are currently found solely in the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The relevant electoral offences in part 1 of schedule 1 in the RPA are applied in several pieces of secondary legislation. Where that is the case, the Interpretation Act 1978 effectively cascades the effect of clause 14 so that it will apply to the applied versions of the offences without the need to include an express provision in clause 14.

Government amendment 10 proposes to include certain offences contained in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 as relevant electoral offences. Those are offences that are akin to the offences from the RPA that are already set out in the schedule. Given the complexity of electoral law, it was right for us to ensure that we have fully considered what else we ought to include in relation to foreign interference in elections, given the threats that we face in this space. That is why the amendment includes the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. That piece of legislation is specific to Northern Ireland and contains its own stand-alone offences. Many of them are akin to those in the RPA—for example, personation, bribery and treating. Because they are stand-alone offences and not applied versions of the RPA offences, it is necessary to include them expressly in the schedule of offences to which clause 14 relates.

Although the current list of relevant electoral offences under part 1 of schedule 1 has been determined following extensive engagements with wider Government, law enforcement and the devolved Administrations, it is evident that these additions need to be made to clause 14 to respond fully to the threat posed by foreign interference in elections. These changes will ensure a complete and coherent footprint across the whole United Kingdom in responding to foreign interference in elections. It is right that the Government have considered our approach for dealing with foreign political interference and are seeking to expand the list of relevant electoral offences in order to provide greater protections against foreign interference in elections. The amendment does just that and I hope the Committee will support it.

Separately from the amendment, the topic of shell companies being used to make donations to political parties and to hide foreign donations was raised extensively on Second Reading, so it is right that I address what the Government are doing in that area. First, there are strict rules that ensure that foreign money is prohibited from entering through proxy donors, providing a safeguard against impermissible donations by the back door. It is also an offence to attempt to evade the rules on donations by concealing information, giving false information or facilitating the making of an impermissible donation. Under this clause, substantially increased maximum sentences will apply to those offences where the foreign power condition is met.

Secondly, UK electoral law sets out a stringent regime of donations and spending controls to safeguard the integrity of our democratic processes, and only those with a genuine interest in UK electoral events can make political donations. This includes registered UK electors—including registered overseas electors—UK-registered companies, trade unions and other UK-based entities or otherwise eligible donors, such as Irish citizens meeting prescribed conditions who can donate to parties in Northern Ireland. The recently passed Elections Act 2022 introduced a restriction on ineligible foreign third-party campaigning above a £700 de minimis threshold.

Transparency is the best form of disinfectant with regards to who is donating or contributing to political parties, and that is why all political parties, recognised third-party campaigners and candidates must record their election spending and report this to the Electoral Commission or local returning officer. This information is publicly available. In addition, political parties, third-party campaigners and candidates are required to record all contributions over £500. It is also right that the Electoral Commission publishes information about larger donations online for transparency.

New clause 3 would require the Home Secretary to create an independent body for monitoring disinformation originating from foreign states, producing a report to be laid before the House on an annual basis. The new clause would duplicate existing work being carried forward by Government to ensure that the threat posed by disinformation spread by foreign states is monitored effectively. It is, and always will be, an absolute priority to protect our democratic and electoral processes from foreign interference. That is why the Government have robust systems in place to protect UK democracy, bringing together Government, civil society and private sector organisations to monitor and respond to attempted interference, in whatever form, to ensure our democracy stays open, vibrant and transparent.

The intelligence agencies produce and contribute to regular assessments of state threats, including potential interference in UK democratic processes. We keep such assessments under review and, where necessary, update them in response to new intelligence. Where new information emerges, the Government will always consider the most appropriate use of any intelligence they develop or receive, including whether it is appropriate to make it public.

Ahead of major democratic events, the Government stand up the election cell, which brings together capabilities and expertise from across Government to address complex risks that threaten our democratic processes. The cell works closely with the Electoral Commission, police, and devolved Administrations to ensure rapid information sharing and a response that covers key risks, including electoral logistics, policing, counter-terrorism, cyber-security, disinformation and electoral interference.

During major democratic events the DCMS-led counter-disinformation unit works with the election cell and plays a pivotal role in the protection of elections by working with a range of partners to understand the extent and reach of disinformation across a number of risks, including foreign interference. The Government are keen to do more to tackle state-sponsored disinform-ation. That is why we have now also put forward an amendment to make the foreign interference offence a priority offence in the Online Safety Bill. That will require companies in scope of the regime to conduct regular risk assessments for the presence of content that constitutes an offence and to put in place proportionate systems and processes to mitigate the possibility of users encountering this content. That will include disinformation spread by foreign states that is intended to undermine our democratic, political and legal processes.

Furthermore, the Online Safety Bill’s advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation will provide cross-sector expertise on disinformation and misinformation and advice to Ofcom about how providers of regulated services should deal with disinformation and misinformation. It will advise Ofcom on how it should exercise its transparency powers and its duty to promote media literacy in relation to disinformation and misinformation. This could include recommendations relating to disinformation originating from a foreign power, for which this amendment seeks to establish an independent review.

However, the Government can see merit in considering whether additional oversight is required for state threats legislation, including the offence of foreign interference, and we will come to a broader amendment in this regard later in Committee. In view of the significant cross-Government work in this area and the need to consider the most effective way of ensuring transparency and oversight of state threats legislation more broadly, I ask the hon. Member for Halifax to withdraw her amendment when the time comes.

In closing, the construction and inclusion of a provision for foreign interference in elections reflects how seriously the Government take the threat posed by hostile activity by foreign states. I am sure the Committee is committed to ensuring that we have a holistic and effective suite of measures to tackle such corrosive activity and to counter its malign impact. I hope the Committee will agree that there is a clear requirement for clause 14.

15:30

[Holly Lynch]

I listened carefully to the Minister. The Opposition welcome those measures in clause 14 that will bolster the UK against acts of foreign interference in our elections that are committed on our soil and abroad. For too long the Government have been complacent about the threat of foreign interference, and we seek to complement the measures in the Bill through new clause 3. I will continue to make the case for the new clause, but I have heard what the Minister had to say.

According to a report from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Russian hackers launched a cyber-attack in 2014 against the Polish electoral commission’s website, which damaged faith in the election. In 2015, the German Parliament was the victim of a cyber-attack linked to Russia that was aimed at collecting documents ahead of the federal elections. During the Scottish independence referendum, pro-Russia accounts on social media spread stories claiming voter fraud.

Ahead of the Finnish parliamentary elections, Russian entities created fake social media accounts posting as official parliamentary accounts. At first, those accounts posted mainstream political content and amassed thousands of followers, but as the election neared, the accounts turned to posting misinformation and vitriol aimed at sowing confusion among the electorate. Russian-sponsored disinformation through state media and fake social media accounts was also rampant in general elections in Italy and the Netherlands throughout 2017 and 2018, and in Spain at the time of the Catalonian independence referendum.

The evidence base is massive, and those are examples of just some of the most aggressive and obvious attempts to interfere in elections, which, until now, legislation has largely failed to address. We can only assume that, as Russia’s belligerence increases, so will its attempts to undermine our democracy and society. The measures proposed are long overdue.

On being asked his thoughts on the matter in last week’s evidence session, Paddy McGuinness made the interesting point that

“because there are not strong controls and real clarity about what is happening around our electoral processes, people mess about in that space.”

He wanted to make a distinction between “messing about” in that space—as he put it—and delegitimising an election. He went on to explain that

“Vladimir Putin’s intent, which is to have us off balance—is that if the Russians do hack into a political party’s servers and mess about within them, and maybe mess with the data or interfere, or if they play games with a technology platform that people rely on for information and put out information, and we decide as a result that we cannot trust a referendum or an election, they succeed. That is success for them, so I think what really matters in this space is the ability to measure the impact that state activity has on the democratic process we are looking at, and…that there is bright transparency so we know who is doing what.”––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 24, Q48.]

Turning to the relevant electoral offences in part 1 of schedule 1, I wonder whether the list of offences is grounded in a dated understanding of how someone might seek to interfere in an election when acting on behalf of a state. Although they are all very serious in themselves, my concern is that they might need a fresh look to consider whether they would capture state actors interfering in elections.

It is worth noting that in its 2020 Russia report the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that MI5 should be operationally responsible for upholding the safety of our democratic process, stating:

“In our opinion, the operational role must sit primarily with MI5, in line with its statutory responsibility for ‘the protection of national security and, in particular, its protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy’.”

Last week, we heard from Louise Edwards, director of regulation at the Electoral Commission. Despite the fact that almost all the other witnesses confirmed that state interference in elections was a significant cause for concern, we heard that the Electoral Commission is not currently undertaking any investigations on the issue. That suggests that, as things stand, it is not the right organisation to lead on this work.

With all of that in mind, we very much support the provisions in clause 14 and are content with schedule 1 —despite the points I have made—and with Government amendments 10 and 11. However, I would also make the case for new clause 3, and I am seeking to persuade the Committee and the Minister that an annual review on disinformation, with particular consideration of interference in elections, would help with the transparency and awareness piece that needs to sit alongside these offences. I think the Minister said that some of that would replicate the work already happening in Government, but he largely talked about the enforcement agencies being stepped up to try to protect those processes in real time from interference. All of that is actually quite clandestine; it does not seek to enhance the public’s understanding of some of that interference, which might assist them in making informed decisions when digesting information and allowing that to inform their voting decisions. The new clause would grant the Government the discretion to determine who would be best placed to carry out that annual but independent review, with the Intelligence and Security Committee being one of the bodies that could undertake it.

We have discussed the matter with the UK intelligence community, and it was clear from the evidence we heard on Thursday that raising awareness within the general public is a slightly separate piece of work from criminalising and disrupting hostile activity online. We heard that, while disinformation and misinformation are a problem—Government amendment 9 is very much welcome in tackling that—there is the issue of the amplification of often uncomfortable truths or single viewpoints, which is much harder to address. None the less, efforts should be made to identify the origins of such content and ensure that the public can see how narratives and public discourse can be manipulated to suit the agendas of foreign states, empowering the public to make more informed judgments about how they use social media. When I put these proposals to Poppy Wood of Reset.tech on Thursday and asked for her judgment about the measures and about who would be best suited to undertake such a review, she said:

“That is a brilliant idea…It should probably be a body like the Intelligence and Security Committee—some kind of cross-party body, quasi-independent of Government”.––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 60, Q113.]

I have heard what the Minister has said, and I very much hope that he will take seriously his commitment to have a further look at this issue—not just at the law enforcement of it, but at a report that would be published in the public domain that would reveal some of the origins of this content, alongside criminalising it where it meets certain thresholds. I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, and I am persuaded to withdraw new clause 3 on the basis that he does commit to further consider this matter very seriously.

[The Chair]

Of course, we will deal with new clause 3 when we get to the new clauses at the end.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

Foreign interference in elections

Amendments made: 10, in schedule 1, page 51, line 5, at end insert—

“Offences under the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (c.14 (N.I.))

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 15, page 13, line 6, leave out “in preparation for” and insert “which materially assists”.

This amendment ensures that only actions materially contributing towards to acts prohibited by this section will be criminalised.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Clause 15 criminalises conduct that is preparatory to some of the offences we have debated. It is fair to say that this is another amendment that I might have approached slightly differently had I been able to draft it in the light of the evidence session on Thursday, rather than in advance of it. Obviously, this clause was widely welcomed at that evidence session, and I accept that evidence.

I thought Sir Alex Younger made an interesting observation when he said:

“The bottom line is that we have to get in front of this stuff…We need to solve it before it has happened, and that raises a set of ethical and legal dilemmas where it is important to be striking the right balance”.––[Official Report, National Security Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2022; c. 19, Q38.]

While he welcomed how the issue was treated in the Bill, he recognised that there are ethical and legal dilemmas.

I am another one of those lawyers who seem to overrun this place. [Laughter.] Thanks very much. Punishing preparatory conduct is not something I can recall from my dim and distant past as a law student, although that is probably as much to do with my memory as anything else. However, the serious point is that various crimes are set out and designed to punish certain acts; after that, other inchoate crimes such as attempts or conspiracy attach themselves to those basic criminal laws.

I absolutely appreciate that criminalising preparation allows enforcement and prosecution at an even earlier stage than an attempt, but the sort of legal and ethical questions raised by it come sharply into focus when we realise that the maximum sentence for such preparatory conduct is life imprisonment. What is particularly striking is that some of the completed offences do not attract that sentence. That seems pretty odd. If somebody guilty of completing the actual offence faces a maximum sentence that is lighter than the maximum sentence for somebody who is simply convicted of preparing for that offence, that seems a bit of an inconsistency.

Preparatory conduct offences also attach themselves, of course, to offences that I have already argued might be worded quite broadly. When we debated clauses 1 and 4, I made various points about the foreign power condition, national interest and so forth. For example, on clause 4, I expressed concerns about protesters operating in the vicinity of a naval base. The idea of life imprisonment for preparing for a blockade at Faslane naval base seems quite extreme. I appreciate that, for various reasons that we discussed, clause 4 does not attach in that way, but that is why we should take adding a preparatory offence to arguably already wide offences very seriously and be very cautious about it.

Indeed, in the clause the notion of preparatory conduct is pretty vaguely defined, I would say. It refers to

“any conduct in preparation for”.

Not to be flippant—particularly in relation to jackets, which everyone has taken off—but if someone puts their jacket on before heading along to a peaceful protest, is that preparatory conduct? I accept that that will not lead to life imprisonment—we hope—but what exactly do we mean by preparatory conduct? The amendment suggests that it must materially contribute to the offence.

The ethical point is that we need to leave people able to change their mind and not end up incentivising them just to carry on and complete the act. If they will already get life imprisonment for preparing, they might arguably say, “Well, I’ve gone this far. I might as well just carry on and complete the act.” Where is the incentive of saying, “Well, okay, you’re going to get punished for your preparatory conduct, but the consequences will be much less severe if you stop now rather than carry on and complete the act”?

If someone sits for three days with a confidential document on their desk in an envelope addressed to a Russian agent, does not the threat of life imprisonment for having stuck the document in an addressed envelope and put a stamp on it effectively encourage them to go through with that act?

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about acts in preparation for an offence. A person engaged in preparing for an act of this type, even if they fail, could still be prosecuted, because they have been preparing for something. Who assesses material assistance? It could be a very small thing, but small things can be very incremental and lead to something bigger. Perhaps he could highlight that a little.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is a perfectly legitimate question and I suppose that ultimately it would be down to the judge to decide what is meant by a material contribution. As I say, putting a jacket on—again, I do not want to be flippant—could be about anything. Does it bring whatever is planned closer to fruition? I do not know. It could be more readily argued that purchasing equipment materially takes forward what was in contemplation, for example. However, as I say, that is a perfectly legitimate question.

The point that I was coming to was that the amendment seeks to put us in a place where we encourage people to change their mind, essentially, and not to put people away for life even if they are on the verge of engaging in conduct that would thoroughly merit that sentence. It would give them an out that will still attract punishment—possibly—but will give them that choice, basically.

We have not have very much in the way of written evidence, but we did receive some interesting written evidence from Dr Kendall at the University of Queensland. She makes the argument, as I have tried to, that the sentence is too harsh. She also argues that the Bill could be better worded. Furthermore, she makes the point that we should probably put in the Bill that someone cannot be convicted of an inchoate preparatory conduct offence. Basically, she is worried that someone might be found guilty of attempting to prepare, which takes us a step further back and complicates the picture even further. In her written evidence, she suggests that it should be made clear that someone cannot be charged with an attempt to prepare, which will take us too far through the looking glass.

15:45

[Maria Eagle]

I have a couple of points to ask the Minister about. The clause is a generally necessary and helpful provision. It provides for the offence of preparatory conduct, and makes it an offence to do things that are not an offence at the moment. The point, however, is that it helps law enforcement to intervene at an earlier stage, before the preparatory conduct has turned into the capacity to commit whatever it is that is being prepared for. It must be difficult for those seeking to disrupt such activities to have to sit around and wait for an offence to be committed before putting a stop to the preparatory conduct.

The purpose of the clause is clear, and it will be a useful addition. However, will the Minister explain why the clause covers preparatory conduct for various offences, but not all the offences in the Bill? Why does it not cover preparatory conduct with the intention of committing a new foreign interference offence, for example, because it does not? What is the reasoning behind that offence being left out of the clause?

It would be helpful for us to hear from the Minister what the thinking is in that regard. If it is good to have an offence of preparatory conduct to prevent at an early stage offences that might otherwise be committed that would be quite serious, why not for the foreign interference offence?

[Stephen McPartland]

The clause provides a disruptive tool to tackle preparatory activities carried out by those who seek to cause us harm. Malign actions by states have the potential to cause significant damage to the UK and its interests, and it is therefore vital that the law can intervene at an early stage when preparatory activities are under way. That is already provided for under the Official Secrets Act 1920, and the Law Commission has recognised the importance of maintaining the provision.

The offence covers preparatory conduct in two scenarios. The first is preparation to commit acts that would constitute one of the following offences: obtaining or disclosing protected information, obtaining or disclosing trade secrets, entering a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK, and sabotage. The second is preparation to commit state threats activity that involves serious violence, that endangers life or that creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the public. The offence of preparatory conduct covers those who are preparing to carry out harmful acts themselves, and those who make preparations for another person to commit the acts.

Importantly, the preparatory conduct offence is committed only where there is an intention to commit a relevant act and that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt—I hope that provides some reassurance. The element of intention provides an important safeguard that will prevent the offence from capturing legitimate acts, or acts undertaken by individuals who did not engage intentionally in state threats activity. In addition, consent will be required by the Attorney General, or the Advocate General in Northern Ireland, before a prosecution can be brought under the offence.

When preparatory acts are caught at an early stage, it may be unclear exactly what the perpetrator intended as the ultimate outcome—for example, an act of sabotage or obtaining trade secrets. The offence may therefore be committed if there is a general intention that the preparatory conduct will result in harmful state threats activity of a general nature. That is in line with the approach taken by Parliament when it provided the offence of the preparation of terrorist acts under section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006. A requirement to demonstrate that the preparatory act was undertaken with the intention that specific harmful state threats activity result would, in many cases, constrain the offence in a way that would be wholly undesirable and potentially allow state actors to evade the law.

Those caught preparing to harm us could face a maximum sentence of up to life imprisonment. The Committee will be aware that the ultimate decision on the length of the penalty faced will be decided by the courts, taking into account the severity of the preparatory activity and the harms that were intended to result from it, which could include long-lasting damage to the UK or the loss of life. I totally understand what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said about life imprisonment being a heavy penalty, and the courts would not give such a sentence for some of the examples that he described. But the courts could impose life imprisonment if someone was preparing to commit murder and the courts would want to treat some activities in the same manner, because if someone had another person assassinated, the court would want the full ability to impose a life sentence in those circumstances.

We know all too well that state actors operate using sophisticated methods, and that they can cause unimaginable harm. I therefore stress the importance of clause 15 as a key tool in our fight against states who seek to harm us. Where we can disrupt state actors at a preparatory stage, we must do so, before they have the opportunity to manifest their intentions to cause harm to our nation. As we discussed earlier, the ability to deal with the offence already exists in the Official Secrets Act 1920, and the proposed offence in the Bill modernises its terms. With regard to why the offence is to be expanded to apply to some rather than others, we believe that we have carefully assessed the link between the two, and we do not think it is necessary or appropriate to extend the offences to apply to foreign interference or assisting a foreign intelligence service at present. That is something that we will continue to look at.

Effectively, we need to continue to get the powers on the statute book to help the intelligence services and provide them with the toolkit that they need to help keep us safe.

On amendment 52, which seeks to raise the threshold—

[Maria Eagle]

I was trying to work out the Minister’s answer to me. The foreign interference offence in clause 13, which we have debated, covers a wide range of harmful activity, including manipulating legal or political processes, interfering with fundamental rights. Why is the offence of preparatory conduct not applying to those activities? What is the reasoning, because it would be an important disruption tool for authorities to try to prevent foreign interference, would it not?

[Stephen McPartland]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying—

[Sally-Ann Hart]

Clause 13 on foreign interference refers to a person committing an offence

“if…the person engages in conduct intending that the conduct, or a course of conduct of which it forms part”

so that would include preparatory conduct, because it is a course, so the conduct goes from beginning to end. There will be preparatory conduct. Does my hon. Friend agree that that might scoop up the relevant particular point?

[Stephen McPartland]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. At the end of the day, my understanding is that the offences are designed differently, which is why we were unable to capture the relevant preparatory activity as part of the offences themselves. I am not a lawyer, but effectively those offences are designed differently, and that is where we are.

Amendment 52 seeks to raise the threshold of that which be proven to show the preparatory nature of the clause. Those who intentionally engage in preparatory conduct, as specified under clause 15, pose a significant risk to national security, and that will be true regardless of whether or not their actions materially assist the ultimate outcome. For example, if a security guard in the employment of a foreign power leaves a door open to facilitate access into a prohibited place by a hostile actor, that would constitute a preparatory act. If the hostile actor then used an alternative route to access the site, for example, cutting through a fence, the guard’s act would not have materially assisted them and his acts would go unpunished. I am sure that the Committee would agree that that would be an unacceptable outcome.

Furthermore, the offence enables disruptive action to be commenced at an early stage, to provide the greatest chance of avoiding the harmful activity occurring. It will not always be possible to determine the end goal of a person’s conduct, and thus whether their preparations are of material assistance. Indeed, in some cases, an individual may not even have decided the precise harmful acts that will result from their conduct, but rather will have the intent that their preparatory conduct will bring out harmful activity in general. However, in order to be caught by this offence the individual must have the intent that their conduct will bring about one of the relevant harmful outcomes. I hope that reassures the Committee that the offence cannot be used to prosecute those who undertake actions without any awareness or intent that it could support the commission of a relevant act.

The amendment would undermine the utility of what is otherwise a key preventive tool. Therefore, I do not support it, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I particularly take his point about the door being left open, and that ultimately ending up not making a material contribution to what happened thereafter. I will go away and think again about the issue, but I think the Minister’s explanation was very helpful. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Scott Mann.)

15:55

Adjourned till Thursday 14 July at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 12 July 2022

[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]

BBC Charter: Regional Television News

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Before we begin the debate, I should tell Members to feel free to remove jackets if they wish because of the temperature.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the BBC Charter and the closure of regional TV news programmes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. When I was 15, I wrote to BBC Radio Oxford to say that it should make programmes for teenagers. Its reply offered me the chance to make those programmes myself. Thus began my career in broadcasting. After I had graduated, I worked for BBC News for seven years before moving to Channel 5, where I stayed for another eight years. I declare an interest: I have a background in broadcasting and spent a considerable period working for the BBC.

One of the things that made BBC Radio Oxford great when I was there was its connection to the audience. Its presenters, reporters and producers knew the local area, understood the local issues and related to the local people. That is the case now for the Oxford television newsroom, which each evening produces dedicated programming in “South Today”. The title sequence shows the names of the places that feature: Abingdon, Bicester, Brackley, Buckingham, Didcot, Witney and, of course, Aylesbury, my constituency. The Oxford programme has a dedicated presenter and a dedicated team of journalists who produce dedicated programming for their local audience, yet that programming is under threat.

At the end of May, the BBC announced that it will

“end the local TV bulletins broadcast from Oxford on BBC1 at 6.30 pm and 10.30 pm on weekdays.”

From November, regional coverage for the area will be merged with the “South Today” programme broadcast from Southampton. Instead of there being TV news for my area, the BBC says it will be

“strengthening its local online news services.”

The BBC has decided to do the same with its bulletins produced in Cambridge—scrap the TV programme and put the local news online instead. I know there are colleagues here today who are affected by that decision.

The BBC has a unique and privileged place in our country. It is funded by a licence fee that is imposed on everybody who owns a television set, irrespective of how much they earn and how much BBC output they watch, listen to or read. In return for that funding model, the BBC is governed by a royal charter that sets out the corporation’s responsibilities. The charter lists the public purposes of the BBC, and this is the first among them:

“To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them: the BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.”

The debate is not the place to discuss how fully the BBC complies with everything set out in that paragraph—there are certainly different views about how well it complies with the requirement to be impartial, for example —but I draw the attention of the House to certain key elements of the first of the public purposes of the BBC. Those key elements are to

“provide… news… to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom”,

enable all audiences to

“engage fully with major local… issues”

and offer material

“not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers”.

I submit that, with its proposal to close the Oxford edition of “South Today” and the Cambridge edition of “Look East”, the BBC is failing to comply with those charter requirements.

The BBC needs to continue providing local news in the way people want to get it, because others have ceased to do so. Many local newspapers have closed in recent years. In August 2020, Press Gazette reported that, according to its analysis, 265 local newspapers had shut since 2005. Just last month, a report entitled “Local News Deserts”, published by the Charitable Journalism Project, set out a stark picture. It said:

“The current local news landscape of the UK is unrecognisable compared to 25 years ago…Average daily print circulation for the local regional and local press in 2019 was around 31%...of 2007 figures…The loss of revenue from print sales and the migration of advertising online has brought about successive shocks to the business model of local news. It has led to multiple title closures, redundancies, the ‘hollowing out’ of newsrooms, office closures and centralisation…Most local journalism is no longer written by separate editorial teams associated with a specific title.”

The report says that people

“want a trusted, locally based, professional and accessible source of local news, that reports and investigates local issues and institutions…provided by journalists local to their communities.”

The chairman of the project wrote in his forward:

“The collapse of local reporting is a slow-burning crisis in Britain.”

He pointed out that the income that kept local newspapers afloat in the past will not return.

That, then, is the picture for local print journalism, but it is not just newspapers that are leaving town. In September 2020, Aylesbury’s much loved and very widely respected commercial radio station, Mix 96, effectively closed down. It was subsumed into a new regional station called Greatest Hits Radio (Bucks, Beds and Herts), owned by Bauer. The dedicated team who had served Aylesbury with news, current affairs and local information were no more. The studios in our town have closed. Bauer promised that there would still be coverage of Aylesbury stories, but there are far fewer than there were. The reporters who lived and worked locally have gone.

Of course, I recognise that the way we get our news is changing. Many of us use our phones, for example, to see updates on Twitter or Facebook, but there is still a sizeable audience who want to get their local news from a local television programme, and that is especially the case for older people. Indeed, the BBC itself says that 75% of the viewers of “South Today” are over the age of 55. While many people in that age bracket are highly digitally savvy, plenty of others are not, and they should not be cut off from what is happening in their local area. They should still have access to information about local news. They should still be able to see their local politicians being held to account on their television screens.

Instead, with its latest proposals, the BBC plans to subsume the news from Aylesbury into a programme from Southampton. Frankly, stories about sailing and the coast are not terribly relevant to one of the most inland towns in England. The simple truth is that people in Witney do not have a great deal in common with people in Winchester. News about the havoc caused by HS2 in Buckinghamshire is not very high on the agenda of those who live in Bembridge on the Isle of Wight. The BBC is proposing to create a TV region that simply has no geographical identity. The result will be even lower audiences, as people tune out from a programme with stories to which they simply do not relate. This matters.

The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, also highlights the importance of television as a source of news. Its most recent report on news consumption says:

“TV remains the most common platform for accessing local news.”

In addition:

“Use of TV is most prevalent amongst the 65+ age group, while the internet is the most- used platform for news consumption among 16-24s…BBC One remains the most-used news source across any platform”.

It is twice as popular as the BBC website and app: the figures are 62% for TV, 31% for online and app. Yet, the BBC wants to close its TV programmes, and put the content online.

The BBC says that when it closes its Oxford and Cambridge TV programmes, it will devote more resource to its local radio stations. But Ofcom says that fewer than half the population now use the radio for news—it is just 46%, whereas 79% use television. Again, the BBC is knowingly cutting programmes from a platform it knows is used and relied upon.

Some may say that this Government’s decision to freeze the price of the BBC licence for two years has forced the corporation’s hand. It is true that the BBC will have to make some cuts in some of its expenditure, but not in this case. The acting director of BBC England told me in simple words, “This isn’t about savings. I haven’t got to save a single penny.” In the correspondence I received from the BBC to tell me that it was planning to close the Oxford programme, it is confirmed:

“The BBC will be maintaining its overall spend on local and regional content in England over the next few years.”

Let me repeat that: the planned closure of BBC Oxford’s “South Today” programme is not driven by the need to save money. Instead, the British Broadcasting Corporation wants to shift more of its output online and away from television.

Having been a journalist and always wanted to hear two sides of the story, I went to the BBC to ask it to put its case. When I asked what evidence it had that people in my local area wanted to get their news online instead of on screen, I was told it would take some time to gather all that information from various sources. That was from the director who had made the decision to close the service. I was a bit surprised that he did not have the facts at his fingertips and could not immediately tell me the justification and why he felt that it was needed or desired, so I waited for a mass of evidence to arrive from various sources.

After 10 days, I got one page. It could not be said to provide the compelling facts that I had eagerly awaited. First, it set out some raw numbers. The BBC said that the average number of viewers for “South Today” was considerably lower in 2022 than in 2020. In 2020, however, all regional news programmes experienced a big increase in viewers because of the pandemic—a point proudly emphasised by the BBC in its annual report—so it is somewhat disingenuous to take that specific high point as a comparator to justify cuts now. Indeed, the BBC told me that the decrease in viewing of regional news programmes is happening more slowly than the decrease in viewing of other programmes.

On my one page of evidence, there was a single paragraph that could perhaps be said to touch on digital versus traditional ways to get local news. It said that the BBC’s own qualitative research showed:

“Amongst older respondents (55+) there has been a long-term trend away from traditional platforms (especially print media) and towards online sources, most significantly Facebook.”

The BBC added:

“This is supported by Ofcom data which reveals over 55s are as likely to access news online as through radio or print. This group expects to be able to access tailored local news online.”

Those listening closely will have heard two references to print and one to radio, but the word “television” is not mentioned in the evidence that the BBC provided to support its decision to cut a television news programme. It certainly did not say that older viewers were switching away from TV news, let alone that they wanted to do so and get their local news online instead. In fact, it says that of the weekly visitors to BBC News Online, 37% are aged 55 or older—in marked contrast to the 75% aged over 55 watching “South Today”—so there are serious concerns about older people being able to get easy access to increased online local news. I should also mention that there is a threat to the jobs of those who have dedicated years of their lives to producing high-quality local TV news. They have not been guaranteed new posts, and they should not be forgotten.

The BBC is a British institution. It does a great deal of good for our country, and I am very proud to have worked there. Its role providing news and information is crucial to our democracy, but with its plans to cut dedicated news programmes on television in the Oxford and Cambridge areas, it will reduce access to local news and information for many people. For the reasons I have set out this morning, I believe that contravenes its charter requirements, which is why I say it is not simply a day-to-day operational decision for the BBC, but a matter for this House and the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

09:43

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, and to follow the excellent introduction by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). It was very thorough and considered. I suspect that this is one of those occasions on which people in both his and my part of the country can speak with one voice. I will make broadly similar points to his, but more in reference to Cambridge.

This issue is part of a wider debate about the BBC and how our major news programmes and broadcasters will cope with the challenges of the future. I am not entirely sure that it is our place as politicians to dictate to the BBC how it should run things. On the other hand, it is very important that it hears from the public and their representatives about the likely impact of these changes. I am sure I am not the only one in this House who regularly receives comments from constituents along the lines of, “Oh, I saw you on the telly the other day.” It is generally followed by me saying, “What was I talking about?” and they have no idea. Some of them say, “But I’m sure what you were saying was very sensible,” and others say something very different, of course.

I am struck by the number of people who respond when I have been on “Look East” or “The Politics Show”, compared with when I stuff leaflets through their door or even get pieces in print or on the radio. Television really matters locally, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Aylesbury explained: with the decline in print media—in Cambridge, we are fortunate still to have a daily paper—journalists struggle, because it is harder and harder, and there are fewer and fewer of them. Much less investigative journalism is done now, compared with when I started on my trail in Cambridge 20 years ago. The investigative journalism that I have seen in the past seven or eight years, since I have been in this place, has come from the BBC at a regional level.

I draw a bit of a distinction between the BBC at a national level and a regional level. I increasingly find myself watching “ITV News at Ten” these days, because I think the BBC has been too supine in its approach to the Government over the past few years, but at a local level the regional journalists are superb. They are incredibly professional and they produce really good programmes that people like, watch and identify with. It is invidious to name particular journalists, but one who stood down, Stewart White, was a legend in the east of England. He was a friend in the sitting room to many, many people.

The question today is whether the BBC is right to make these changes to its regional output. I and other political leaders in the region have written to it asking it to think again. The introduction of the west-east split a couple of years ago was a big plus—certainly for politicians, as it meant that we got covered more because more journalism was being done and there were more opportunities—and it dealt with the difficult problem, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, of regional identity.

There is a bigger debate to be had about regionalism, but I have always said whenever I have met the broadcasting companies that, to some extent, the TV regions define the east of England. It has long been argued whether the east is six counties, three counties or whatever, but the TV region really matters because that is what people see coming into their kitchens and homes. The split was a really good step forward, so I cannot say how disappointed I was to hear about these changes. Whatever one feels about the wider questions of whether this is the way to reach people in different demographics and whether people pick up more of their news digitally, this will mean less local journalism—there are no two ways about it—and that is bad for democracy. At a time when our democracy is, frankly, struggling in lots of ways, this is a step backwards.

There are some other factors particular to the east. The census figures from a couple of weeks ago revealed what many of us had known for a long time: the Cambridge sub-region is growing at an extraordinary rate. I have stood in this very place and argued with Ministers about public service spending and allocations. The Cambridge region is woefully under-resourced because the figures fail to keep up with the reality on the ground, and that is borne out by the most recent census figures. It is one of the fastest growing regions in the country, and the BBC is turning away from it. That makes no sense.

So I say to the BBC: please, you have an opportunity. Suddenly, the whole world is changing in front of your eyes. You do not have to be cowed by the Government who have just gone. A new Government are coming along, and another will come along after that. Spot what is going on, think hard about what the future looks like, and listen to the people who represent those who pay the licence fee. I think that if the BBC listened to those people, it would come to a different conclusion. There is still time to stop this change.

09:49

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has been far too modest about his achievements in broadcasting. It may come as a surprise to some Members, but he taught me all I know about broadcasting on both sides of the table. I remember appearing before him at the BBC as an interviewee, and a little later succeeding him as the presenter for BBC World Service Television broadcasts. Being a presenter for World Service Television meant that we could walk down a high street in the UK and not be recognised. However, when we got off a plane in Delhi, we were absolutely mobbed—an interesting experience.

We need to look at what right the BBC has to organise its own services. I would not want to ban the BBC from organising its own services or looking at the competition that it faces, which includes, as we have already seen, things such as Facebook, which I will come back to in a minute. It is right for the BBC to look at how we as consumers use TV and radio, but it is important for us as politicians to stand up and say what we value most in our television broadcasting, and what it would be a great shame to see end. For me, that starts and almost finishes with investigative journalism at a local level.

I am not saying this because I use “South Today” and BBC Radio Oxford, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury does as well. It is not for want of another forum for expressing our views, but—I pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)—when both Oxford and Cambridge are expanding so quickly and so much, it is extraordinary to see the BBC turning its back on them.

I accept the point about costs, but one question that will have occurred to the BBC is that investigative journalism is not cheap to run. It requires a lot of human costs and takes an enormous amount of time to make it work. Journalists have to go out and see, talk to and film people. When they get back to the studio, there is all the editing of the tapes as well, but the product is much the better for that personal intervention. I wonder whether anyone at the BBC has undertaken an analysis of how it manages the important elements of the charter that we have already mentioned—the impartiality of the news and information—and manages to keep them current and in place in the fight with digital broadcasters.

If we compare television news broadcasts with Facebook, we are not comparing like with like. Facebook is incredibly biased, and Twitter even more so. If that is the way the BBC is going with its digital broadcasts, I want nothing more to do with it. Like the hon. Member for Cambridge, I no longer watch BBC TV news. It is anathema to me to see the values that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and I were imbued with simply wasted, and I do not see that as a good line for the future. The impartiality point is a crucial one, and one that my hon. Friend did not touch on much. However, I think it is a point that we need to get right if the BBC is to make a change. I have seen nothing in the thinking of the BBC about how, in a digital age, it will preserve its impartiality. If we look at today’s news online as an example of that, there is absolute relish in the idea that tomorrow there will be a vote of no confidence in the Government. There is no objectivity about it; it is a piece of gratuitous journalism—if I can call it journalism—that does the BBC no credit whatever.

There are many aspects to the problem, and we can only touch on a few of them. However, I think it is important that we restate our commitment to local investigative journalism, which I agree does a tremendous job. I have seen such journalism at a local level develop into large-scale news programmes, because of the careful work undertaken by local journalists. I have no idea what I am going to do when I finish in Parliament. I will probably not go back into broadcasting, but if I were to, I hope that I would find the values that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury and I grew up with still alive and present in whatever form the BBC takes, but I sincerely doubt that that will be the case.

09:57

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I will bring, as is my wont, a highland perspective to this short debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) on a thoughtful contribution. I say to the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) that if he is short of things to do when he decides to leave this place, he is welcome to come and do some investigative journalism in the highlands of Scotland. Twenty years ago we had a half-hour bulletin from BBC Inverness; today we just have a five minute one. That has seen an erosion of investigative journalism and the coverage that was so good 20 years ago. I regret that enormously.

Of course I welcome and acknowledge the contribution that the BBC in the highlands makes to the Gaelic language. It has a large team of perhaps as many as 20 people, who are important to arresting the sad erosion of the language, but we now have about seven broadcasters speaking English covering the vast geography of the highlands.

I make the simple point that in the highlands we have challenges of distance and sparsity of population. Investigative journalism is important to enable the functioning of democracy—be it the Highland Council, NHS Highland, or the doings of a Member of the Scottish or Westminster Parliaments—but we do not get the coverage that we used to 20 years ago. That is not a complaint about me not being on air as much as I could be. The point is, in the past, if someone was not doing their job properly, at whatever level they were at in politics or the NHS, the BBC’s investigative journalists would dig it out and flap it around.

I remember coming a cropper; I learned a very hard lesson 25 years ago as a local councillor. I went on the BBC and said that the amount of money that we were proposing to increase councillors’ expenses by was absolutely shocking—it was a proposal from the Administration. A journalist, very adroitly replied, “Will you be taking the rise, Mr Stone?” I coughed, spluttered and had to say, “No.” I learned the lesson to beware journalists. However, it was a testing question and it needed to be asked.

I point out, anecdotally, that my former party leader, Mr Charles Kennedy—of happy memory in this place—started his career with the BBC in Inverness. I remember his voice broadcasting. I think he honed many of his skills that proved invaluable in this place through that work, as did the hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Henley. It augments what these people do.

I talk about the news coverage and the aversion to what is happening, and I very much hope that one day the cuts can be reversed. It is odd, is it not, Mr Robertson, that Orkney has a half-hour coverage of news and so does Shetland, whereas the whole of the highlands has one short bulletin? I say to BBC Scotland that something is wrong with its planning in that regard and I hope it will be looked at again.

In the past, programmes were made in Inverness. There was one called “The Kitchen Café”, which was very popular, and got local people involved and on air. I see the UK like a diamond; every facet is slightly different. British people do not particularly enjoy being homogenised all together, into one exact sameness. We enjoy hearing about the different ways that things are done in Oxford, Cambridge, the highlands or Wales. We love that; it is part of being British. The erosion of regional programme making cuts into that, and I regret that enormously because it is part of the British psyche and the way in which we do things.

When I was first elected as a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I took part in one of those shows. Every Monday I would have a 10-minute slot, which was rather hilariously called “Stone of Destiny”, in which I would talk about the Scottish Parliament, which had just then been set up. It may seem ridiculous to experienced Members, but I had to explain how Hansard worked and what a pager was—we do not have pagers now. Of course, the title came to be used against me by an independent candidate in one of my elections up in Scotland, who called me the “Stone of density”. The humble crofters in the township of Rogart were rolling in the aisles at that one! Again, it was good because the new democracy in Scotland was being aired. I hope I helped to explain it to people, and that they enjoyed it.

I will add one last thing. I hear the arguments expressed on the Government Benches, and I do not know if it is about the cuts or the licence fee, but I do know that something as basically important to being British and the way we do things—British democracy—is eroded and damaged by the cutting back of regional investigative reporting.

10:02

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) for raising this important topic. I welcome the Minister, who I see has been reshuffled back to where he rightfully belongs.

There are those who complain about BBC left-wing bias, so it is good to see two former BBC News anchors, both elected as Tory MPs, joining a Tory donor as BBC chair and a former Conservative party candidate as the director general. My colleagues, the hon. Members for Aylesbury and for Henley (John Howell) talked about their history at the BBC. I must declare some bias, because I was a BBC News reporter and anchor. I presented “BBC Breakfast” for a number of years, and was a reporter on “Newsnight” and other programmes. Every morning I found myself saying “Over to you, Rob” on “BBC Breakfast”, where the hon. Member was a much respected BBC business correspondent.

I also began my career by writing in and saying that I was interested in news and current affairs. I wrote to Janet Street-Porter, who invited me for dinner. I was ridiculously overdressed. She was ridiculously underdressed. She asked me if I would like to front youth programmes. I was shortly afterwards rejected for John Craven’s “Newsround” on the grounds that I was not boyish enough; I think I was 21 then and John Craven was probably approaching his 70th birthday. He was the editor at the time and took that brutal decision.

Politically, culturally and socially, as we saw through the pandemic, the value of the BBC is immense. It reaches every part of these islands and every demographic in them. Whatever people’s views on the shortcomings of the BBC—there is disquiet about some of its news direction, especially in Scotland—there can be no doubt whatever about its importance to our national life.

One of the proudest boasts of the BBC has always been its strength in depth, especially in local news and regional journalism, so the closure of regional news programmes and the accompanying job losses are tragic. However, they have almost certainly been inevitable, since the Government bullied the BBC into taking on responsibility for a social service: TV licence provision for the over-75s. A stronger director general would have resisted the bullying or even threatened to resign. One previous director general did precisely that, and the BBC board threatened to resign. I think I am right in saying that it was a former Chancellor of the Exchequer under the Cameron premiership who put the pressure on.

Alas, under Tony Hall, the BBC succumbed to the pressure and signed up for a disastrous deal. The deal, agreed behind closed doors between Baron Hall and the UK Government, places the burden of licence fee payment for the over-75s on the BBC, and it should never have been so. The BBC is a broadcaster. Its job is to deliver public service broadcasting. Without doubt, it is right that the over-75s should have their licence fees paid for, but it is the Government’s job to fund that.

When Tony Hall came before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, on which I sit, he claimed that his staff were delighted with the deal. I said, “Well, you’re obviously not talking to your staff, because I can tell you that they’re not.” From spending a moment with any member of staff from the BBC, it was clear that they thought there would be huge job cuts if the BBC took on this responsibility. I predicted the job cuts, and I am sad to say that I was right. Those cuts have also come with a cut in services, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury has outlined.

With more cuts comes less choice and a less informed public. That is bad at a time of widespread disinformation, and especially during the pandemic. In Scotland we have our own specific concerns about funding. During the Select Committee’s pre-appointment hearing of Richard Sharp as BBC chair, I asked Mr Sharp why only 80% of the licence fee raised in Scotland was spent in Scotland. I wrote down his answer. He said, rather phlegmatically,

“You can ask me, but I do not have the answer.”

That was admirably honest.

Last autumn, after Mr Sharp took up his post as BBC chair, I asked him again if he had learned the answer, having been in the job for some time. Once again, he told me that he did not have it, but that as a result of covid the figure had actually gone down. Tim Davie, when appearing before the Select Committee, told me that the percentage of the licence fee raised in Scotland that is spent in Scotland has dropped to only 67%. Clearly, that does not align with the BBC’s pledge to better deliver value for all audiences.

A Culture Secretary hostile to our public service broadcasters and underspending in Scotland means that Scots can be forgiven for having a pessimistic view of the BBC’s future. Given that I spent the formative years of my career at the BBC, issues affecting its future are very important to me, as I know they are to Members across the House. I will continue to argue for the devolution of broadcasting, but until that time comes, BBC management needs to do all in its power to resist further cuts by the Conservative Government. With our current Culture Secretary at the helm, and the history of political interference at both the BBC and Channel 4, those of us who champion public service broadcasting have cause for concern.

10:09

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, and to be speaking in this debate on behalf of the Opposition. It is good to see the Minister back in his place. I want to speak about the wider issues around the charter and licence fee as well as the issues we have heard about local news in the south-east. I congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) on securing the debate and providing a good overview. As a former broadcast journalist, he speaks with authority and is acutely aware of the importance of having well-resourced public service broadcasters delivering for local people, particularly in the light of the decline of local print journalism. He made some interesting points about striking the right balance between local TV news and digital provision in the digital age.

For the BBC to remain a world-class institution, it needs to be properly resourced so it can deliver for the digital age and beyond the 2020s. When the Secretary of State announced the licence fee freeze in January and suggested that it might be the last licence fee settlement—which happened just as Operation Save Big Dog commenced and, indeed, perhaps as part of it—we were worried. Thankfully the licence fee has lasted longer than Big Dog, but after—as usual—briefing the media first, the Secretary of State eventually made a statement to the House and told us about the freeze. She intimated that the licence fee would end in 2027 and, in future, the BBC should look to the models of American streaming giants, such as Amazon or Netflix. Since then, Netflix has lost over 200,000 subscribers and seen its share price fall by over 60%.

As well as the increase in the subscription cost, another key reason why subscribers are turning away in their droves is the lack of original and distinct programming being commissioned by the streaming giant, with many saying that the subscription was no longer value for money. Netflix announced last month that it has to lay off 300 employees. Is that the future the Government want to see for the BBC?

The past few months have demonstrated the instability and volatility of a streaming model. It would not deliver the long-term security and stability for the BBC that the Government claim to be the objective. Labour values and cherishes our great British institutions, such as the BBC. The BBC is loved at home and envied around the world, but as it approaches its 100th birthday—when we should be celebrating its success—its future once again looks uncertain. It is worth reminding hon. Members just how much we get out of the BBC. It is not only a news and broadcast service envied around the world, it provides a huge number of skilled jobs for people the length and breadth of the UK. It gives us a sense of—particularly regional—identity and unity, and that has been reflected in today’s contributions.

The BBC has a diverse range of content across multiple platforms, which appeals to people of all ages, areas and backgrounds. It is because of the licence fee that BBC Bitesize came to the aid of 5.8 million children during lockdown as parents juggled work with the challenges of home schooling. BBC content creators pulled out all the stops to continue educating our young people during the biggest public health crisis in a century. It is far more than just a producer of programmes; it is a curator of content from children’s television to hard-hitting documentaries and in-depth global news reporting. Of course, the digital and streaming revolutions are upon us, and the BBC must continue to keep pace with the changing media landscape as it has done with BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds. However, the Government need to be clear about how the broadcaster will be funded beyond 2027.

With inflation running at a 40-year high and in the light of the licence fee freeze, the broadcaster has already had to start prioritising some sorts of programming over others. Further delay will only lead to British jobs and content being outsourced abroad. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), said,

“cultural vandalism is not patriotic.”

The BBC is one of the most powerful aspects of our soft power. Around the world the BBC is trusted and respected for its impartiality, professionalism and skilled reporting. Nowhere has that come more to the fore than in its reporting on Russia’s criminal invasion of Ukraine. The Government like to talk about the UK being a soft power superpower, but how can that status be enhanced or maintained when they place such uncertainty on a cultural institution as important as the BBC? It is the only public service broadcaster from any country that reaches half a billion people a week.

Many questions remain on the future capability and ability of the BBC to continue as a world-class news broadcaster. It is still unclear how the merger between BBC News and BBC World News will look in practice and what effect that will have on how much it can cover, particularly when it comes to investigative international reporting. Our international news reporting is the envy of the world but, as we have heard clearly from around the Chamber, we must remember the dedicated teams and crews that make up local news reporting across the United Kingdom. Local news reporting is such an important grassroots component of the BBC, connecting communities to the issues happening locally around them. I therefore agree that it is disappointing that, as part of the digital first strategy, local news coverage is being squeezed, with dedicated frontline reporting one of the casualties.

As we have heard, local news bulletins on BBC One in Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire will be scrapped, with a single pan-regional edition of “South Today” from Southampton taking their place and covering the whole region. The recently launched regional investigative news programme “We Are England” is also to be scrapped barely a year after it was commissioned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and others talked about the importance of the local aspect of news reporting, and many communities outside the big cities will fear that with a reduction in frontline journalists and more regional programming, they will become merely a footnote in the broadcaster’s output. The BBC says that it will keep its news gathering teams in both the Oxford and Cambridge hubs, but I absolutely understand the worries expressed by Members from those areas that they will not have their own dedicated regional coverage.

An increased digital presence is welcome in the modern age, but it cannot replace journalists on the ground in their communities, reporting for their communities, understanding the issues on the ground and reflecting them in regional coverage. The Government say that their priorities are to ensure that the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, and not just London and the south-east, are prioritised for jobs, infrastructure projects and economic development. The BBC’s Media City in Salford, close to my constituency, provides more than 3,000 skilled jobs and has helped to foster a dynamic economic cluster. I have to say that it has raised house prices in my constituency. That would seem a model example of what levelling-up looks like in action, creating more skilled jobs and roles outside the capital.

To appreciate the BBC, we should look at the statistics. BBC services are used by nearly 100% of UK adults every month. The BBC is the most popular media brand among young people, reaching 80% of young adults on average per week. Over the covid period when schools had to shut their doors and move online, millions of families discovered the brilliance of BBC Bitesize.

Even those who are sceptical of the BBC, when tested, had a new-found respect for it. The BBC recently published the findings of a deprivation study in which 80 homes had no access to BBC services or content for nine days. It found that 70% of those who initially said they would rather do without the BBC, or prefer to pay less for it, changed their minds and were willing to pay the full licence fee or more to keep BBC services and content.

Rather than the constant sniping and funding insecurity that we see under this Government, a Labour Government would work towards a long-term settlement that would ensure that our great British content and great local reporting could survive and thrive. We would talk up rather than kick down the brilliant reporters, presenters, musicians, actors and technical staff who make our soft-power giant what it is.

The licence fee still represents excellent value for money for consumers, so the Government need to confirm that any future funding model that they might contemplate will continue to offer viewers and listeners so much and such value. The BBC needs clarity about its future so that it can continue to modernise and continue to inform, educate and entertain for the next 100 years as it has done so brilliantly for the past 100 years.

22:18

[The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and it is a pleasure to be back, however briefly. I thank hon. Members for their kind words.

I feel that I should join the ex-journalist fest. As a former journalist, I never had the pleasure of working for the BBC, but my first job was to be paid to watch its output. I promise that, as a first job out of university, being paid to watch television is less fun than it sounds, but it is pretty unusual. Among a whole host of other things, I covered the launch of BBC iPlayer in 2007 as a journalist, and in some ways I think that tells us how far the BBC has come and how much it has changed since then. It is as much a technology company as a broadcaster.

The thread that runs through all of that period, and which predates it by some way, is the value of regional news output. I think that the continued preservation of that output is something we would all like to see the BBC look to. The Government would, of course, like to see it preserve and enhance its regional output as much as possible, but that is a matter for the BBC. We have all paid tribute to our local news organisations, but I could not stand here without mentioning the giant that is Peter Levy on “Look North”.

Turning to the substance of the debate, as the Secretary of State and many others have said, the BBC is a global British brand. The Government want the BBC to continue to thrive in the decades to come and be a beacon for news and the arts around the world. The royal charter, underpinned by a more detailed framework agreement, guarantees the BBC’s current model as an independent, publicly owned, public service broadcaster.

[John Howell]

Has the Minister been struck, as I have, by the similarity between what we are asking for for local investigative journalism and how the brand operates at a global level? It seems that at the global level the BBC has appreciated that it can only achieve its aim by investigative journalism and working in small groups, which is to its credit. We see that every day on the television.

[Matt Warman]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has read my next paragraph. The value that we have seen recently from the BBC in the reporting on the crisis in Ukraine is not the whole story. We have to look at the huge value it adds in its heroic reporting and investigating of local issues just as much as its value on the world stage.

The charter and framework agreement set the BBC’s mission and public purposes, which establish the BBC’s responsibilities and what it must do. Those responsibilities include the provision of impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them—of course, that is a world that is experienced locally, nationally and internationally.

On 17 January, the Secretary of State announced in Parliament that the licence fee would be frozen for the next two years. The BBC will continue to receive around £3.7 billion in annual public funding, allowing it to deliver its mission and public purposes and continue doing what it does best. Under the terms of the charter, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent from Government—quite right, too. As Members have acknowledged today, there is no provision for the Government to intervene on the BBC’s day-to-day operations. That means that it is for the BBC, subject to Ofcom’s regulation, to decide how best to use its funding as it delivers its remit and meets its mission and public purposes. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) implied, as Ofcom is set up by the Government, there is a role for the Government within this. However, I have to stress that Ofcom regulates that aspect of the BBC, rather than the Government.

On 26 May 2022, Tim Davie set out his vision for keeping the BBC relevant and offering value to all audiences in the on-demand age, with a particular focus, as has been referred to, on a digital-first BBC. This included an announcement that while the BBC will maintain its overall investment in local and regional content, some services and bulletins will be merged or ended, as we have discussed today. In the BBC’s explanation for this change, it set out that a small number of changes to its regional TV output will help strike a better balance between broadcast and freeing up money to invest online.

The announcement also confirmed that the BBC will continue to support the local news sector through the £8 million it spends each year on the local news partnerships and the Local Democracy Reporting Service, and that it will increase investment in local current affairs by creating a new network of journalists to focus on investigative journalism in communities across England. Of course, the Government welcome the maintenance of support for the LDRS during this charter period. It is an effective model for collaborative working between the BBC and local commercial news outlets.

As the BBC’s independent regulator, Ofcom is responsible for setting out the regulatory conditions that it considers appropriate for requiring the BBC to fulfil the mission and public purposes that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury referred to. Those conditions are set out in the operating licence, and Ofcom is conducting a public consultation on proposed changes to the current licence.

The Government firmly believe that public service broadcasting plays an important role in reflecting and representing people and communities from all over the UK. The BBC has a particular role to play and must ensure that it meets the responsibilities set out in its charter. That will be regulated by Ofcom, including through an annual assessment of the BBC’s performance.

Regional news and local current affairs play a vital role in bringing communities together—as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said—and providing shared experiences across the UK. In that context, we recognise the continued requirement for the BBC to produce and schedule regional news programmes on traditional platforms. The value of television remains immense; whatever the changing figures of its reach, for a large number of people, it is obviously hugely and uniquely valuable.

We also recognise that the remits of all PSBs, including the BBC, must be updated to reflect the rapidly changing sector, where that mixture of online and digital distribution is of increasing importance. We therefore welcome Ofcom’s consultation on the BBC’s operating licence to ensure that the BBC continues to be allowed to innovate and respond to changing audience needs through greater recognition of those online services. We look forward to seeing the consultation’s results in due course.

It goes without saying that the BBC needs to consider whether local news meets the needs of local communities. That is, of course, its ambition and what Ofcom looks to ensure that it achieves. However, in my own community for instance, people in Boston will think that Hull is a very long way away, just as people in Oxford and Cambridge may think they do not have much in common with the Isle of Wight, as the hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out.

Among the actions we are taking to support the sector, we have committed to a series of measures that we intend to deliver through a media Bill. It will support PSBs by updating decades-old rules to give them more flexibility in how they deliver on their remits across their services. They will also have their online prominence guaranteed.

While there are some excellent examples of effective news services provided by local TV, the picture is more mixed for local TV as a whole. A number of local stations have been granted permission by Ofcom over the past few years to reduce local news and local content production to sustain services. By the end of the year, we will consult on the process for licensing local TV after 2025, and will gather views on whether to offer renewals, and the terms under which they should be offered. We will consider whether to set minimum local news requirements as a condition of renewal.

The Government also fund the community radio fund, which gives grants to help fund the core costs of running Ofcom-licensed community radio stations, such as management and administration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury mentioned, those radio stations reflect a diverse mix of cultures and interests and provide a rich mix of mostly locally produced content, typically covering a small geographical area. Their value in the mix cannot be overstated. However, specifically on the BBC, we are evaluating how the BBC and Ofcom assess the market impact and public value of the BBC in the local news market through the mid-term review.

To conclude, noting our manifesto commitment to support local newspapers as vital pillars of our communities, it is important, in a debate about regional TV programming, to consider the sustainability challenges faced across the broader local news market, and the extent to which the BBC can help. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is conducting an inquiry into the sustainability of local journalism, and I look forward to seeing its report in due course.

We all know that the BBC is a great national institution; we all want to see it thrive. Over the past 100 years, as has been said already, it has touched the lives of almost everyone in the UK and made a unique contribution to our cultural heritage. The Government are clear that the BBC must continue to adapt if it is to thrive in the decades to come, but, of course, we all want to see it serve local, regional and international audiences to the best of its ability. I think we would all like to see it define that in ways that are understood by the general public.

The BBC needs to represent, reflect and serve audiences, taking into account the needs of diverse communities of all the UK nations and regions. It is vital that the BBC continues to meet that requirement, and it is vital that it is held to the highest standards in doing so. On that note, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury on securing the debate, which has been an important part of holding the BBC to those standards, alongside the work of Ofcom and others.

10:30

[Rob Butler]

I am glad to have had the opportunity to raise concerns in the House of Commons about the BBC’s axing of the Oxford edition of “South Today” and the Cambridge edition of “Look East”, and to set out why I believe that is in contravention of the BBC charter. Axing those dedicated programmes will make a fundamental difference to the way in which people in the areas around Oxford and Cambridge find out what is happening, why and who is responsible.

There has been remarkable cross-party support from hon. Members for local journalism from the BBC. Those who have spoken today did so with a common sense of purpose and of valuing the BBC. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) highlighted the BBC’s investigative news at local and regional levels, and the disappointment in his local area, which there is in mine, over the plans to close the programmes that we have been discussing, as well as the irony of the BBC turning away from a fast-growing sub-region. A similar point could be made about Aylesbury, where tens of thousands of new homes are due to be built in the coming years.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for his kind remarks about our shared background in broadcasting. He highlighted the significance of local investigative journalism and pointed out the lack of impartiality among other online sources of news.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) illustrated the impact of cuts to local BBC services in his area, vividly describing what happens in local communities when those services are cut. I hope that might give the BBC pause for thought.

From time to time, I shared a TV studio with the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson). I do not share all his views on the BBC or many other issues, as he would expect, but I note that he had an experience similar to mine in preparation for today’s debate of struggling to get meaningful answers from the corporation.

Labour’s spokesman, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), underlined the significance of regional programmes in forging an identity. It is important to say in this conversation that local news reporting is a significant grassroots part of the BBC. It is a shame that it is being squeezed.

I am pleased to see the Minister back at DCMS, and I was glad to hear his support for regional news and that the BBC needs to consider whether local news really does meet the needs of local communities. I accept entirely his point that day-to-day operational decisions are for the BBC, not the House or the Government, but my concern is about the BBC’s compliance with the royal charter. Those concerns remain, and I hope BBC management will reflect on today’s debate. The BBC does some excellent work, and I hope that that excellence will perhaps stretch to its capacity to listen to its audiences, listening to Members who have spoken today, and reversing its decision.

I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and I thank all Members who have spoken today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the BBC Charter and the closure of regional TV news programmes.

10:33

Sitting suspended.

Free School Meals: Eligibility

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

In a moment, I will call Emma Lewell-Buck to move the motion and later I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the mover of the motion to wind up, as this is only a 30-minute debate.

If anyone wishes to remove their jackets, they should please feel free to do so.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered eligibility criteria for free school meals.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. There is nothing more grotesque than a Government who not only preside over thousands of children going hungry but who actively pursue policies that plunge them into hunger and poverty. As we debate the issue, nearly 4 million children in Britain are living in poverty, more than 800,000 are missing out on free school meals and hundreds of thousands are missing out on school breakfasts.

In my part of the world—the north-east—such figures are not decreasing but rising rapidly. Just this morning, the North East Child Poverty Commission revealed that our region now has the highest rate of child poverty in the UK, with 38% of our children now living in poverty. In South Shields, that rises to over 42%. It is clear that levelling up, just like the northern powerhouse before it, is a vacuous, empty phrase that was never intended to, and never will, do anything to improve the life chances of children in my area.

Hungry children, no matter how talented they are or how dedicated their teachers are, simply do not learn. When children spend their day worrying about where their next meal will come from, or about when their mams, dads and siblings will be able to eat again, their learning will inevitably be hindered.

The impacts of child hunger are well documented. Numerous studies have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development. Hungry children suffer developmental impairment, language delays and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and emotional impacts that can range from withdrawn and depressive behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones.

Pre-pandemic, we even saw rising numbers of hospital admissions for children through malnutrition and a resurgence of Victorian diseases such as scurvy and rickets. If it was not for the nearly 200,000 food banks in the UK—those are the ones we know of—as well as kind neighbours, faith groups and charities, many more children would simply have gone without.

When I was a child protection social worker, it was the children suffering from severe neglect who would be going without on such a scale, but now we have a generation of children for whom hunger and grinding poverty have become the norm. Back in 2019, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights visited the UK and found that the driving force of that Government was not an economic goal but rather a commitment to achieving radical social re-engineering and sending messages about lifestyles. His well-evidenced and thorough assessment was rejected outright and his recommendations were ignored.

When it comes to free school meals, what support the Government have put in place has been hard-fought for by charities, faith groups, Opposition MPs and celebrities.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for the excellent remarks that she is making. Over 40,000 children in the city of Manchester are now eligible for free school meals. As the summer holidays loom, thousands of families in my constituency face the prospect of choosing between eating and paying rocketing utility and fuel bills. Does she agree that it is high time that the Government ensured that councils have the funding they need to support children and families during the school holidays?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I agree with my hon. Friend completely; indeed, I will echo some of his comments later in my speech.

Let us just consider the Government’s abysmal record throughout covid. First, we had the ridiculously chaotic voucher scheme being contracted out to a private company; then the Government tried to withdraw support in the half-term and Easter holidays; and then when it came to the summer holidays, Tory MPs voted to withdraw support for free school meals, only to have their votes overturned when footballer Marcus Rashford shamed the Prime Minster into a U-turn. That was followed by meagre food parcels containing—for 10 days—a loaf of bread, half a cucumber, one pepper, a few potatoes, a block of cheese, four pieces of fruit and some salty snacks.

The holiday activities and food programme was again hard fought for from 2017 onwards, but it was not until 2021 that the Government decided to roll the programme out. Even now, the overriding focus of the programme is on activities, with a vast amount of money being spent on admin, bureaucracy and communications. If it had not been for the crowdfunding of my big-hearted constituents in South Shields, alongside Feeding Britain, KEY2Life, the North East Combined Authority and Hospitality & Hope coming together over those summers, children in South Shields would have gone without.

My fully costed school breakfast Bill would have seen nearly 2 million children start the day with full stomachs. Instead, the Government introduced a scheme that provides support to only 2,500 out of the 8,700 schools they have identified as eligible. Hungry children never have been and never will be a priority for the Government. If the political will was there, they would listen to the myriad voices from charities, organisations, faith groups, Opposition MPs, a few Members on their own side and Henry Dimbleby, who they appointed to lead the national food strategy. They are all pleading with the Government to at least expand free school meal eligibility to all families receiving universal credit or equivalent benefits. That would mean that a further 1.3 million children living in poverty would at least get a free school meal, and would also be eligible for the holiday food programmes.

According to the Child Poverty Action Group, that expansion would cost the Government an additional £550 million a year. The Minister knows as well as I do that that is small in terms of Government spending. Just look at the billions wasted on faulty personal protective equipment and gifted to Tory friends and donors for inadequate contracts throughout the pandemic, as well as the billions written off in covid fraud.

Furthermore, alongside that reform, the Government could introduce an automatic registration scheme for free school meals. At present, more than 200,000 children miss out because of the overly bureaucratic nature of the registration process. Those measures should then be followed by a move to universal free school meals for all children, as in Labour-led Wales, because no child should ever feel stigmatised or singled out.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and for the incredible work she has done campaigning on this issue for many years. Does she agree that the bureaucracy and means testing for free school meals only increases stigma and also means that many children fall through the cracks and go hungry? Does she agree that the Government should look at providing universal free school breakfasts and lunches for all children in schools as a matter of urgency? The difference that investment would make to the education and lives of children in Liverpool, West Derby and beyond cannot be stressed enough. I have made that point to the Minister.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work he is doing on his Right to Food campaign, and all the work he does in his patch raising money for local food banks. He is right that there is another factor: means testing costs more. Universality is cheaper, and that is where the Government should be heading.

The hungry children are the children of key workers. Those key workers are working for their poverty. They are the key workers who kept us going and cared for our loved ones throughout the pandemic—they risked their lives for us. What chance do those children have when the newly appointed Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), along with his colleagues, voted during the pandemic to deny children free school meals in the holidays, and has said he believes that free school meals amount to “nationalising children”? He also went on to add that it was simply not true that people cannot afford to buy food on a regular basis, saying

“If you keep saying to people that you’re going to give stuff away, then you’re going to have an increase I’m afraid”.

I have a feeling that in his response the Minister will regale us with details of the cost of living support packages that the Government have put in place through previous support grants. The reality is that they are all one-offs; they are piecemeal, they are sticking plasters and they do little to address the root causes of child poverty. It should be to the utter shame of every MP in this Government that in a country as rich as ours, children are going to bed hungry and waking up hungry. I look forward to the Minister letting us know in his response what he intends to do to remedy that, because our children need and deserve better.

11:10

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Will Quince)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) on securing a debate on this important subject. I echo the comments of other colleagues about her tireless work to raise awareness of the challenges that our most disadvantaged children face. Indeed, she raised this issue as recently with me as last Monday at Education questions, although it feels almost a lifetime ago.

Let me also put on record how pleased I am to be back at the Department for Education, after a 24-hour interlude. The hon. Lady knows how passionate I am about this work and how delighted I am to be able to continue it. She also knows of my long-standing interest in this issue, both in the past 10 months as Minister at the Department for Education and over the previous two and a half years as a Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions.

This Government are committed to supporting those on low incomes and continue to do so through many measures, such as spending over £108 billion a year on working-age benefit support and by recently taking wide-ranging action, to which the hon. Lady rightly pointed, to directly address cost of living pressures. She specifically referenced free school meals, and I will focus my comments on that area.

The Government and I are committed to providing free school meals to children from households who are out of work or on low incomes. This is of the utmost importance, both to me personally and the Government. Under the current criteria, there are around 1.9 million pupils who are eligible for and claiming a free school meal at lunchtime, which saves families hundreds of pounds per year per child. This number equates to approximately 22.5% of all pupils and is up from around 15% of pupils in 2015. The increases are due in part to the protections during the roll-out of universal credit. In making sure that these children receive a healthy, nutritious meal, we are helping to ensure they are well nourished, develop healthy eating habits, and can concentrate and learn—points that the hon. Lady rightly raised.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister will be aware that lots of school food providers have said that, because of the cost of living crisis, nutritional standards are going to go down and they will have to substitute food for something else. What will he do about that?

[Will Quince]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I have heard the call from the sector. We have increased funding for the universal infant free school meals rate to reflect this. Also, the core schools budget is increasing. I am acutely aware of the global inflation pressures. Schools are not immune to that. I will continue to work with the sector and with schools to ensure that schools are able to provide healthy, balanced and nutritious meals.

I mentioned the 1.9 million eligible pupils. A further 1.25 million infants are supported through the universal infant free school meal policy, as I just referenced. Already the greatest proportion ever of school children—around 37.5%—are provided with a free school meal at lunchtime, at a cost of over £1 billion a year. However, we do not stop there. Last year, more than 600,000 children were provided with healthy food and enriching activities through the holiday activities and food programme, which is provided in all the major holidays, including over the summer. We have committed to spending an extra £200,000 per year throughout the spending review period, and I am pleased to say that all 152 local authorities across England are delivering this programme.

We then have our £24 million national schools breakfast programme, which means thousands of pupils are benefitting from a healthy, nutritious breakfast. There are also 2.2 million key stage 1 pupils provided with a free portion of fruit or vegetables every day. For the youngest in our society, we have the healthy start voucher scheme, which provides a vital safety net for hundreds of thousands of lower-income pregnant women and families with children under the age of four.

I understand that the hon. Lady wants us to go further and extend free school meal eligibility. I will come to some of the points she raised in a moment, but I will start by setting out what we have already done in this area. Under this Government, eligibility for free school meals has been extended several times and to more groups of children than under any other Government over the past half a century. That includes the introduction of universal infant free school meals and the further education entitlement.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Will Quince]

I will give way in a moment. I want to mention a piece of work in which I have been specifically involved, both in my previous role at the Department for Work and Pensions and in my current role: permanently extending eligibility to children from families with no recourse to public funds, which is hugely important but subject to income thresholds. That came into effect at Easter.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Does he not accept that eligibility has had to be extended repeatedly because there are more and more children in poverty? When are this Government going to get to grips with the root causes of the endemic poverty that children in this country are suffering from?

[Will Quince]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. I have always said to her that I continue to keep eligibility under review for the reasons she has mentioned. We could have a separate debate on the root causes of poverty, and I could talk about the work undertaken in my previous role by the Department for Work and Pensions over the past two and a half years to support people and empower them into work, but that is a debate for another day.

I shall focus on free school meals in particular, although I will touch on universal credit because the protections in place as we roll it out are important. All children eligible for a free school meal at the point at which the threshold was introduced and all those who become eligible as universal credit is rolled out will continue to receive free school meals, even if their household circumstances change dramatically. For example, if those circumstances improve and move them above the earnings threshold, they will not lose that eligibility, which they otherwise would. Even after protections end, if they are still in school, those children will continue to be protected until the end of their phase of education, whether primary or secondary.

Let me turn specifically to the points that the hon. Member for South Shields made about the universal credit threshold. Free school meal eligibility has long been governed by an earnings threshold. That was the same under the legacy benefits system under the previous Government. In April 2018, we updated our eligibility criteria to include the earnings threshold of £7,400 for families on universal credit. That was forecast at the time to increase the number of eligible pupils when compared with the legacy benefits system. That was a direct comparison, and it was designed to increase the number.

It is absolutely right that our provision is aimed at supporting the most disadvantaged—those out of work or on the lowest incomes. The current household earnings threshold is a bit misleading: we put it at £7,400, but that does not include benefit receipt, which means that total household income could be considerably higher than that while someone is receiving a free meal.

[Ian Byrne]

Where are we now in society? Come September or October, we will see further rises in the cost of heating a home. We have seen exponential price rises, as prices have moved massively and become totally unaffordable. Is it not time for the Minister to acknowledge that so many people who are above the threshold for universal credit are struggling, and to look to other nations in Europe that have implemented universal free school meals for data on the advancement of and the benefits to those societies, both economic and educational? I name Norway and Portugal.

[Will Quince]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will continue to look at European and other comparators, and at eligibility.

In relation to what the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, the hon. Member for South Shields—proposes as an in-work and out-of-work benefit, it is important to reference the fact of those on universal credit having that £7,400 earnings threshold. There will be people whose income exceeds £40,000 a year. I know there are people struggling across the country, even on what many would consider a reasonable income, because there is an inflationary shock for many people, and they have outgoings that reflect their earnings.

I will come to that, but while it is right that those families continue to receive a small amount of universal credit, which tapers as their earnings increase, not least to encourage and incentivise work, we have to recognise more broadly—notwithstanding the current inflationary pressures and cost of living pressures—that these are not the most disadvantaged households, which we want to target, or arguably should target, with support in this specific way.

That does not mean we should not be helping those people with specific, targeted support in other ways, which I will come to, but extending free school meal eligibility to all families on universal credit would, without question, carry a significant financial cost—one that I think would be much higher than that which the hon. Member for South Shields has referenced, although we can discuss that another day. It would quickly run into billions of pounds over a spending review and result in around half of all pupils becoming eligible for a free meal, which would have substantial knock-on effects for the affordability of linked provision—for example, the pupil premium, which is linked to eligibility for free school meals.

Having said all that, I understand and appreciate—I have a constituency myself and I speak with people every weekend—that many families are finding it tough, given the global inflationary pressures that affect the cost of living. The question is whether a permanent change to the eligibility criteria for free school meals is the right thing to do now—whether it is affordable and sufficiently targeted, and whether it could be delivered quickly enough if we wanted to operationalise it. My answer to all those points at the moment is no. As I say, the Government understand the pressures people face with the cost of living. These are global challenges, and that is why the Government are providing over £15 billion of further support, targeted particularly at those with the greatest need. We should not forget that this package is in addition to the over £22 billion that was announced previously, with Government support for the cost of living over the course of this year totalling over £37 billion.

[Afzal Khan]

The Minister says his answer is no. In Manchester, Gorton, a survey has shown that 80% of families are cutting back on food. Does he not agree that every young child deserves a good start in life and that food is one of the basics?

[Will Quince]

Of course, I agree. I do not want to see any child in this country going hungry or a single family in poverty. The hon. Gentleman raised support for councils in his intervention on the hon. Member for South Shields, and that is important. I referenced the £37 billion. I am biased because I originally set up the covid winter grant scheme, which has turned into the household support fund, and I am proud of the support it has provided to councils. That £37 billion includes an additional £500 million to help households with food and essential items. That is on top of what we have already provided since October 2021, and brings total funding for the household support fund to £1.5 billion. We did so because I genuinely believe that local authorities know their communities and those who are in need best and how to target them. There is another £421 million of additional support, which will run until March next year, with the devolved Administrations receiving an extra £79 million.

Let me turn to funding, which the hon. Lady also raised. In order to deliver the free school meal provision, we have increased the core funding for schools with the FSM factor—that is a bit of a mouthful—in the national funding formula. It has increased to £470 per eligible pupil this year to recognise rising inflation and the associated cost pressures, and from speaking with the sector and knowing the challenge that schools face. That was after the NFF rates were set, and we provided core funding through a schools supplementary grant. As a result, core mainstream schools funding will increase by £2.5 billion in 2022-23 compared with last year.

As I say, we already spend around £600 million on universal infant free school meals each year. The per meal rate, which I referenced earlier, was increased to £2.41, because I recognised that that needed to be done, and importantly I backdated that to 1 April this year, which represents an extra £18 million, in recognition of recent cost pressures.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The Minister is doing as I expected and listing some of the things the Government have done, but what about the 800,000 children who are missing out? There will be more of them as the year continues. What support is there for them? Clearly, the support at the moment is not enough because they are still going to foodbanks, so what will he do for those children?

[Will Quince]

Of course, I work with colleagues and counterparts across Government to ensure that we are supporting people as much as we possibly can, and it is vital that that support is targeted. I referenced the £37 billion. Much of that is yet to come, such as the grants specifically for families and support via the household support fund. One thing I would say, having worked with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Education Secretary, as well as with the previous Chancellor, is that they take an evidence-based approach, and if there is need out there, the Government will step up. I found that to be the case at the Department for Work and Pensions throughout the course of the pandemic. The Chancellor consistently stepped up to support the poorest and the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our country, and I have no doubt that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister will continue to do so.

As I said, this is a hugely important issue, and I know how it affects some of the most disadvantaged children across our country. I thank the hon. Lady for raising it. It is important that the Government continue to be push to see how much further and faster we can go on these issues. Of course, as I said, I will keep all free school meal eligibility under review to ensure that these meals support those who need them most. As I have said, extending eligibility would be extremely costly, especially if the link between free school meals and other funding is included, such as the pupil premium. A threshold has to be set somewhere, and the current funding is targeted at those who need it most.

Question put and agreed to.

11:25

Sitting suspended.

Cost of Living: Support for Farmers

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

09:44

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered support for farmers with the cost of living.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I wish to quickly put on record my declaration of interests: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dairy, co-chair of the APPG on farming, and chair of the APPG on geographically protected foods. On that note, I shall move on to the actual business.

The importance of food is finally returning to the national conversation. From food security and supply chain costs, to questions of quality, sustainability and the locality of our produce, our country’s relationship with food is a topic that breaches all divides and impacts on us all. During the pandemic, we all recognised the importance of buying local, and it was wonderful to see people going to the farmer’s gate and talking about how proud they were to support local producers. Fewer have been doing that of late, however, as people have returned to mass marketplaces.

In the recent debate on food and the cost of living, there is one constituency that has been consistently overlooked in our discussions about how to support our constituents through the cost of living crisis. It is our farmers who are most underappreciated and underdiscussed. They are the agricultural backbone of our nation, and they are under a tremendous amount of pressure. Rapid inflation in the sector is driving up the price of everything—from fuel and fertiliser, to machinery and labour costs. The crisis has coincided—and not by the Government’s doing—with the agriculture transition plan of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, under which the old support payments to farmers under the common agriculture policy are being reduced.

Although the Government are in the process of rolling out new support measures, the schemes are not ready for farmers to fully access them. The National Farmers Union, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Institute for Government have all expressed serious concerns about the shortfall in support that is currently in place. The risks of the pressure being experienced—which, sadly, looks like it will become more and more sustained, and more and more heinous—are difficult to overstate. A recent NFU survey has demonstrated that 33% of arable farmers are planning to reduce their cropping next season; that 7% of dairy farmers plan to leave the industry altogether; and that 15% of pig producers have done so in the past six months alone.

The decline in agricultural output will spell disaster for the UK if we are not careful. It will result in food costs rising and our dependency on imports increasing, which is something that our constituents will notice. All of this will happen at a time when supply chains are buckling. Farms such as L&J Stanley in Harby, in my constituency, rightly point out that we should be making a greater effort to increase the amount of food that we grow in the UK. There are real ways in which the Government can step up and support farmers through this difficult period. As several of my colleagues compete for the privilege of serving as Prime Minister, I say to each of them—because I am certain that they are watching this debate—that a Conservative Government are a Government who support British agriculture, and that rurality and supporting our food makers and those who allow us to feed our families should be at the heart of our future policies for the economy.

On labour shortages, we all know the challenges that farmers are facing are severe, and our response therefore has to be significant. The public are acutely aware of the crisis in farming. We have all seen the photos of unpicked crops wilting in the sun, heard the stories of healthy livestock being unnecessarily culled due to a lack of abattoir workers, and felt the impact on our wallets of increased prices in shops and supermarkets. Constituents are particularly concerned when they see security markers and buttons put on products such as Lurpak, and people are unable to afford prices of £8 or £9 just to buy some butter.

A recent survey conducted by dairy giant Arla Foods, which operates in Melton Mowbray in my constituency, found that 80% of farmers looking for workers have received very few or zero applications from people with the right experience or qualifications. Looking back to my education at school and the quiz that pupils did to find out what job or profession they should do when they got older, I do not remember a single person being told they should be a farmer. Are our educationalists pushing people? In my neighbouring areas of Stanford, Peterborough, Corby, Nottingham, Leicester and so on—I have 13 neighbours; is a very busy neighbourhood—people would say that farming is not brought up as a legitimate career, even though the 460 square miles next door in Rutland and Melton offer amazing agricultural jobs. We have to start at the very base—looking at how we get people into the industry—because worker shortages are hammering farmers.

In the dairy sector, milk volumes are down by about 3%, compared with last year, and according to Arla’s survey a scarily high 11.9% of dairy farmers are considering leaving farming altogether if the situation does not improve. In the first instance, we urgently need to address labour shortages across the industry so that we can keep supply chains running and shops stocked. Contrary to certain popular perceptions, agriculture is a highly innovative and technological sector, but many of those innovations are in their infancy, and they cannot currently address a shortfall in labour. They definitely cannot do it when it is acute, quick and coming at farmers at great speed, in addition to the increased costs all around them.

We have to ensure that open positions are added to the Government’s shortage occupation list, to broaden the labour pool and help farmers keep their operations running. I also urge the Government to expand the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to satisfy the demand for labour, and ensure those seasonal visas cover work that needs to be done in the winter too, including the production of Stilton in my constituency—Stilton was invented in Little Dalby, and Long Clawson has amazing creators such as Tuxford & Tebbutt. Those businesses need workers between October and December, which is often not when the Government and civil servants think of providing additional visas.

The next issue is rising costs. We are all struggling with inflation, but the NFU estimates that agricultural inflation stands at over 25%. The Government’s agricultural price index shows that in the 12 months to April 2022, the price index for agricultural inputs increased by 28.4%.

I have spent the past few weeks speaking to farmers in my constituency ahead of this debate. One farmer, who represents I.W. Renner & Sons, which is one of our great farms in Normanton, told me that his main concern is the impact that inflation is having on the cost of fertiliser. Heavily linked to gas, fertiliser is an essential input related to crop yields, and rapid price increases have had a severe impact on output. Ammonium nitrate, a key component of fertiliser, cost £200 per tonne in January 2021, but now costs £900 per tonne if you are lucky. That quadrupling of costs is pushing farms to the brink, reducing product yields and quality and forcing them to transfer some of the costs on to consumers. Additionally, the recent closure of the CF Fertilisers Ince production site, which was once responsible for roughly 50% of domestic fertiliser production, has exacerbated the problem. The Government’s decision not to treat the facility as strategically important will have serious consequences for farming.

The significant increase in costs and the reduced availability of fertiliser will also likely reduce crop yields in UK farms in the coming years, much to our detriment. Many of my farmers are deciding not to grow any more bread wheat, and are changing to growing other types that require less fertiliser and are of lower quality.

The Government can make a real difference. Farmers in Rutland, Melton, the Vale and Harborough villages want us to boost domestic fertiliser production and secure domestic supplies as a priority. I also want to see us open our export markets to places such as Jordan and Canada, to broaden our farmers’ opportunities and move away from taking fertiliser from eastern Europe, which we know will continue to be a volatile market for a long time.

Finally, farmers ask that we increase transparency in the fertiliser market by establishing a gas-fertiliser index. Although we must accept that the Government cannot control the price of fertiliser, fertiliser markets are far too opaque. They threaten business confidence and farmers’ ability to invest for the long term. We all know that our farmers ask for as much resilience, certainty and stability as possible. The establishment of a trusted gas-fertiliser index within DEFRA, with relative global benchmark prices accounted for, would go a long way to help farmers prepare for market volatility. Given that such indices exist in the grain, dairy and meat markets, it is not unreasonable for farmers to expect greater transparency for fertiliser.

The next area of work is flexible support. As I said, the challenges facing farmers are being exacerbated by the fact that DEFRA is currently transitioning to alternative programmes of support, which most hon. Members fully support, but that is leaving funding shortfalls and hampering business confidence. Farmers are resorting to using all available support to tackle inflation and fund operational inputs, rather than look at structural investment. Jan from Northfield Farm in Whissendine in Rutland wrote to me about this, and she captured the essence of what farmers want to see from the Government:

“The support farmers most need is not some sort of handout, it is a programme that helps us to underpin our business across a wide range of areas.”

We can all agree that if we keep applying sticking-plaster solutions, our farmers will struggle to innovate, to compete and to continue to provide the vital products that we all take for granted. I ask the Government to look into introducing farm business loans to provide farms with the capital they need to break the inflationary cycle.

Key to the success of such a scheme would be repayment flexibility—for example, weighting repayments to a period of good return. DEFRA must be more sensitive to the economic cycle of farming, which I know the Minister understands full well, in order to make the most out of support measures. There exists ample opportunity for creating viable investment into modem and productive farming infrastructure.

It is clear that British farming is in a state of flux, and international and domestic pressures are significantly impacting on the sector. While some of the causes are far beyond the Government’s control, we need to tackle those challenges head on; otherwise, we will see an even more significant contraction in production over the next few years. For several of the issues I have raised today, there are concrete steps the Government can and should take to support our farmers.

When I talk to my farmers, it is clear that they are united—whether they represent the most remote Harborough village, are up in the Vale providing milk, or down on pig farms producing livestock down in Rutland. We have to assist with labour schemes, introduce a gas-fertiliser index and create flexible loans to boost investment. Those are the key asks from my farmers. I believe, as I know the Minister does strongly, that our farmers have stood by us over what have been a very difficult past two and a half years. They have kept high-quality, good, nutritious food on our tables. They have fought off vegan militias invading their lands.

I urge the Minister to look at my amendment to the Public Order Bill. I know that it is not in her brief, but it recognised that farms, food production sites and abattoirs should be considered sites of national infrastructure. That would prevent those vegan militias from breaking on to their sites, setting loose livestock, and abusing, intimidating and attacking my farmers. We have seen a big increase in that. Over the summer, shamefully, activist groups are planning to disrupt national dairy supplies across the entire country. These are organised groups, with over 500 people planning to do that.

Our farmers have fed us, protected us and kept our green and pleasant land exactly that. They have stood up against those vegan militias and have continued to look after us despite an enormously challenging two and a half years. Now that they are in a grave situation that is not of their making, I ask the Government to stand by them as they have stood by us.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate can last until 4 pm. I am obliged to call the Front Benchers no later than 3.27 pm. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP spokesperson, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Alicia Kearns will then have three minutes to sum up the debate. Six Members are standing. We are in Back-Bench time until 3.27 pm, so with a seven-minute limit, everybody will be able to have their say.

14:42

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this important debate, and for her incredibly useful opening remarks.

A few weeks ago, I met a number of farmers and farming representatives in my constituency of North Shropshire, at a lovey farm near Whitchurch. Despite the warm welcome and a tour of the state-of-the-art calf shed, the subject matter of the meeting was very sobering. Living in a rural area, often off-grid, in older and less energy-efficient houses, and with little access to public transport means that farmers and their neighbours are experiencing the cost of living crisis to a significant degree. However, for our farmers, it is not just a cost of living crisis—it is a cost of doing business crisis.

Farmers have told me, and we have heard colleagues raise the issue a number of times in the House, that rocketing input costs are putting them at risk of going out of business. Even where increased selling prices are helping to offset that, the cash-flow impact of increased input prices, months before crops are harvested or animals sold, will be enough to put some of our critical food producers out of business. We are all aware of the scale of those input cost prices: the cost of fertiliser has increased more than fourfold; diesel prices have nearly doubled; and the price of animal feed and energy costs are all increasing. Agriflation is hitting the sector really hard.

Those price increases are compounded by other challenges, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton has mentioned, such as the shortage of labour for tasks such as harvesting and milking. Pig farmers face an especially tough period, with labour shortages at meat processing plants leaving pigs on farm, and they still need feeding and caring for. I have met pig farmers in North Shropshire whose only option now is to shoot pigs that cannot be processed on farm and think about shutting up shop.

The nail in the coffin for many farmers is the manner in which the basic farm payment has been phased out before its replacement—the agricultural transition plan—is ready to roll. The biggest farms are seeing 40% cuts in their payments, and smaller family farms are seeing cuts that mark the difference between staying in business and going bust altogether. Although the new support schemes are a good idea in principle and I support them, farmers in North Shropshire report that they are not ready to be implemented, require too much up-front investment and will not make up the shortfall in the time required. The National Farmers Union, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all agreed with that bleak assessment.

In the spirit of being constructive, I have some suggestions. As an accountant, I back the call of the NFU to introduce farm business loans to support the cash flow of agricultural businesses through that critical period between input, cost and harvest, as well as its suggestion to improve the transparency of fertiliser market prices and enable greater certainty over the price of fertiliser for next year’s crop.

I also ask the Minister for some additional support for our farmers. At a time when food security can no longer be taken for granted, the Government’s broken promise to maintain the historical levels of support for the transition period is putting the farming sector at high risk. Local farmers have been clear with me that while they support the idea of a payment system that encourages more sustainability in farming, they will not be in business to use it and exploit it after years of falling income and high levels of up-front investment. They have also expressed concern that some of the larger types of regeneration scheme proposed will discourage food production, rather than find a way to improve production on a sustainable basis.

We need an effective strategy to deal with the labour shortages affecting the ability not only to harvest but to process that food once it has been reared and sent off to processing. Farmers need confidence for the future, not just to plant next year’s crop but to invest for greater productivity. I would like the Minister to commit that trade deals done by this Government will not undercut our family farms by allowing cheaper, lower-quality food into the country. We should be proud of our higher animal welfare and environmental standards and lead the world by insisting on a level playing field when we agree to trade with our competitors.

I would like to reflect for a moment on the impact on the people whose businesses are affected by this crisis. They already suffer high levels of isolation and poor levels of mental health, and the situation is worsened by the cruel financial pressure they find themselves under. Visiting a farm close to me on Open Farm Sunday, I met representatives from Shropshire Rural Support, a charity providing a vital component of support for farmers and agricultural workers who need additional help with their mental health. They have reported a noticeable increase in people turning to them for help as the business climate has worsened.

It is vital that we remember the human cost as well as the financial one for those working hard to keep Britain fed. The challenges facing the farming industry are significant and are global in nature—we recognise that. But the Government can take steps to mitigate their impact. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

14:48

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing this important debate.

Devon is home to 8% of agricultural holdings in England—a full 514,000 hectares, of which 92,000 are in my constituency, which boasts 1,442 agricultural holdings. Our Devon farms are relatively small, with an average size of just 60 hectares, compared with an English average of 85, and that magnifies some of the challenges that they currently face. My local NFU details that, as small businesses and consumers, farmers are grappling with spiralling costs in both their businesses and households. Agricultural inflation is running higher than consumer inflation. DEFRA figures show that it is at 28.4% for all inputs in the 12 months to April 2022.

In north Devon, most farm businesses involve livestock of some sort or another. The welfare of those livestock is always a primary concern. Farmers are grappling with how to afford feed and bedding for the coming winter. Nearly all farmhouses are off the gas grid and rely on heating oil in the main, which has had massive spikes and is not protected by the price cap of the electricity market. Some farmhouses are listed buildings, so it is difficult to make them energy efficient. Farmers, like others in rural areas, rely on motor vehicles to get to shops, schools and other facilities. The massive increase in fuel costs has a higher impact on those who live in rural areas.

Although I do not think that the solution is to increase rural fuel duty relief—a very specific tax relief that applies only to Lynton and Lynmouth in my rural constituency, as it relates to the distance from the refinery —we need to look for affordable and green solutions to tackle our reliance on the fossil-fuel powered vehicles in more rural parts of the country. It is not right that one set of consumers should pay less for their fuel, as it distorts the market and results in people driving to fill up more than they need to. We need to ensure that the existing fuel duty cut reaches the pump—the Competition and Markets Authority is already investigating the matter—because doing nothing is not a solution.

I would prefer a further fuel duty cut, but until we are confident that it will reach consumers, we must recognise that it may not deliver what we wish. We urgently need better charging infrastructure to enable more of us to switch to electric vehicles, and to look at other creative ways of reducing the cost of transport. In my North Devon constituency, buses are few and far between, and are clearly of no help at all for the transport of livestock or crops.

I recognise that half the basic farm payment has been brought forward, but farmers need more. It is just a matter of cashflow management. For farmers, the uncertainty brought about by much change—new schemes coming onstream, no security of revenue streams, and such surging costs—makes leaving fields fallow preferable. At a time of food insecurity, we need to ensure that every piece of fertile land is used for sustainable food production. That is why I am so exasperated to find that a major national landowner has evicted an organic dairy farmer in my constituency to rewild the land. I know that we need biodiversity, and I support it, but it should not come at the expense of food production. We need sustainable farming, and I urge the Minister to fix rapidly those unintended consequences of DEFRA policy to prevent further evictions and ensure that our productive and fertile land is used appropriately.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point about protecting good-quality agricultural land to feed our nation. It is absolutely wrong that we have so many solar national infrastructure projects going through the Government, but no national oversight of where they are all happening. Masses of our land will end up covered in solar plants, reducing our agricultural capabilities, not least in Rutland, England’s smallest county, where there is a proposal to cover good-quality agricultural land with a 2,100-acre solar plant—it will be built with Uyghur blood and slave labour, although that is another debate. Does she agree that there should be a national strategy on solar plants?

[Selaine Saxby]

I agree entirely. We need to work out how our land is used. We must tackle not only solar plants, but the issue of growing fuel where we could grow crops. We need to rebalance our land use to ensure that things are actually going in the right direction. I hope that we prevent further evictions.

I welcome the new support and investment schemes for our farmers—as do they—but many of the schemes are far too complex. The Minister has already met my local enterprise partnership and the NFU, which are seeking help to set up an advisory body to ensure that farmers do not have to write to their MPs to try to weave their way through DEFRA bureaucracy. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to help to secure the small amount of funding—just £250,000—that Devon farmers are asking for to test having an advisory board to help them through the transition from the old payments schemes to the new. We are dealing with so many small businesses, and that little leg up would enable them to achieve what they are driving for, and what we want them to achieve.

Can we also slow the pace of change between the new and old systems in recognition of the unique role that our farmers play at this time of dramatically increased energy prices, alongside growing concerns about global food security? We know that, in the main, energy prices are being driven upwards by Putin’s vile invasion of Ukraine, and we all support the investment into the war effort of our brave Ukrainian friends, but withdrawing one payment before its replacement arrives is counterproductive.

As I said in my maiden speech, farmers are the custodians of the countryside, and we need to look after them at this difficult time. Some farm-gate prices have jumped, but costs have also escalated beyond all recognition. We can all do our bit and support our farmers by buying British, which is high quality and locally sourced. We have dug for victory before. We need to look to do the same again and support our fabulous farmers to ensure they can do what they want to do—farm sustainably and improve our food security.

14:54

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for her excellent introduction and for raising a comprehensive range of issues. I will focus on just one of the issues she mentioned, which is fertiliser production, as I have a significant constituency interest in the matter.

As we know, fertiliser is critical to food production. An increase in its cost has an impact on yields. We are in a cost of living crisis and I am afraid that this could make matters significantly worse. We should want to encourage as much UK-based fertiliser production as possible. Indeed, maximising self-sufficiency is one of the aims of the food strategy. If the past few months have shown us anything, it is that the risk associated with food security leaves us exposed to global shocks. We are hearing how the recent increase in energy costs, as well as the increase in fertiliser costs, has had an impact on our farmers, but I am sorry to say that that could be just a taster of the trouble we will face if action is not taken now.

I want to make it crystal clear that I am extremely worried that we may be sleepwalking into a desperate situation of too much pressure on fertiliser costs and consequentially on food prices, because of the situation at CF Fertilisers in my constituency. As the Minister knows, CF Fertilisers is a longstanding plant in Ince, near Ellesmere Port, which employs over 300 people and has been a historical and significant source of fertiliser for the UK agricultural community. Last month, its American owners announced their intention to close the plant and begin consultation on the consequent redundancies with the trade union.

I am grateful to the Minister for her offer to have further discussions on the matter and to the Secretary of State, who met with me last month to discuss the situation. At that point, there was still some hope that a commercial solution could be found. After all, the site has been profitable for many years and has a highly skilled and committed workforce, which we want to retain in those valuable jobs. Unfortunately, various newspaper reports over the past few days have indicated that a sale agreement is unlikely to go ahead. That is extremely worrying. The concern I have, which has been conveyed to me by a significant number of the workforce, is that it is not in the parent company’s interest to sell the site as an ongoing concern.

If the site closes, CF will have no domestic competition for fertiliser sales. It plans to retain its site in Billingham in the north-east—for now, at least—but like every other site, that site can be closed at short notice for technical reasons or, as we saw last year, financial ones. It also requires shutdowns for several months at a time every three years or so. Given what we know, it is not a prudent strategy for the nation to put all its eggs in one basket, particularly when that basket is owned by an overseas company that has shown it is ruthlessly guided by the bottom line.

The fear articulated to me by many people is that CF do not want to sell the site to a potential competitor. It would rather see the machinery and plant equipment sold for scrap than lose its monopoly position in the UK market. Look at its financial performance: it makes an awful lot of money. Its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation in the first quarter alone was $1.68 billion. It increased its dividend by 33% in the first quarter of the year. CF could give the site away for nothing and it would not materially affect its bottom line, but it does not want to do that because it would deny them the opportunity of seizing every last penny from UK farmers. How is it in the national interest to let that happen? How is it sensible to allow a situation in which we know this course of action will put even more pressure on food prices? How is it levelling up to allow 300 highly paid, well-skilled jobs in the north-west go, when we know that there is a viable business there? If there is a way forward, it should be allowed to continue.

I cannot overstate to the Minister just how concerned local people are about the parent company’s true intentions. It is clear from talking to them just how little trust they have in CF now and how they believe the consultation process to be, frankly, a sham. The process ends in just a few weeks and, unless there is a dramatic change of approach, we will lose all those jobs and be in a hugely exposed food-security position in future. This cannot wait for a new Prime Minister. I urge the Government to intervene and for members of the Cabinet, for a minute, to stop jostling about their own jobs and to think about my constituents’ jobs, because those will be gone in a few weeks, with knock-on effects on jobs in the agricultural sector generally.

Please, will the Minister do everything in her power to keep the plant open? I want to be clear: if it is allowed to close, the ramifications of that decision could be felt for years to come. People will rightly ask, “What did the Government do to stop it?”

15:01

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this important debate on farming and our farmers. She made an eloquent speech, but she was far too kind to our Government. I intend to highlight some of my concerns to the Minister.

I very much enjoyed a young farmers’ event in Much Wenlock, which I visited the other day, just on the border between my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne). I met so many young Salopian farmers who were at the conference. I saw the energy, dynamism and conviction they all have, and it gave me real hope for the future of farming, bearing in mind how thriving Shropshire young farmers are and the tremendous work they do and continue to do.

I campaigned for Brexit to ensure that regulations and rules affecting our farmers were made here in Westminster, not in Brussels. As the Minister knows, farming is very different in each of the 27 European Union countries. Clearly, the one-size-fits-all system under the common agricultural policy has failed spectacularly, in particular for our farmers here in the United Kingdom. Now, we are freed from those regulations, so the Minister and the Government are solely responsible for the regulatory and taxation framework affecting our farmers.

The opportunities are vast, but I am not satisfied that the Government are doing enough to support our farmers. I say that from the great deal of feedback that I received from my local Shropshire farmers. More than that, the Government are not turning this industry into one of the most exciting opportunities for young graduates and young people looking for work. In 2002, the Labour party abolished the Ministry of Agriculture—I am not sure why, but perhaps the representatives of the Labour party might explain why—but we now need a new Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and that is why I am speaking in the debate.

I have sent a message to all the candidates standing to be the next leader of the Conservative party to ask whether they will commit to creating a new Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and to a dedicated Secretary of State sitting at the Cabinet table, responsible for farming, responsible and accountable to the NFU and to farmers, and someone who can be challenged here in the House of Commons on all aspects of agriculture.

I pay tribute to the Minister. All my interactions with her have led me to believe that she is not only very efficient, but highly capable and knowledgeable about agriculture. However, she is not a Secretary of State. I would like her to be a Secretary of State—she would make an outstanding Secretary of State. We need that voice for agriculture round the Cabinet table.

We have all the attributes of being one of the most highly efficient and productive agricultural countries in Europe. We have some of the best agricultural institutions in Europe, one of them in Shropshire—the Harper Adams college. We are extremely proud of that extraordinary, world-beating institution in Shropshire. I hope the Minister will agree in her winding-up speech to come before too long to Harper Adams to see the work taking place there. We have the talents of young farmers and arguably some of the best soil conditions in Europe and the best climate conditions to turn this country into an agricultural superpower in Europe, unconstrained by the dead hand of EU bureaucracy. But that is not happening and it needs to change.

I met the other day the new chair of the EFRA Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir Robert Goodwill), and we had a one-hour online call with my association chairman, who is involved in agriculture. I am extremely pleased that the new chair of the EFRA Select Committee has an agriculture degree himself. I wish him every success in holding the Government to account.

[Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)]

Skills and education not only help people get on in life, but help drive forward our agricultural sector and really turbocharge it and make sure that it is fit for the future. Colleges such as Lackham in my constituency are right at the front and centre of that. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to all land-based colleges across the country?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I will of course join her in paying tribute. We are all seeing her meteoric rise up the ranks of the Conservative parliamentary party, and I will pay tribute as long as she takes the message back to the Cabinet that we need a Secretary of State for agriculture.

My association chairman, Mr David Roberts from Halfway House, runs GO Davies, Shropshire’s largest agricultural feed and seed merchant. He has been bending my ear almost on a daily basis about fertiliser costs and the security of production in the United Kingdom. He is not satisfied by the responses that we have had to date. We have been tabling a lot of written parliamentary questions on the issue. As others have said, ammonium nitrate has gone from £200 per tonne in 2021 to over £900 per tonne today. Fertiliser plants in the United Kingdom have closed and others are vulnerable.

I shall say something now that I have not said before in my 17-year career as a Member of Parliament: we need to nationalise the plants. I never thought that as a Conservative I would call for the nationalisation of anything. I am normally highly opposed to the concept of nationalisation, but I agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). Bearing in mind how extraordinarily important food security is becoming—the consequences of the war in Russia are only just starting to have an impact—and how vulnerable the plants are, I fundamentally believe the Government have a responsibility to take control of the plants, nationalise them and guarantee the future security of fertiliser production in the United Kingdom.

I am running out of time, but, finally, I concur with the sentiments about mental health. We here in the House of Commons benefit from the health and wellbeing team that can help us at times when we suffer mental health problems. We do not have that support across many rural areas, and I am extremely concerned about some of the anecdotal evidence I have heard about mental health problems and increasing suicides in farming. We should celebrate our farmers and our British agriculture, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in her wind-up.

15:09

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). It might surprise him and other Members to hear that I very much agree with many of his remarks, especially his point that farmers in Shropshire, like those in my constituency, have long felt that Governments have not always appreciated the importance of their contribution to the nation’s wellbeing, and the importance of food security. I also associate myself with his comments about the strategic importance of fertiliser plants. He proposed the good idea of greater state intervention in those strategically important sites, and I will touch on that in a moment.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this important debate. She eloquently set out the grave backdrop to it and the many challenges our farmers face. It is sobering to reflect on the fact that so many farmers, facing rising input costs and cost of living challenges, are considering leaving the industry. She said that 11.9% of dairy farmers are contemplating that, and I know anecdotally that a number of livestock farmers in Ceredigion are considering whether they have a future in the industry. It is little wonder, given that agflation, or agricultural inflation, stands at 28.4% according to the agricultural price index. The latest estimates from independent consultants the Andersons Centre have agricultural inflation standing at over 25%.

I spoke to some farmers in Wales recently. Many people say that they have better prices at the market, and that of course is true, but we do not always hear about the rising cost of production, so farmers very much need those higher prices. Although the prices have risen, they have seen little difference in their profit margin, and that is fuelling a great fear of a departure from the industry, which we can ill afford given the many concerns that have rightly been raised in recent months about our food security. The war in Ukraine has brought that into sharp relief. The challenge before us is to increase, not reduce, our agricultural productive capacity.

The hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) made several important points, but one that struck a chord with me was about the need for more co-ordinated land use planning to overcome some of the many competing challenges. We need to return to that matter in earnest, because we cannot waste much time.

We have heard about rising fuel prices, and there is room for us to explore expanding the rural fuel duty relief scheme, although I appreciate that that is not within the Minister’s remit. Fertiliser has been mentioned a few times. To add to the remarks of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham, I know of farmers who, just this last year, have seen orders for fertiliser increase significantly. They were quoted prices of about £200 per tonne last year, and now it is not uncommon to see prices upwards of £700 per tonne, plus VAT. The inability to plan amid such volatility is a real challenge for our farmers, and puts pressure on their margins. It is often said that farmers find it very difficult to eke out a living even in the best of times, but the added volatility and the price hikes that they have to navigate make it an almost impossible task.

In Wales, the average farm holding is 48 hectares. Anybody who cares to look at farm business incomes in Wales will know that most farms in Wales do not have much discretionary income with which to absorb these additional prices. It is time that we look at interventions to support farmers with rising input prices, particularly the cost of fertiliser.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said that the Government need to establish a gas-fertiliser price index to help improve transparency in a very opaque market. That might not necessarily help to bring down prices, but it would at least offer a bit of a helping hand in planning and managing a bit of the volatility.

With regard to how we help with the costs of fertilisers, in addition to those points made by the hon. Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about the strategic importance of fertiliser plants, is it perhaps time for us to consider again the VAT treatment of some of those inputs into agricultural production? I appreciate that that is for the Treasury, but perhaps the Farming Minister could consider having a discussion with Treasury colleagues.

In the short term, many Members representing rural constituencies will know that the price of heating homes is a real concern, especially for those in properties off the mains gas grid, including farmhouses. Under the energy bill support scheme, some £400 is due to come in the autumn, but a question remains as to whether farmhouses will be eligible, primarily due to how they tend to have commercial electricity contracts as opposed to domestic ones. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking at options to ensure that farms do not lose out under the scheme, but will the Minister impress on it the importance of us finding a way to include farmhouses in the scheme? Although it might not make the world of difference, every little will help in the coming economic storm, so it is important that we ensure that farmers do not lose out.

15:16

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this hugely important debate, which is fundamentally important to the people of Cornwall. I speak as the Member for Truro and Falmouth, an area with a long history of farming and with 82% of its land used for agriculture.

Farming is a vital industry in Cornwall and has helped to shape the landscape that we see today. Almost every type of farming practised across the UK can be found in our Duchy. Our food industry is worth about £2 billion, and one in three jobs in the county—equating to about 60,000 people, and growing—has some attachment to the Cornish food and drink production industry. We have hundreds of fantastic farmers from all backgrounds who are passionate about growing an abundant supply of food, produced to world-leading standards and sustainability. We must enable those farmers to produce food efficiently if they are to continue to play their essential role in the south-west’s rural economy and deliver environmental benefits.

I recently met the National Farmers Union and farmers at Sixty Acres farm in Truro. That was a really positive meeting at which farmers raised many of the issues that we have heard about today. They also voiced their appreciation for what the Government have done to help support them so far.

A couple of weeks ago, I visited Carruan farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). We heard from farmers about how we can meet our net zero and carbon targets, deliver on nature recovery and boost sustainable food production. At the farm, they are successfully trying to do that. They are finding out which of their fields are non-productive and doing more with that. I will come to some of its concerns later on.

As we have heard, the key concern shared by farmers throughout Cornwall is the struggle to absorb rising input costs, which are increasing three times faster than the headline UK inflation rate. As we have heard, agflation topped 30% in April and is currently at about 28.4%. The war in Ukraine has pushed up the already sky-high input costs of the three Fs: fertiliser, fuel and feed. This year, fertiliser trebled in price, and red diesel, as I have heard from my fishermen and farmers, has doubled in price, which is a much larger increase compared with road diesel. In March, concentrate animal feed prices had increased by about 15.6% compared with the previous year. Those price rises come at a time when the industry faces longer-term challenges due to not only the transition away from the basic payment scheme but labour shortages and the impact of new trade and environmental policies. Alongside the variable role of the weather—of course—the decisions that farmers are making feel more like a gamble than ever before.

I thank the Government for listening last winter and extending the seasonal agricultural workers scheme to our daffodil pickers in particular, because there was going to be a disaster in the making. It took a lot of effort—it was not the Minister but the Home Office that we needed to convince—but we were listened to in the end and that saved an awful lot of jobs and gave security to our farmers.

Those challenges are impacting on the food we are producing as a nation, and leading to a crisis of confidence among our farmers. The cost of living crisis will only worsen if our domestic food security is undermined. Although they are larger than they used to be, farm businesses in Cornwall are smaller than the national average, and they are more likely to be livestock-oriented and still family-based. Small livestock farms have higher costs and smaller revenue, and they are more reliant on support payments for now, meaning that BPS reductions have hit hard and early in the transition.

In 2020, Cornwall received £51.6 billion in BPS payments. The reason for highlighting that figure is not to suggest that we are merely swapping this for a smaller-size replacement, but the future of sustainable farming will not be built on the same old subsidy models. I raise this issue so that the Government can think proactively about mitigating the adverse impacts on the farming community and the business ecosystem of the Cornish countryside of simply withdrawing that payment, and I urge the Government to produce on-farm business advice to support the transition. I believe we heard that earlier, and it was one of the main points that come out of our farm visit in North Cornwall a couple of weeks ago.

There seem to be a lot of grants available for farmers—a huge number are out there for them to access—but the time-consuming and complicated nature of the grant application is causing them huge issues. What they are really looking for are people who have local knowledge on the ground in the county and who can help guide them through the cost of living crisis, be it through the local enterprise partnership, the council or DEFRA agents. Farmers really need on-site support, and they also need effective business plans with a clear direction of travel to improve productivity.

The Government have taken a range of actions to tackle the challenges, including delaying the introduction of changes to urea fertiliser for at least a year and the recent launch of the new grant scheme for storing slurry on farms. The Government have also committed to spending £600 million on farm-based innovation over the next three years, and have laid out further details of the sustainable farming incentive. That will reward farmers for promoting the common good and bolstering our food security.

However, farmers are still under real pressure, and the Government have a range of options available for further support. The Government must focus on protecting UK food production and security by assisting farmers and managing the high costs. That includes working with farmers to diversify inputs, and investing in new technologies that will improve their resource and efficiency. We must also support farmers to find new ways to manufacture more organic-based fertiliser products and utilise techniques, including using nitrogen as an alternative fertiliser. The other thing that I learned on the farm visit a couple of weeks ago, and from speaking to other farmers in Cornwall, is that one size does not fit all, even in Cornwall. Somebody three miles down the road will have completely different soil, so what works for them will not work for their neighbour, which is why we need people on the ground who can really help in these situations.

The Government should look at encouraging the uptake of regenerative farming to reduce input costs, encouraging more pasture-fed livestock to reduce feed costs, and supporting new production methods in the forthcoming food strategy White Paper. I also support calls from the NFU for Ministers to assess the impact of any new policy or regulation on domestic food production, which is hugely important at the moment.

Our farming industry is facing very difficult circumstances, with many farmers struggling to pay their bills. That is threatening food security and worsening the cost of living crisis for us all, but they are a resilient bunch. I look forward to continuing to meet our farmers, listening to their concerns and talking to our Government. I will work with the Minister and my neighbours on both sides—the Secretary of State and the new Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double)—to make sure that we back this vital industry going forward.

15:23

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is great to see you in your place, Mr Hollobone, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on bringing forward this very important issue. I will never tire of stressing the importance of farming and agriculture to all our lives, never mind to all our constituents and constituencies. It is also important for us to recognise the severity of the crisis that farmers are all facing.

If you ate today, thank a farmer. Farmers are fundamental to our existence as a species, never mind as a society. What they do is integral to how we see our land, how we steward the animals on it, the quality of our water and where people live, and it is vital for vast chunks of the four nations of this Union.

Agriculture will always be close to my heart. I served very proudly on the European Parliament’s Agriculture Committee for the best part of 15 years, designing the current common agricultural policy. I represent the Stirling constituency, which is the size of Luxembourg and has some of the best—and, indeed, some of the worst—farmland in Scotland, and I am proud to work with and for Scotland’s farmers and growers.

In all our countries, agriculture is a hugely sophisticated, science-intensive, innovative business. In Scotland, it employs 67,000 people directly and supports a further 320,000 people, with a gross output of £3.3 billion annually, as well as producing the food we eat, which is quite important.

Of course, agriculture is largely a competence of the Scottish Parliament. We have made several different decisions where necessary, but many of the issues that our farmers face cross borders within this Union, but also on a far wider, global scale. Many of the ideas we need to share are things we need to work on together. We are in a crisis, in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Farming is in crisis right now, and we need to be real about it—we need to be serious.

Many policy levers are reserved to this place. I am talking specifically about trade policy, competition policy, procurement policy—especially in the light of the passing of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—energy policy in part and, ultimately, budgets as well, given the financial situation of the current devolution settlement.

The Scottish Government are taking this seriously, and we would like to do more. The EU is taking this seriously, creating a £1.5 billion crisis fund to support EU farmers. I am calling on the UK Government to do more and am pledging my support for anything that helps farmers anywhere. Now is the time to put our differences to one side and to focus on where we can make a difference to the people we all serve. That is not to say I am putting them aside forever, because that might be part of the solution from our perspective. I suspect we will come back to that point.

Food security has to be viewed as—from the contributions in the debate I think we agree on this point—if not part of our national security, then certainly as part of our national resilience, however nationalis defined. As we face a summer of increasingly high temperatures and possible drought, we need to be serious about where our food is coming from and how it is produced.

We are all agreed we need to support farmers. The best way to support their incomes is to ensure profitable market return. That is my first point about UK Government policy. Too many farmers find that the market is stacked against them. There are many ways that we could boost demand, including through increasing local, domestic demand. That could be more money for buy local, buy Scottish, buy British schemes. There have been a number of good examples and now is the time to put more resource to that. There should also be more support for quality schemes, such as run by Quality Meat Scotland north of the border, and various farm assurance schemes elsewhere. We are seeing some farmers walking away from those schemes, which is deeply regrettable because consumers want local food produced to high standards.

Procurement policy is one area where I might agree there could be a benefit of Brexit. I have struggled to find many, but this might be one. I can point to parliamentary questions I have asked in Brussels and Strasbourg where the European Commission said, quite explicitly, that carbon emissions could be used as a procurement criteria, boosting local procurement of food, however local is defined. Even within the EU that was possible. Surely, outwith the EU, there is now lots more that could be done through procurement policy to boost local demand for agricultural products, providing a better market for our farmers.

Ensuring a fair market also needs more attention on monopolies and opaque markets. I think particularly of supermarkets and the fertiliser sector. We have a supermarket regulator. That regulator needs far more powers and far more teeth to do what needs to be done.

Market conditions are pressing for farmers. We particularly need action on input costs. There is a need for temporary support and the Scottish Government are looking at various ways of taking that forward. This is an opportunity for the whole of the UK to support farmers. Fuel, fertiliser, labour and feed are all going up at unsustainable levels. Farmers need help now.

On fuel, there is already red diesel support, but we need gas support as well. As we have heard, many farm holdings are off-grid and are becoming increasingly expensive. On fertiliser, there is a clear need for market intervention and support for fertiliser costs. On labour, there is the seasonal workers scheme and we need action on visas to allow more people to help with the work. Many costs have gone up 25% to 45% in recent times. That is absolutely unsustainable for working an agricultural balance sheet. There is a strong case, which I appreciate is outwith the Minister’s remit but I make the suggestion constructively, that we could find ways in which to support those points, including through soft loans and loan guarantees.

Agricultural policy is entirely distinct between Scotland and England, and I am glad that we have made the decisions we have made in Scotland, especially to maintain direct payments. During the current period that is a great safety net for Scottish farmers and I urge the UK Government to revisit that, although that it is a competence outwith my remit.

We also need to see policy coherence over land use. Photovoltaic plants and rewilding have been mentioned, but I would add forestry to that discussion. It is right that we see competing land use purposes, but we must agree that food has to come first. Anything that cuts across food production needs to be deprioritised. I am not hostile to any of the things mentioned, but when I was on the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament, the intention was to see the bits and parts of unproductive land go to those purpose. Surely it cannot make sense to take prime agricultural land in any of our countries out of production.

We have already had many happy adventures with the Minister about our difference of opinion on trade policy. I am not hostile to trade deals with countries on the other side of the world, but I do not want to see those trade deals undercut domestic food production. Putting that to one side, the closest, biggest market to the UK is the EU, in both directions. Our farmers are struggling with particularly sticky customs routines and the phytosanitary and veterinary checks. I was in Brussels two weeks ago, and it is quite clear that there is a huge appetite for a specific veterinary and phytosanitary agreement with the UK that would help all our farmers to export and import, freeing up production and hopefully lowering prices. That is on the table in Brussels; it needs to be taken forward by a Government that is going to take this, and indeed international law in Northern Ireland, seriously.

It is a pleasure to sum up in this debate. There have been several good suggestions for the Minister to take forward to her colleagues. Where there are sensible suggestions to take forward for the benefit of all our farmers, I will work together with colleagues to make that happen.

15:31

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing the debate. I do not always find myself in agreement with her. She is an eminent plotter, of course, but I certainly found myself in agreement with many of the points she made today.

I noted the comments made by the newly liberated hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who has discovered the horrors of DEFRA bureaucracy made in Britain. It is interesting to see how the last week has panned out, Mr Hollobone. We also had a fleeting appearance from a former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), which was fascinating.

All the powerful contributions from across the House indicated that these are very tough times for farming, just as they are for the wider environment. We need support for both, not least because on the Government’s watch I am afraid the farming sector has suffered crisis after crisis. Prices may be good at the moment, but just look at input costs—and shudder and be worried. Look at the continuing pig backlog, with tens of thousands of healthy pigs already culled, as we heard from an earlier speaker. Look at avian flu—the worst for many years—which many fear may become a recurring annual issue. At these times, when other nations in the UK and in Europe, have provided the farming sector with much-needed support, this Government have consistently refused to lend a helping hand to English farmers. The basic message is that they are on their own and the market will sort it out. Some of them will go to the wall, but “them’s the breaks.”

The current challenges bearing down on the agricultural sector are the most severe that many farming businesses have ever faced, with inflation, lack of seasonal agricultural labour and a botched roll-out of the environmental land management scheme all putting British agriculture and food security at risk. The Opposition take a different view. Intervention is not alien to us. We back British farmers and have consistently raised concerns that many farms will be unable to cope with soaring inflation.

We have heard many figures. The Government’s own agricultural price index shows that in the 12 months to April 2022, the price index for agricultural inputs increased by over 28% and Andersons’ latest inflation estimate for agriculture is over 25%. We all know the effect of the war in Ukraine and significant gas price rises worldwide. Not only do they put farms at risk; they also threaten Britain’s food security.

The Lea Valley Growers Association has warned that the UK will harvest less than half its normal quantity of sweet peppers and cucumbers this year after many greenhouse growers chose not to plant in the face of surging energy prices, and producers have warned that yields of other indoor crops, such as tomatoes and aubergines, will also be hit. Far from producing more food in the UK, under this Government we risk seeing less being produced.

We had a good discussion about the fertiliser issues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for the fight he has been conducting on behalf of his constituents and the wider points that he made. I will not repeat those points, but I ask the Minister to set out, after months of dither and delay from the Government, what steps her Department is taking to help farmers to access affordable energy and fertiliser now. What are the Government doing in response to the powerful points made by my hon. Friend? How do the Government intend to curb agricultural inflation, and does the Minister have any plans to help support domestic fertiliser production?

If farmers were only facing inflation, that would be more than bad enough. However, as we have heard, there is a chronic shortage of seasonal agricultural workers. That is a crisis of the Government’s own making; they initially announced 30,000 horticultural seasonal worker visas, but then that number was upped to 40,000— although 2,000 went to poultry workers. Throughout that debate, the NFU and others estimated that we needed 70,000 workers. Why did the Department’s calculations differ so much from those on the ground and in the industry? I am sure the Minister will remember the woeful performance of the Immigration Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—Committee members were certainly not convinced.

Survey data from the NFU for April showed an estimated national seasonal worker shortfall of 12% in horticulture—three times the figure for the same month last year. Industry experts say that labour shortages on British farms this summer have led to catastrophic waste of homegrown fruit and vegetables. A survey by British Berry Growers showed that annual food waste almost doubled, from £18.7 million in 2020, to £36.5 million in 2021, due to worker shortages. It could be even higher this year. I ask the Minister what support she will be offering farmers struggling to find seasonal labour, and what plans her Department has to put an end to the shortage.

The latest crises take place against the backdrop of the slow and painfully complicated introduction of the environmental land management scheme. The Government are currently phasing out direct payments and farmers have already received significant cuts to those payments, with further to come this year. The Government always suggested that the payments would be replaced by the environmental land management scheme. While the Opposition support the principle of paying farmers to provide environmental goods, the Minister will remember that I warned during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020 that farmers would be unwise to imagine it would be a straightforward replacement. That has turned out to be the case.

The NFU, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, as well as farmers and Opposition Members, all warned that those new schemes are simply not ready for farmers to access them and start making up the shortfall. Will the Minister confirm how she intends to support farms struggling with the transition? What plans does her Department have to speed up the introduction of the ELM, and the sustainable farming incentive in particular?

Will the Minister confirm the budget allocated to the landscape recovery scheme tier 3, following the extraordinary story briefed to newspapers a few weeks ago that it would be hugely reduced? In The Sunday Times, it was described as being reduced to just £50 million over three years. The paper said that DEFRA insiders believed that the scheme was likely to be scrapped after that. Will the Minister clarify whether that story was put out ahead of the Tiverton and Honiton by-election to buy a few votes, or is it actually Government policy?

Although the Conservatives may be unwilling to support British agriculture, Labour takes a different view. On ELM, we have supported the NFU’s calls for basic payment reductions to be paused for two years to provide more time. Frankly, we think that it will take that time to get it sorted out. We do not want to see more stewardship agreements rolled out so that people get paid for doing what they are doing already. We want genuine environmental gain. We would reprioritise ELM to secure more domestic food production in an environmentally sustainable way as part of our plan to support farmers to reach net zero. That plan is conspicuously lacking in DEFRA.

On seasonal labour, through our five-point plan to make Brexit work, Labour will deliver on the opportunities Britain has, sort out the poor deal signed by the—I was going to say previous, but he is still in place—Prime Minister, and end the Brexit divisions once and for all. We will seek new flexible labour mobility arrangements for those making short-term work trips. On inflation, Labour will support struggling agricultural businesses through our plan to make, buy and sell more in Britain, invest in jobs and skills and use the power of public procurement. There is another away: a fresh start to get us to net zero; a fresh start for our food system; and a fresh start for our farmers. That is what support for farmers looks like.

15:39

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, as it has been to listen to the constructive suggestions across the House on how to deal with the very real difficulties in the sector, largely caused by high rises in input costs. I will start by addressing the various issues that colleagues mentioned, and will do my best to answer the very wide-ranging group of issues raised as comprehensively as I can.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing the debate. I also thank our former DEFRA Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who served the Department with great distinction and a great deal of hard work. She is a real champion for Devon farmers. I have heard her and have met her farmers with her on many occasions as they tell her what they need. I reassure her that the advisory board conversation will continue in the next few weeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) made a comprehensive speech. Again, she frequently buttonholes me on behalf of her farmers and her fishermen. The future farming resilience fund is available to give exactly the sort of advice that she envisages. I would love to talk to her about that outside the debate, if that would be helpful to her.

I have frequently discussed farming issues with my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and the farmers he represents so well. I agree that the opportunities for the future of agriculture are vast. Let me put on record how pleased I am that we passed, with agreement broadly across the House, Committee stage of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill last week. In a week that was perhaps difficult for the Government, that was a high point and is exactly what my hon. Friend means when he says that there are real opportunities for the future of agriculture if we are able to grasp the regulatory space. I would be delighted to visit Harper Adams, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who so recently and sadly departed from the Department, visited extremely recently and came away full of ideas.

I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said. He and I have spoken, as he has with my Secretary of State, about the difficult issues facing Ince. My understanding is that discussions, which are commercially sensitive, are still under way. I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the hon. Gentleman directly about the current situation. I am also very happy to make his points across Government if he feels that would be helpful. The situation with Ince is worrying for all of us who care about fertiliser prices, although I recognise that it is particularly difficult for those whose jobs are at risk.

These are not easy times for our farmers, who face increasing costs, particularly for fertiliser, animal feed, fuel and energy. Undoubtedly, that is creating short-term cash flow pressures. The Government have announced a series of measures to help farmers with those pressures and to support them through an undoubtedly difficult time. From the end of July, we are bringing forward half this year’s basic payment scheme payment as an advanced injection of cash to farm businesses. That is a practical and appropriate solution to current input problems. Payments will be made in two instalments each year for the remainder of the agricultural transition period. I am very pleased with that policy decision.

I am fully aware of the cost of fertiliser. The current cost is a little lower than my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton suggested—it is between £700 and £750 a tonne, although I accept that that is considerably more than usual. As a purchaser of fertiliser, I am always extremely aware of that market, as are most farmers. Although cereals farmers, such as me, often buy ahead and will be able to manage for this year at least, livestock farmers often buy much later in the season, and we need them to have the confidence to make purchasing decisions and put in orders so that we are assured that enough fodder crops will be grown in the next 12 months.

I have worked extremely closely with farmers’ representatives—the NFU, the Country Land and Business Association, and the tenants—to build confidence through cross-Government and industry working, and by ensuring that the Government pull all the levers we can to make the situation better, short, frankly, of writing the cheque for everybody’s fertiliser bill. We have issued updated guidance to provide clarity to farmers about how they can use slurry and other manures during autumn and winter. We have delayed the changes to the use of urea fertiliser, and we have introduced new slurry storage grants to help farmers to comply with the farming rules for water. The aim of all that, of course, is to reduce the dependency on artificial fertiliser.

My hon. Friend asked about the potential to increase transparency in the fertiliser market through the NFU suggestion of a gas fertiliser index. We are currently working with the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, the Agricultural Industries Confederation and the NFU on how best to achieve fertiliser price transparency. My hon. Friend should please keep talking to me about how that can be best achieved. Some sensible suggestions were made today, not least by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), but there is a bit more work to be done. We need to continue to work on this policy area to get it absolutely right. The fertiliser taskforce, which I chair with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, is very much continuing, and I believe we have a meeting next week. This is ongoing work. It is not easy, but we are doing our best to be flexible and react where we can.

We recognise that feed is a particular issue for the pig and poultry sectors. As of 1 June, we successfully concluded the removal of section 232 tariffs, allowing us to remove the 25% tariff on US maize imports. That was a key industry ask and should be an important step in opening alternative sourcing options. Again, we remain very open to working with the industry on specific asks.

We are the only sector with a carve-out for seasonal labour, and I think that is absolutely right. I am convinced that seasonal worker visas are a critical part of how we bring the harvest home. I am happy to continue to make the case for them across Government. We have achieved an extra 10,000 visas through the seasonal agricultural worker scheme route, so we have 40,000 visas for this summer and winter, which are critical to maintaining the agricultural labour provision.

Through the Agriculture Act, we have taken powers to look at supply chain fairness in more detail. We started by dealing with the dairy sector, and we plan to take regulatory action in it as a result of our work later this year. It is complex and we need to get it right. We are about to launch a review of the pig sector supply chain. I look forward to announcing that formally shortly and to giving more details of the consultation process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton asked about farm business loans to support farmers with rising costs. My officials in the Department regularly meet the agricultural leads of major banks, and I have done so on several occasions. I have also had a special meeting with agricultural leads about the pig sector. In the most recent meeting, on 7 July, the banks suggested that the level of debt among UK farmers is low in comparison with other European countries, and that they are very willing to view farmers as a good industry to lend to. We will continue to engage closely with banks to monitor the situation, but as yet I am not hearing evidence from the industry that it is not getting loans where that is appropriate.

In the briefing that the NFU prepared for this debate, it called for mandatory food resilience assessments of new policies. I reassure Members that the Ag Act already commits the Secretary of State to consider the need to encourage the production of food. That is the basis of our new schemes and is very much part of the food strategy that was published a few weeks ago and embedded in departmental policy.

I want to briefly touch on the NFU survey that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, which suggested that a certain proportion of farmers are intending to reduce production or exit the industry. Surveys are useful and a helpful gauge of what is happening, but not all farmers are members of the NFU. It is important that we continue to monitor the situation closely. I am confident that we have strong and resilient food production in this country. The pig sector in particular is facing challenges. We believe that close to 60,000 sows may have been taken out of production over the last year, but we must put that in context: in 2021, the pig herd grew by nearly 10%, to the biggest it has been in 20 years.

I have worked extremely closely with the pig industry over the last nine months. There is still money being made in the pig world—not by the producers, I agree, but I am determined that the supply chain review is the way to go. I encourage anybody involved in the sector to lean in extremely heavily to the work we are about to launch in that sector. We need to make sure that the supply chain is fair, and we need to eat more British pig. We produce in this country about 60% of what we consume. I would very much like that figure to go up, not least for animal welfare reasons. I will do everything in my power to work with the pig industry—producer, processor and retailer—to achieve that.

In the arable sector, we are expecting increased yields this year, although I must confess that, as a cereal farmer, I look out of the window at very dry weather and worry—that will not surprise anybody—although our wheat area is in fact forecast to be up a little, by a percentage point. Winter barley is up about 10% and rape up about 9% from last year. There are of course real concerns about profit margins, and we have rehearsed the reasons why, although current indications are that the crop is expected to be good—as a farmer, I almost cannot say that sentence for fear of upsetting the harvest, but at the moment we are hopeful and confident in this year’s supply.

On the agricultural transition, direct payments are not a system that I am prepared to defend. Some 50% of direct payments go to 10% of the largest farms and landowners. There are better ways of spending the agricultural subsidy pot. Smaller farmers might well need further intervention if input costs continue to rise, but I am convinced that there are more targeted ways that we can help.

We opened the new sustainable farming incentive on 30 June and are pleased with the application rate so far. I should emphasise that throughout the agricultural transition, which is by its nature slow—we have purposefully worked over a seven-year period to enable farmers to adapt, change their ways and plan for the way that they run their businesses—the pot of money available to support farmers will remain the same for this Government. It will, however, be more targeted and be used to support public goods. We have ambitious environmental goals, which are generally supported across the House. Farmers want to help us to achieve those, and we want to reward them for doing so.

There have never been arbitrary divisions in how much money attaches to each sector of future farming schemes. Those schemes are very much designed to be stacked, so the SFI is not in itself intended to replace fully BPS, but should be stacked with the other schemes to ensure that farmers are properly rewarded.

In my view, subsidy is useful in agriculture, and I am very happy to argue across Government for the pot to remain at £3.7 billion. I think that is a good figure for us to spend on helping our farmers to produce public goods.

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

Briefly, on the payments being stacked, my farmers say that there seems to be a lot more that they have to do to get the same payments. How can we streamline the process?

[Victoria Prentis]

As I said, I do not think that direct payments are defensible. We as farmers received money for doing nothing but owning our land. In the future schemes, farmers may have to change their behaviours or work in a slightly more environmental manner. In some cases, they may have to change very significantly what they are doing on parts of their land. I accept that. This is change. This is difficult, but it is worth it for those nature gains and environmental and carbon capture gains, on which I know there is great consensus across the Chamber.

Farmers are dealing with this period of change and transition by voting with their application forms. Now, more than half of farmers, including myself, are in a stewardship scheme. Those are mid-tier schemes, and we have said that we will seamlessly transition farmers in such schemes into the mid-tier of the new future farming schemes. That is not a complete solution but it is a coherent interim one while we continue to work on the agriculture transition to get the policies absolutely right.

I think the food strategy will be welcomed by all Members who have spoken. The goal of food security has been mentioned across the Chamber, as has buying British. The land use strategy, which we will work on in 2023, will deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. As ever, I am happy to meet any Member’s farmers if they would find that useful. I accept that change is difficult. We need to help farmers to manage that and to continue to produce not only the food we love, but the public goods for which we are very keen to continue to pay them.

15:57

[Alicia Kearns]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank all those who have spoken with such unity. I particularly thank the Minister for her comments about land-based colleges—Melton Brooksby is one such exceptional establishment—and her commitments to the land use strategy and to continue conversations on labour schemes, gas fertiliser indexes and flexible loans.

This may be my last Westminster Hall debate with the Minister in her place, because she may be the Secretary of State by September—who knows?—or anything else. I thank her for her constancy, for her meaningful and heartfelt support for farmers across our country, for how hard she works, and for genuinely knowing her brief and fighting for it. I thank her on behalf of us all.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for farmers with the cost of living.

Night-time Economy: Hertfordshire

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I will call Dean Russell to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for Mr Russell to wind up, so he and the Minister get one go each. The debate is due to finish at 4.30, and I am advised that there may be five Divisions called then, so the Minister may want to ensure that she concludes her remarks before then.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Pryzm nightclub and the night-time economy in Hertfordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I am delighted to bring this debate to Westminster. The situation in Watford is worrying. Our high street, like everywhere over the pandemic, has been hit by challenging times, and Watford has one of the best high streets in the country. We have an incredible wealth of brilliant stores, organisations and small businesses that we need to continue to support. What I have found over the past few years, especially during my time as the Member of Parliament for Watford, is how much our community comes together, works together and supports each other, and that includes supporting our small businesses as we move forward.

We have a challenge: one of our most popular night-time destinations, Pryzm nightclub, is under threat. The situation at the moment is that there is a planning application in place to turn the nightclub and surrounding businesses into homes. I am not against new homes—it is important that we have them. I am not too keen on very tall towers, which is a totally different debate that I am sure we could have another time. The nightclub would close not because people are not going through the doors. It would close merely because a landlord wants to change it into something else—something that is not part of the night-time economy. The reason why that is a challenge is that the night-time economy, as we all know, is not just one place. It is not one nightclub; it is a whole ecosystem. It is an incredible ecosystem that includes local restaurants, bars, food outlets, takeaway places and our brilliant taxi trade, which all rely on the thousands of people who come to Watford every weekend to go to the nightclub.

Closing the nightclub would pull the rug from under those businesses and hard-working people who have struggled to get through covid over the past few years and have come through the other side. They survived it and are on the verge of thriving, but that would be cut off. My request to the Minister today, and I have a few points I would like to raise with her, is about how we can support the night-time economy in general. I appreciate that these are national debates, but Pryzm is a good example of the challenges we face as a community and as a Government who support small business. Losing places like nightclubs that allow the night-time economy to thrive would risk setting off a domino effect of closures and high streets not surviving, which will also impact tourism, trade and opportunity.

I would like to thank a few people. First, I thank Maria Manion, the chief executive of Watford business improvement district, or the BID, as it is often known. It has done incredible work looking at the impact of the closure and what it would mean locally, but it also does incredible work to support local businesses. I thank Dave Vickery, the manager at Pryzm Watford. I have been down there a few times—I can confirm I did not dance or drink. Dave is absolutely passionate, and I could tell the care his staff have for the people who go to the nightclub. They ensure that people have a safe and enjoyable evening out and that when they go back out on the street at the end of the night, they continue to have a safe journey home and a safe environment to go to the other businesses locally.

I have heard from Dave that places like nightclubs are communities. They are places where people go to see their friends at the end of each week, to start to relax and to use it as a release each week—one thing I am passionate about is people helping their own mental wellbeing. When we lose that, it has a damaging effect on not just the economy, but people.

Anyone watching the debate, especially from Hertfordshire —I am sure millions will be tuning in to this Westminster Hall debate—will know that Pryzm nightclub has also been known as Oceana, Destiny, Paradise Lost, Bailey’s and many other names. It has been on the parade for nearly 40 years, so it has not just popped up; it is part of the legacy there. I hope that I am not breaching their confidence, but there are people working in Parliament who met their partners there. The club has a legacy of people forging relationships and friendships there over many years, and it presents an opportunity for people to come together, celebrate and release after a hard week at work.

People might not be aware, but Pryzm does incredible work for local charities, including Watford Mencap, which I visited recently. The Mencap team takes 70 people—or clients, as they call them—to Pryzm for a safe night out on the last Friday of every month. There, they can have a drink in a safe environment and see friends whom they would not usually see. If Pryzm closes, nothing else they could do would come close to providing similar enjoyment in a safe community space.

I will raise with the Minister the impact on jobs and the night-time economy. Pryzm, has about 110 employees, and an average of 3,000 visitors over Friday and Saturday. On big event nights, including performances by big DJs, there can be many thousands more visitors, and Pryzm welcomes about 500 people on Mondays. That is absolutely critical, because each person will spend not just at Pryzm, but in the local area. I am particularly concerned for taxi firms, which had a really difficult time during lockdown. They struggled for every single fare, sometimes waiting hours for the next pick-up, before re-joining the back of the queue. Stopping their ability to earn from the night-time economy is a real travesty. The average spend at Pryzm is about £20 per person, but that equates to about £34 for our local economy.

Let me be clear: this is not just about Watford—I would not be so selfish as to focus only on Watford. If we lose nightclubs and the night-time economy in towns across the UK, we lose not just the economic benefit but part of our culture. Pubs are absolutely critical to what we think when we think of Britain—I do not think there is a single soap on TV that does not feature a pub. Most towns—not soaps—have a nightclub as well, or used to. People used to have a space—or perhaps a disco, for my generation—where they could go, but those spaces are dying out. That is a real challenge. I will not go into “Saturday Night Fever” mode and start dancing, but those places existed for so long for a reason: they drive so much opportunity for people, who can forge relationships there, as I said earlier.

I am also passionate about the creative arts. So many people get their first start at nightclubs and in night-time bars where music can be performed. It is incredible how many bands start by doing gigs in small towns, building their following until they can, potentially, tour around the world. Everyone wants that first step on the ladder. For creative people, having a home-town audience, or one in the surrounding area, to listen to, support and fund them can make a massive difference. Losing nightclubs would have massive effect on the future of the night-time economy. On the music industry, it is estimated that there were almost 1 million music tourists in the south-east prior to covid, supporting 5,300 jobs in the south-east alone. That is a huge number, and it goes to the heart of my concerns.

I will wind up with a few questions for the Minister because I am conscious that there will shortly be votes in the House. First, is there anything that I can do to encourage the council? I totally understand that it has to follow specific processes to agree or refuse planning applications—I am not trying to force them through—but how could I help before it reaches the point of refusing a planning application? Could I speak to businesses? Are there any support packages that could be used to help them and encourage them not to close this vital part of our community?

The Minister is new to her post, and she is doing an incredible job so far. I look forward to seeing her in post for a long time. I would like to ask what the Government are doing to support the night-time economy so that we can build on that. I think there are three questions. What can I do? What is being done? How are the Government supporting the night-time economy of the future, creative industries and, most importantly, small businesses?

16:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jane Hunt)]

It is a pleasure to stand before you for my first Westminster Hall debate, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on securing this important debate. Clearly, this is an important issue for him and his constituents. I ought to say that my hon. Friend does an excellent job for Watford. None of his colleagues could ever say they do not know anything about Watford, because he is constantly going on about Watford. Good for him. It is much appreciated, I am sure.

I recognise that this is a local, commercial planning matter. Providing new homes to ease pressure on the housing market is obviously important. It is also important to preserve commercial areas, which are fundamental to the health of local economies and communities. Hospitality, alongside retail, personal care and leisure, is part of an ecosystem, as my hon. Friend said, that underpins healthy local economies and communities. This ecosystem includes a symbiotic relationship between businesses operating during the day and evening, and businesses operating into the night. I have talked to the Department about the day-time, night-time and twilight economies and the connection between them. I am sure that is where much of that £34 is being spent before people go on into the nightclub.

If the night-time economy fails, it has a detrimental impact on the ecosystem as a whole. As well as providing accessible jobs and stimulating local supply chains, hospitality businesses support tourism, help to attract inward investment, generate income for local authorities to invest in services and infrastructure, connect communities and support mental health, just as my hon. Friend said. All that helps to improve living standards and creates desirable places for people to visit, study, live and work.

While increasing the number of residents living in our town and city centres is a good thing for local economies, businesses and residents need to be able to co-exist. However, we know from experience that residential areas and night-time economy businesses do not necessarily co-exist well. We have seen many cases of long-standing businesses being forced to close under the weight of complaints about noise from new residents. To ensure a healthy business environment that will deliver for local economies and communities, this ecosystem needs to be managed, and it needs to support and complement wider plans for economic development, regeneration and levelling up.

It is important to talk about levelling up. People think about levelling up as being for places other than the south-east. In fact, it is just as applicable to Watford as it is to Loughborough or any other town in the country. Levelling up for most parts of the country will involve improving productivity and economic growth by encouraging innovation, creating good jobs, enhancing educational attainment, and renovating the social and cultural fabric of the parts of the UK that are falling behind. Investing in education, digital connectivity, housing and transport to attract new business investment, as well as attracting and retaining talent, is a key part of levelling up. Increasing the number of overseas tourists visiting the UK and achieving a better distribution of tourism across the UK is also an important part of levelling up. 

In 2019, 40.9 million overseas residents visited the UK, spending around £28.4 billion. Of those staying at least one night, 21.7 million visited London, while 2.2 million visited Edinburgh, 1.6 million visited Manchester and 1.1 million visited Birmingham. As my hon. Friend said, this is about Watford specifically, but it is also about the night-time economy across the whole country.

Creating the right environment for high street businesses to flourish is vital to creating destinations that will appeal to entrepreneurs, students and tourists alike. Research by Centre for Cities on healthy local ecosystems for students and graduates highlights the importance of attracting new students to bolster local economies, as they tend to spend their money where they study. A place’s ability to attract students from other parts of the country will therefore affect the strength of its economy, and the night-time economy would definitely attract the student population. Moreover, as the UK continues to specialise in more highly skilled, knowledge-intensive activities, the extent to which cities can attract and retain skilled graduates will have a big impact on their economic performance.

As constituency MPs, we know that hospitality and nightclubs are important, and clearly that is why my hon. Friend brought this matter to the House. Nationally, hospitality employs 2.4 million people, and there are 167,000 hospitality businesses, creating £83 billion in revenue in 2021.

[Dean Russell]

Given that I am debating my private Member’s Bill on tips on Friday—I just want to give it a plug—I want to point out the importance of the hospitality sector. It is important that staff can keep the tips that are given to them, and I hope the Minister agrees with me on Friday when she is at the Dispatch Box.

[Jane Hunt]

I welcome the introduction of my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill. Ensuring that tips go to workers is the right thing to do. It is a policy that my Department has worked hard on, and I look forward to responding to him on Friday.

We are working to make permanent many of the regulatory easements that we introduced during the pandemic, which not only provided hospitality businesses with greater flexibility to trade but helped to create the vibrant, bustling outdoor spaces we need to encourage people back into our town and city centres. In July 2021, we published the first ever hospitality strategy, which set out our ambition for the recovery and future resilience of the sector, and we have established a Hospitality Sector Council to oversee its delivery. We did all that because we recognise the importance of hospitality not just nationally but locally. If we are to maximise the potential of hospitality to support our local economies and communities, stimulate inward investment and tourism, and help levelling up across the country, we need to cultivate and nurture our local high street ecosystems. We have talked about those things.

As I say, the planning mechanisms are the way forward, and unfortunately they are not with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy but with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. However, I understand that DLUHC is bringing forward planning matters that could be dealt with through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which might include an auction after a year if a building remains empty. I am not sure whether that would happen in this case, but it is still worth bearing in mind for colleagues across the country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and giving us an opportunity to discuss this issue in Parliament. Although this is very much a local planning issue, it raises important questions about how we manage the transition of our high streets from being fundamentally retail centres to being more experiential spaces where we meet the needs of local residents and attract new footfall. I believe that, in this case, that can best be achieved by local authorities working closely together with local delivery partners—clearly, that has happened with the bid—interested groups, businesses and landlords. I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed for bringing this matter forward.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) on securing the debate and the Minister on her debut performance.

Question put and agreed to.

16:19

Sitting suspended.

Sitting resumed—

17:09

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Written Statements

Tuesday 12 July 2022

School Rebuilding Programme

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (James Cleverly)]

I am delighted to confirm details of the next 61 schools prioritised for the School Rebuilding Programme.

The School Rebuilding Programme was announced by the Prime Minister in June 2020 and will transform the learning environment at 500 schools and sixth form colleges over the next decade, supporting teachers in England to deliver a high-quality education, so that pupils gain the knowledge, skills and qualifications they need to succeed. The programme will also support levelling up of opportunity by addressing school buildings with the highest condition need across England.

It represents an important commitment to invest in construction sector jobs and skills, helping drive growth in the economy. The programme will have a continued focus on modern methods of construction and provide opportunities across the industry, including for small and medium-sized enterprises.

As with the first 100 schools announced in 2021, this group of schools has been prioritised solely on the basis of the condition of their buildings. The projects include primary and secondary schools, as well as special schools. This also represents a substantial investment in schools in the midlands and north of England, with 37 out of 61 projects in these regions.

The new school buildings will be energy-efficient designs with high sustainability standards, delivering a generation of new school buildings that will be net zero carbon in operation and mitigate the risks of climate change.

The 10-year programme will continue to target school buildings in the worst condition across England. From 19 July to 8 October 2021, we conducted a public consultation with the sector on our approach to prioritising schools for the long-term programme. As set out in the Government’s response, we invited responsible bodies—such as academy trusts and local authorities—to submit nominations for their schools with the poorest condition buildings to join the programme.

In 2022 to 2023, we expect to prioritise up to 300 schools in total. We are announcing a smaller group of 61 schools now to maintain the pace of delivery and address some of the poorest condition buildings as soon as possible. We are still assessing all other nominations received and have not ruled out any nominated schools for selection at this point. We plan to make another announcement later this year to confirm further schools selected.

Alongside the rebuilding programme, the Government have committed £1.8 billion in the financial year 2022-23 for maintaining and improving the condition of the school estate.

Further details, including lists of the school rebuilding projects, have been published on www.gov.uk. Copies will be placed in the House Library.

[HCWS197]

Patient Safety Commissioner for England

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (James Morris)]

In July 2021, the Government published their formal response to the recommendations by the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety review led by Baroness Cumberlege setting out an ambitious programme of change. As part of our response, we committed to appoint a Patient Safety Commissioner with a remit covering medicines and medical devices.

I am pleased to announce the appointment of Dr Henrietta Hughes OBE FRCGP SFFMLM as the first ever Patient Safety Commissioner for England. This appointment was made following an open competition, in line with the Governance Code for Public Appointments, and following a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing with the Health and Social Care Committee. Dr Hughes will continue working as a GP and remain Chair of Childhood First.

The First Do No Harm report, led by Baroness Cumberlege highlighted the need to avoid harm and protect patients. The Patient Safety Commissioner will add to and enhance existing work to improve patient safety in relation to medicines and medical devices by being a champion for patients and helping us to learn more about what we can do to put patients first. The Commissioner’s core duties are to promote the safety of patients, and promote the importance of the views of patients and other members of the public. The Commissioner will act independently, and a memorandum of understanding will be agreed to ensure the Commissioner’s independence is safeguarded.

[HCWS198]