House of Commons
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
Tackling violence against women and girls remains one of the Government’s top priorities, and we are doing all we can to make streets and homes safer. We are prioritising prevention, supporting survivors and strengthening our pursuit of aggressors.
Wera Hobhouse
It is a well-known national scandal that only 3% of rape cases have led to charges against the perpetrator. Locally, Avon and Somerset police are making big strides towards change. They have tripled charge rates, are bringing more cases to the Crown Prosecution Service and have changed their investigative focus from the victim to the perpetrator. I am immensely proud of this progress, and I hope that my local area could become part of the ongoing pilot for specialist rape courts. Can the Attorney General confirm when a decision on the further roll-out of specialist rape courts will be made? Will my local Crown court be considered to be part of the next stages?
The Attorney General
Evidence is being gathered from our three specialist courts, but I should emphasise that every Crown court tries rape cases and will benefit from the learning. The south-west, as the hon. Lady has outlined, is showing the way by demonstrating new ways of working with the police, providing specialist training to all first responders. They are also, I hear, planning a community event later this month.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Prosecution rates for the appalling crime of rape against women and girls have been too low across the country. What impact does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that Operation Soteria will have on prosecuting cases of rape?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is always a great advocate for vulnerable people. Operation Soteria is focused on delivering cultural transformation in the investigation of rape offences. It looks to ensure that the victim is well supported and the case thoroughly investigated. I was glad to see joint working between the police and CPS when I visited Leeds last Friday. They are working closely together and, crucially, with support services such as independent sexual violence advisers to make sure we really deliver for victims.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
A recent revelation in Northern Ireland is that a man was punished with 140 hours of community service after domestically assaulting his wife on two different occasions. What steps will the Attorney General take to ensure that harsher sentences are given to those guilty of inflicting violence on women? We need harsher sentences.
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important case. Sentencing is, of course, a matter for the independent judiciary, the Ministry of Justice and the Sentencing Council. I know that he shares the Government’s desire to do all we can to make sure that the victims of violence against women and girls get justice.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the Attorney General agree that the Crown Prosecution Service is very dependent on the quality of the investigation from the outset? I therefore welcome this joint working, which is something that had been hoped for over many years and seems to be delivering results. I do not know whether she has anything she can say about its roll-out to the country as a whole.
The Attorney General
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. I know that this is something he has personally been working on for many years. It is true to say that joint working is the answer, and in Leeds on Friday I was able to see a police gatekeeper—that is what he is called, but I think a better word would be “interpreter”—who was able to work between the lawyers and the victim and witnesses and ensure that the case was investigated properly right from the beginning and that disclosure was managed in a sensible way.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
All victims of crime deserve the right support, and the CPS has published the findings of independent research and is implementing changes based on that to deliver what victims need. There is new and innovative victim communication for half of CPS areas.
Mick Whitley
Justice delayed is justice denied, but as of September 2022 more than 17,300 Crown court cases had been outstanding for a year or more, and nearly 5,000 had been outstanding for more than two years. What does the Attorney General have to say to the victims of those crimes, whose lives have been put on hold for years while waiting for their cases to be brought to justice, and to those who cannot cope with any more delay, even if that means allowing their cases to collapse?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and the Attorney General and I are working closely with the Ministry of Justice. There has been good progress in terms of the CPS and the time it takes for cases to be heard. The most recent figures for the CPS show that it is 171 days on average, and I am determined to see that improve and decrease.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Victims of crime have already been through distressing circumstances, so can my hon. and learned Friend tell me what the CPS is doing to inform and support people to navigate the criminal justice system?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her interest in this important area. The CPS has launched a new online guide for victims, ensuring that they have access to the necessary information. She is right that accessible information is the key to supporting victims and ensuring that they can navigate the criminal justice system.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Solicitor General will be aware that victims of crime are being badly let down, waiting months and years for their cases to come to court. That problem is being exacerbated by the fact that there is now a disparity between criminal defence barristers’ pay and that of prosecution barristers. What does he intend to do to right that wrong and put victims first?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should be putting victims first, and indeed we are doing so. On his specific question, the Treasury has agreed to consider the CPS funding position following publication of the criminal legal aid independent review—a report that he will know about. Discussions regarding fees and funding are ongoing, but I fully support him in putting victims first and ensuring that those cases are brought on as quickly as possible.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I put on record my thanks to the Solicitor General for his compassion and care when dealing with the very tragic case of Sharlotte-Sky, who lost her life on Endon Road in Norton Green. He will know that Claire, Sharlotte’s mother, has felt that she has been failed, because ultimately it took over a year to get simple answers from a blood test as to whether in this case someone had been drinking and on drugs. What engagement has the Solicitor General had with the Department for Transport about its review, in order to speed up answers for our police officers and, most importantly, for victims of this horrific crime?
The Solicitor General
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has diligently and vigorously pursued his constituent’s case—I well remember the Adjournment debate that he brought to this House and the important points that he raised concerning the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I am determined to work closely across Government, and I know that my hon. Friend will continue his campaign to pursue this.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
I thank the House of Lords Constitution Committee for its thoughtful and detailed report, which highlights the complexity of this historic office. It is an honour to serve—to make law and politics work together at the heart of Government.
Clive Efford
The Constitution Committee rightly says that we need Law Officers
“with the independence of mind, autonomy and strength of character to deliver impartial legal advice to the Government, even where it is unwelcome.”
I am sure that the Attorney General agrees, but can she give a single example of where her predecessor met that standard in the advice that she gave to the Government?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but as he knows—as we all know, I think—the Attorney General’s convention means that I do not comment specifically on the advice that has been given by any holder of this office, or even whether or not advice was given.
Seriously—this is a serious matter—the report highlights some very important points about how the Law Officers work in combination, as politicians and as lawyers. That is something that I take extremely seriously myself. I know that I have duties to the court, as well as to my constituents and to the Government, and it is very important that we treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I think the Attorney General has just demonstrated that she and the Solicitor General are well up to the task of internal inquiries. In welcoming the report, will she recognise that, given the Attorney General’s important role of speaking truth to power—to Government—it is also important that the Law Officers should be consulted in a timely fashion, and appropriately and fully, on any controversial matters that may have a legal aspect, and that fellow Ministers should then listen and act accordingly, consistently?
The Attorney General
I thank my hon. Friend—he is a very learned Gentleman, on whose Committee I was extremely proud to sit for many years—for his question, which I think was more of a statement. It is important to note that the Government’s commitment to the rule of law is absolute, and I will do my very best to uphold that.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
May I join the Attorney General in thanking the House of Lords Constitution Committee for this excellent report? I have to say, it is a damning indictment of the former Attorney General, but also a helpful warning for current and future holders of the post. I want to ask the Attorney General about one specific point in relation to the report. Does she agree that it would be helpful to provide greater clarity within the ministerial code on the duties of Law Officers, particularly on upholding the rule of law within Government and providing impartial legal advice regardless of political considerations—both areas that the former Attorney General fell so drastically short on?
The Attorney General
I have looked often at the ministerial code, and I think the section that deals with legal advice is sufficient. To go back to the previous question, I note that it is suggested that the advice sought should be timely, but, as all lawyers present in the Chamber know, that is not always the way with clients, and we do our best to accommodate them. On some things, however, we can clearly be less accommodating. The rule of law is absolutely a thread that runs through the legal advice provided by the holders of this office.
Emily Thornberry
May I ask about one specific area of the ministerial code that might benefit from particular clarity? Section 7 requires Ministers to inform Law Officers if they risk becoming
“involved in legal proceedings in a personal capacity,”
including when they are potential defendants or in relation to potential defamation cases, and preferably before they have instructed their own solicitors. On that basis, I ask the Attorney General to clarify two points of fact: are Ministers currently obliged to inform Law Officers if either their solicitors are sending letters to journalists threatening to sue them for libel, or they are under investigation by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs over the non-payment of taxes?
The Attorney General
I am not going to comment on specific cases—the right hon. Lady will understand why that is the case. I think the ministerial code allows for a certain level of wiggle room on that particular area. It is clear that when proceedings have already commenced, it is essential to ask the Law Officers’ opinion on those proceedings. However, I think she and I both know that it is not always clear at the beginning of a series of letters, which may or may not lead to proceedings, when that moment should be. I would always caution—as I am sure she would—that it would be good to involve the Law Officers at an early stage of proceedings, but I cannot comment on specific cases and whether or not that was done.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
I thank my constituency neighbour for his question. This Government firmly believe in international accountability. Ukraine’s judiciary should be congratulated on prosecuting war crimes right now, in real time, during a brutal conflict. On Monday I met a delegation of Ukrainian judges in this building and heard how they are approaching this monumental task. They are grateful for our practical support, including an extensive training programme led by Sir Howard Morrison.
Robert Courts
What assessment has the Attorney General made of the international community’s progress in bringing Russian leadership to trial for the crime of aggression in Ukraine?
The Attorney General
The crime of aggression is one of the most significant in international criminal law. At Ukraine’s invitation, we have joined a core group of states to discuss the establishment of a bespoke tribunal. We are absolutely determined to play a leading role in ensuring international accountability for Russia’s actions.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Will there be Russian war reparations to Ukraine, and how can the UK support that?
The Attorney General
At the moment, the international community is rightly focused on prosecuting war crimes. That is the right focus, as we hope that in so doing we will have a good effect on the behaviour of those fighting this conflict at the moment. We are undoubtedly starting to turn our minds to reparations, and there is a great deal of work going on within Government on how best to support the Ukrainians to do that. I know that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is very involved in that.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Three weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Justice told me from the Dispatch Box that Russian war crimes would be pursued via Ukrainian domestic courts and the International Criminal Court, even though that denied the possibility of prosecuting Putin and his inner circle for the crime of aggression. At the time, the Attorney General appeared to share his view. Last week the Foreign Office welcomed the special tribunal necessary to try Putin, saying it would “complement established mechanisms”. That is welcome, and I think it is what the Attorney General has said today, but can she—because we know her to be a candid and thoughtful person—explain and confirm what by any definition is a screeching U-turn in Government policy?
The Attorney General
I am afraid I really would not describe this as a screeching U-turn—[Interruption.] No, not at all. This is a development in a very difficult area of international law. [Interruption.] I would just listen to this for a moment. It is a very delicate area of international law. This is a live and brutal conflict—we are all agreed on that—and it is right that most of the prosecutions take place in Ukraine, with real-time evidence and with witnesses present. Those prosecutions are going well, and I think we all support the Ukrainian judiciary in that. I hope very much that there will be an international moment of accountability following this war. I suspect that many courts will need to be involved, including both the ICC and any special tribunal.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is almost one year to the day since the beginning of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, and an estimated 7,000 civilian lives have been lost during this time, in one of the most barbaric atrocities against civilians recorded since the second world war. Given that the UK will host a major international meeting on war crimes in March, what further support will the Attorney General give on information sharing and testimonial gathering, and on ensuring that legal expertise will be fully utilised to hold Russian war criminals to account?
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is fortuitous that the Lord Chancellor has just entered the Chamber, because in March he is hosting an important conference, with the Dutch, to discuss how further we can help and support the work of the ICC. Further, we have the work of the special tribunal that I mentioned, and we are providing a great deal of practical help on the ground in training Ukrainian judges and providing funding to help them to find evidence and to prosecute these crimes effectively.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
First, I would like to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for his work as Solicitor General. From that work, he will know the significant amount of funding in the criminal justice system to help improve waiting times for victims. Both the Attorney General and I have seen that at first hand in our visits to regional Crown Prosecution Service areas.
Edward Timpson
I thank the Solicitor General for his answer. Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), in the first three quarters of 2022 there have been 235 ineffective Crown court trials caused by prosecution absence—the highest annual total since 2014—compared with just 19 in 2019. The recent uplift to defence fees has meant there is now more money in defending than in prosecuting, and consequently the CPS is struggling to find enough prosecutors for trials. What timescales is my hon. and learned Friend working to in order to address this situation?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising this point. Of course, I recognise the importance of ensuring that all those who work in the criminal justice system—both defence and prosecution—are paid and rewarded appropriately. He will have heard my answer earlier, and it is right that the Treasury has agreed to consider the CPS funding position. Discussions are ongoing, and I know that he will keep pressing.
Jerome Mayhew
The police are doing an excellent job in Broadland. They have just opened a new response centre at Postwick, improving response times and housing some of the many additional officers that this Government have provided. The CPS is the next line in the criminal justice journey. The CPS inspectorate undertook a report on local provision in March 2022. Can my hon. and learned Friend provide an update to the House on the performance since that date?
The Solicitor General
I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise and interest in this matter. The inspection report for the east of England praised the quality of the work in the area, and the latest data suggests that performance continues to be strong. The area is now making all crime charging decisions more quickly than it did previously. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, in the face of the backlog, the conviction rate for the CPS in his region remains reassuringly high at 85%.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
We are committed to increasing the volume of prosecutions and supporting more victims. We enacted new provisions to increase the time that victims have to report domestic abuse offences to ensure that we bring more offenders to justice.
Elliot Colburn
Despite Carshalton and Wallington being a relatively safe part of London, domestic violence rates there are higher than the London average. Local charities such as Sutton Women’s Centre do a great job in training people to spot the signs, but what assurance can the Attorney General give me that CPS staff have access to that same training to bring that level of crime down?
The Attorney General
I thank Sutton Women’s Centre for its fantastic work in training the community to spot the signs of domestic abuse. All prosecutors in London are now domestic abuse trained. Close working with the police should continue to increase the rate of prosecutions.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
Mr Speaker, you may remember that the SFO successfully prosecuted Glencore Energy UK Ltd and that the total amount the company will pay—£280 million—is the highest ever ordered in a corporate criminal conviction in the United Kingdom. We continue to work closely with the SFO to identify any policy changes that could support its ambitions.
Aaron Bell
My constituents want to see the Government crack down on corporate criminality. What measures are the Government considering in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill to address corporate crime?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest. The Government recognise that the current law does not go far enough. That is why we have committed to addressing the need for a new “failure to prevent” offence in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. In addition, we are introducing a provision to extend the SFO’s pre-investigation powers.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
As I said earlier, by convention, information on whether the Law Officers have been asked to provide advice and the content of such advice are not disclosed outside Government. That convention enables candid legal advice to be given.
Stuart C. McDonald
Why was the prospect of a section 35 order not raised at any time before the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was overwhelmingly passed by the Scottish Parliament? What alternatives did the Attorney General look at? When will she set out the changes to the Bill that she wants to see before the Government would revoke the section 35 order? Those are simple questions. If she cannot answer them, all we can conclude is that the Government have lost their last shred of respect for the Scottish Parliament.
The Attorney General
That would be absolutely the wrong conclusion to draw. The Attorney General’s convention is clear: the UK Government respect the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate within its competence on devolved areas. The Government are committed to working with the devolved Administrations and strengthening the Union of the UK.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Michael Tomlinson)
We are committed to delivering justice for victims of hate crime. All CPS prosecutors are trained about hate crime, and its specialist prosecutors help to lead that work. The latest figures show that the CPS has prosecuted nearly 13,000 hate crime offences, with a charge rate of 86% and, importantly, a conviction rate of 84%.
Mary Kelly Foy
As we mark the start of LGBTQ History Month, it was shocking to see in the year-end figures for hate crime a 41% increase in offences targeting people’s sexuality and a 56% increase in offences targeting people’s transgender identity. What are the Government doing to stop prejudice and fear, which led to that rise in crime, being stoked against the LGBTQ community?
The Solicitor General
In the hon. Lady’s area of the north-east, the CPS is particularly successful in getting uplifts to sentences in relation to hate crime. In the last rolling year to date, it has been successful in obtaining uplifts in 90% of cases. The question she raises is important and the CPS is working incredibly hard in that area.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know the whole House will want to join me in sending condolences to the First Minister of Wales on the death of his wife, Clare. From the warmth of the tributes, I know how much she will be missed.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings today.
Kirsty Blackman
As the Prime Minister reaches 100 days in office this week, having pledged a Government marked by integrity, what are his thoughts on the UK being one of only five countries, along with Oman, Azerbaijan, Myanmar and Qatar, to have seen a decrease in Transparency International’s corruption index score since last year?
The Prime Minister
In fact, there is widespread recognition and support for the UK’s approach to transparency and tackling corruption. Indeed, the most recent report from the Financial Action Task Force commended the UK for the steps it had taken.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know my hon. Friend cares deeply about this issue. He will know that decisions made by the Arts Council are taken at arm’s length from Government. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Ministers have been assured that that process was robust, but I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss this important matter further.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in his words about the First Minister of Wales and the sad loss of his wife? Everybody knows just how close they were, and I know he is absolutely devastated by her loss.
When the Prime Minister briefly emerged from his hibernation at the weekend, he raised more questions than he answered, so in the interests of integrity and accountability, can he set the record straight? Did his now former chair, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), tell Government officials that he was under investigation by the taxman before or after the Prime Minister appointed him?
The Prime Minister
I appointed the independent adviser to investigate this matter fully. He set out his findings in detail over the weekend and, on receipt of those findings, I took action. I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the independent adviser’s report.
Keir Starmer
Oh, come on! Anybody picking up a newspaper in July last year would have known that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency were investigating months before the Prime Minister appointed the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon. The Independent said on 6 July:
“New chancellor’s finances secretly investigated by National Crime Agency.”
The Observer said three days later, on 9 July:
“Revealed: officials raised ‘flag’ over…tax affairs before he was appointed chancellor”.
The Financial Times the next day, 10 July, said:
“Pressure builds…to explain his finances.”
Is the Prime Minister saying that his officials hid this information from him, or was he just too incurious to ask any questions?
The Prime Minister
As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, the usual appointments process was followed with respect to the Minister without Portfolio. No issues were raised with me at the time of his appointment, but as the independent adviser’s report makes clear, there was a serious breach of the ministerial code. That is why I took decisive action on receipt of that report.
Keir Starmer
So, in relation to his former chair, the Prime Minister’s defence is, “Nobody told me. I didn’t know. I didn’t ask any questions.” Will he now also claim—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Gullis, we heard enough last week. I might not be able to hear what you are saying but I can certainly see your mouth moving. It will be moving outside if it continues.
Keir Starmer
Is the Prime Minister now going to claim that he is the only person who was completely unaware of serious allegations of bullying against the Deputy Prime Minister before he appointed him?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks what was known. I followed due process. I appointed an independent adviser as soon as I was made aware of new information. The independent adviser has conducted his process. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so concerned about what people are saying and about behaviour in public life, recently, one of his own MPs was forced to speak out because being in his party had reminded her of being in an abusive relationship. Then, his own office was caught undermining her. He ought to be supporting her and her colleagues, but if he cannot be trusted to stand up for the women in his party, he cannot be trusted to stand up for Britain.
Keir Starmer
At the last count, the Deputy Prime Minister was facing 24 separate allegations of bullying. According to recent reports, some of the complainants were physically sick. One says that they were left suicidal. How would the Prime Minister feel if one of his friends or relatives was forced to work for a bully simply because the man at the top was too weak to do anything about it?
The Prime Minister
I notice that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say anything about how one of his own MPs describes being in his party. When I was made aware of formal complaints, I instructed a leading independent King’s counsel to conduct an investigation, because I take action when these things happen.
What did the right hon. and learned Gentleman say at the weekend? He said that hate had been allowed to “spread unchallenged” in the Labour party under his predecessor. He was speaking as if he was not even there, but he was sitting right next to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), supporting him for four long years and not challenging. That is typical of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—declining to lead, sitting on the fence, carping from the sidelines and never standing up for a principle that matters. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear both sides. I will not be interrupted by either side. I am particularly looking for people who continue, because we will sort it out today.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is just like one of his predecessors who treated questions about conduct as something to brush off, and thought that ducking responsibility was a perfectly reasonable response from a Prime Minister. In fairness, at least his predecessor did not go around pretending he was a paragon of integrity and accountability. On that subject, was it a coincidence that the two people who arranged an £800,000 line of credit for the former Prime Minister were shortlisted for plum jobs at the BBC and the British Council?
The Prime Minister
As I said when we addressed this previously, the appointments process for the BBC chairman is rigorous, transparent and set out in a public code of conduct. Indeed, it was fully supported not just by expert panel members but by the cross-party Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which included Labour Members who described the appointment as impressive.
Back to this week and what is happening to the people of this country, the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted with the unions to oppose minimum safety levels. He voted with Just Stop Oil to water down the Public Order Bill. What do the unions and Just Stop Oil have in common? They bankroll him and his party. While he sides with extremist protesters and union bosses, we stand up for hard-working Britons and schoolchildren.
Keir Starmer
After 13 years in power, trying to blame the Labour party for the Prime Minister’s failure to sort out the strikes is rank pathetic. The Tory party’s addiction to sleaze and scandal has done huge damage to this country, and the cost to the public keeps adding up. We have a justice system letting murderers walk the streets, heart attack victims waiting hours for an ambulance, and an economy that is shrinking quicker than the his leadership. Even I could not quite believe it when I saw that his Government are expecting taxpayers to pay the legal fees for the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) to defend himself over his lockdown rule breaking—a quarter of a million pounds! Surely even this Prime Minister can put his foot down, stand up to his old boss and tell him: he made the mess, he can pick up the bill.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot stand up to his union bosses, he cannot stand up for Britain’s schoolchildren today and he cannot stand up for the women in his party. We are getting on: we are halving inflation, we are growing the economy, we are reducing debt, we are cutting waiting lists and we are stopping the boats. While he cannot even figure out what he believes in, we will keep delivering for Britain.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The Government are committed to increasing the number of doctors in general practice, and last year saw the highest ever number of doctors accepting a GP training place. The British Medical Association is consulting each year on the funding of GP services. My hon. Friend will know that the NHS has a statutory duty to ensure sufficient medical services, including general practice, in each local area.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I would like to pass on my condolences and those of my party to the First Minister of Wales, and also to the family, friends and colleagues of firefighter Barry Martin, who so sadly lost his life following the blaze in Edinburgh last week.
We have just marked the three-year anniversary of Brexit. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Government Members will not be cheering in a moment, because we have learned three things: the UK’s trade deficit has grown, the economy is being hit to the tune of £100 billion each year and, of course, the UK is expected to have the worst-performing economy of all advanced nations. Does the Prime Minister still believe that the UK can afford not to be in the European Union?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Member actually looks at it, since Brexit the UK has grown exactly the same as Germany. Not only that, but we are taking advantage of Brexit to deliver for people across the UK, whether that is in the fishing and farming communities of Scotland or through the two new freeports that we have just announced. The difference between his party and ours is that we respect referendums.
Stephen Flynn
Let us be clear: taken together, 2022 and 2023 are expected to be the worst years for living standards since the 1930s, and the economy is expected to perform worse than sanction-hit Russia’s. As the Brexit ship sinks with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at the helm, can the Prime Minister blame those Scots who want to jump aboard the independence lifeboat?
The Prime Minister
The No. 1 factor that is impacting people’s living standards is inflation caused by high energy prices as a result of a war in Ukraine; it has nothing to do with Brexit. That is why the Government are taking significant action, supporting every family with £900 this winter. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that rather than obsessing about constitutional arrangements, he should focus on delivering for the people of Scotland. That is what we will do.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very sorry to hear about the tragic case that my hon. Friend raises, and the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to Gary and Sarah. We want to make sure that the NHS is the best and safest place in the world to give birth. The NHS has taken steps to improve, but cases such as the one that he raises highlight the fact that more must be done. Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust is receiving support from expert maternity improvement advisers and, nationally, the royal college is implementing recommendations from the independent Ockenden report, together with £127 million of extra investment. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: when situations like this arise, transparency is paramount so that we can seek answers and make improvements.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is nearly 10 years since the tragic death of nine-year-old Ella Roberta, the first person ever to have air pollution listed on their death certificate. Yesterday, the environmental improvement plan pledged to improve air quality, but the Government’s target of 2040 is a whole generation away. I do not think that that is fast enough, and neither does Ella’s mum, Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. So I ask on her mum’s behalf: will the Prime Minister agree to meet us both to discuss the lifesaving measures in a proposed new Bill called Ella’s law?
The Prime Minister
It is very sad to hear the case of Ella, and our thoughts and hearts go out to her family. Regarding the legislation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make a statement later today. We are confident that the measures we are putting in place are not only legally binding but world leading in tackling air quality. The record over the past 10 years is one in which every single air particulate has been reduced, with binding targets to continue reducing them in future. Indeed, the Environment Act 2021 makes sure that we have the capability, accountability and ambition that we need to make all the effective interventions to drive down air pollution.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This Government are proud to join him in supporting small businesses. I am pleased to tell him that we do have a small business test to consider whether the impacts of regulatory changes will disproportionately affect small and micro-businesses. I will make sure that we apply that test rigorously, and he will be pleased to know that many small businesses will benefit from billions of pounds in business-rate reductions this coming financial year, as well as from our annual investment allowance which, at £1 million, is the most generous tax incentive for investment for small businesses anywhere in the world.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The Government do recognise the challenges facing those on prepayment meters, and that is why the Government are taking action. The Secretary of State has set out five very specific points on prepayment meters. Energy suppliers are being spoken to to make sure that they treat customers with the respect and flexibility that they deserve. Finally, Ofgem has announced that it is launching a review into supplier practices in relation to prepayment meters. All of this comes on top of the considerable financial support that this Government have provided to help people with their energy bills, with more of that support being targeted at the most vulnerable families in our society.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has clearly been a fantastic advocate for the Alex and for her constituents. We have awarded £10.5 million to the local trust, and I understand that some of that funding is being used to improve maternity and paediatric services at the nearby Worcestershire Royal. She will know that these operational decisions are being made by integrated care boards, and I know that she will continue to make her views known.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I appointed an independent adviser to fully examine the matter, establish facts and report back. That is the process that the Labour party called for, and that is the process that we followed.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has a long track record of advocating for and implementing policies that increase our competitiveness and reform the supply side of our economy. His report was fantastic, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss those things further and help drive growth in this country.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Lady actually looks, she will see that we published on Monday a comprehensive plan to reduce wait times in A&E and for ambulances, backed with more funding, reform of the system, more beds, more ambulances and more staff. It was a plan that was warmly welcomed by all working in emergency care and the ambulance services. They recognise that this plan will deliver reduced waiting times and improve care across the country, including in Labour-run Wales, where there are some things they can benefit from.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend will know that there are around 400 dentists with NHS activity in Norfolk and Waveney, but he is right that centres of dental development build on existing local infrastructure to help to retain and recruit dentists, and I advise him to encourage his local integrated care board to look at proposals for one of those centres in his area.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
When it comes to teachers, we have actually given them the highest pay rise in 30 years. That includes a 9% pay rise for newly qualified teachers and record investment in their training and development. I am clear that our children’s education is precious, and they deserve to be in school today being taught. The Labour party would do well to say that the strikes are wrong and that we should be backing our schoolchildren.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Of course I pay tribute to Andy, Tim and Mike, especially for channelling their personal tragedies into such positive action to prevent it from happening to other families. That is inspiring and they deserve enormous credit. The Government are taking action to improve the provision of mental health services for young people in schools and colleges, but I will be delighted to meet him and Andy, Mike and Tim to discuss what more we can do.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Aah, it is wonderful to hear from the right hon. Gentleman and lovely to see him in his place. We are continuing to deliver for people across the UK, including in Scotland. He mentioned poverty, which is lower today than when the Conservatives first came into office; inequality is lower than when the Conservatives first came into office; and the number of people on low pay is the lowest on record.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Today in my constituency, there is a great sense of shock and disbelief following last night’s horrific dog attack that killed a four-year-old girl. The police investigation is still going on, and it would not be appropriate to speculate on the circumstances, but it would mean a great deal if, on behalf of the House, the Prime Minister could send our condolences to the family and the community, and thank the emergency services for dealing with the situation with their customary compassion and professionalism.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and send my condolences, and I am sure the whole House’s condolences, to the girl’s family and the community after this horrific incident. I join him in thanking the emergency services. They have responded rapidly and professionally, and I know that my hon. Friend himself will be supporting them and his constituents during this difficult time.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Can I blame the painkillers? Apologies, Mr Speaker.
This past weekend, I visited a charity that was hosting an exhibition in my constituency about metastatic breast cancer, which claims 31 lives each day in the United Kingdom. The women there asked me to convey to the Government the need for more awareness, more support, more research and more drug availability. Will the Prime Minister help to bring about that support? I have also written to the Scottish Government, asking for their support. In his next meeting with the First Minister, will he mention it to her?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to the charity that the hon. Lady mentioned for the work it does. She is absolutely right: awareness is key in tackling and identifying breast cancer symptoms early. That is one of the reasons why we are investing more in diagnostic screening tools to make sure that we can detect more cancers earlier, treat them and, ultimately, save people’s lives. I would be happy to pick up this particular topic with the First Minister when I next speak to her and ensure that we are working together to improve cancer services for everyone, regardless of where they live in the UK.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister kindly confirm to the House that, in the United Kingdom Government’s negotiations with the EU regarding the Northern Ireland protocol, the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and its four nations will not be compromised?
The Prime Minister
I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I know this is something that he cares passionately about. The implementation of the protocol is having an impact for communities in Northern Ireland. That is why it needs to be addressed, which is what we are attempting to do through constructive dialogue, but the goal in that must be to ensure Northern Ireland’s place in our precious Union.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Since the election of the fascist Israeli Government in December last year, there has been an increase in human rights violations against Palestinian civilians, including children. Can the Prime Minister tell us how he is challenging what Amnesty and other human rights organisations are referring to as an apartheid state?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady failed to mention the horrific attacks on civilians inside Israel as well. It is important in this matter to remain calm and urge all sides to strive for peace, and that is very much what I will do as Prime Minister and have done in the conversations that I have had with the Israeli Prime Minister.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In 2016, the British people had the wisdom and foresight to take back control from foreign lawmakers. When they did so, they believed we were taking back control of our borders, yet since that time we have faced wave after wave of illegal migration. Will my right hon. Friend, without further delay, bring forward the necessary legislation to turn back the tide and fulfil the promise that was made to the British people?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is why one of this Government’s five priorities and promises to the British people is indeed to stop the boats. We will introduce new legislation that makes it unequivocally clear that if you arrive in this country illegally, you will not be to stay, and we will swiftly detain you and remove you to your own country or a safe third alternative. That is the right and responsible way to tackle this problem.
Hillsborough Families Report: National Police Response
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question, I wish to state that although I encourage Members not to refer to any ongoing legal proceedings, I am prepared to allow a full discussion of the matter, given the importance of the issue.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the national police response to the Hillsborough families report.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I know this is a subject with profound personal resonance for him. I pay tribute to him and many others for the work they have done and continue to do in memory of the victims of this awful tragedy and to ensure that the lessons are learnt.
The Hillsborough disaster was an awful, devastating tragedy. Its impact continues to be felt to this day, especially by the families and friends of the victims. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with them. It is imperative that lessons are learned from the experiences the Hillsborough families have gone through, so I am very grateful to Bishop James Jones for the report he produced, which highlighted a number of points of learning for the Government, the police and other agencies.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said during yesterday’s debate, the Government are fully committed to engaging with the Hillsborough families prior to the publication of the Government’s formal response. Since arriving in the Home Office two or three months ago, I have asked for this work to be sped up, and we are expecting it to come out in the course of this spring. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing published their response earlier this week. I welcome their commitment to avoid repeating the mistakes that were made, and I welcome the apology that they gave. They made it clear that strong ethical values and the need for humanity and humility in the police response to public tragedies are critical. One of the commitments they rightly made earlier this week was to substantially strengthen and update their own code of ethics in relation to these issues.
Some important steps have been made by the Government in the past few years, which have addressed a number, but not all, of the points that Bishop James Jones published. For example, in 2020 a suite of police integrity reforms was introduced, on a statutory basis, via the professional standards for policing, which included, crucially, a duty to co-operate with inquiries. Other initiatives have already been taken forward to support bereaved families, including the removal of means-testing for exceptional case funding to cover legal support for families at an inquest, which broadens the scope and access for families; and the refreshing of our “Guide to Coroner Services for Bereaved People” so that it is more tailored to their needs and provides improved guidance for others involved in the inquest process. The Inquiries Act 2005 also provides a statutory process for funding legal representation requests. Last year, the Home Office also established an independent pathology review, and additional consultation with the families is now taking place. A consultation has also taken place on retaining police documents, which was the subject of a recommendation made by the bishop, and the Ministry of Justice has also consulted on establishing an independent public advocate.
Those steps are important. They go a long way to improving the situation, but they do not cover everything that the bishop recommended, which is why we will be responding in full. We intend to do so in the spring, but after, of course, full and deep engagement with the families concerned.
The Government are committed to making sure that these lessons are learned following this awful tragedy and I, as the newly appointed Police Minister, will do everything that I can to work with Members across the House, particularly those representing the affected communities, to make sure that this does now happen quickly.
Ian Byrne
Since that awful day on 15 April 1989, 97 people have died directly from the actions of South Yorkshire police and other agencies, including the emergency services, the Football Association and Sheffield Wednesday Football Club, with families destroyed and survivors traumatised—so traumatised that many have since taken their own lives.
The lies and smears from the cover-up by the establishment, which acted with impunity and arrogance because it could, meant that justice was never delivered for all those who have died and suffered since. In 2017, Bishop Jones delivered the report “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power: A report to ensure the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families is not repeated.” Shamefully, we have not yet had a Government response to his recommendations in the report commissioned by the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
Yesterday, Bishop Jones said that the delay was intolerable. His recommendations are, in essence, the Hillsborough law, which so many in this place and outside have since campaigned for. We must always remember that these recommendations are to ensure that no other community goes through the suffering that we have endured since 1989. They will hopefully futureproof the ability to gain justice.
Yesterday, we finally had the response to the report from the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. This was the first apology from the police force for its actions since the disaster 33 years ago. For so many, including myself, it is far too little and far too late.
Yesterday’s recommendations from the police did not go anywhere near far enough to change the culture that we came up against in our quest for justice. I ask the Minister whether this Government will do the right thing for future generations in our nation and implement a Hillsborough law containing Bishop Jones’s recommendations with immediate effect. The families and survivors of so many disasters and consequent state cover-ups deserve nothing less, and these injustices must never again be allowed. If a Hillsborough law had existed in 1989, we would have had a chance of justice for the 97; without it we had none.
Chris Philp
I fully understand and respect the sentiments that the hon. Member so powerfully expressed in his remarks. On the timing and the years that have passed since the bishop’s report, for much of that time there were ongoing legal proceedings and, of course, no one wanted to prejudice those for obvious reasons. That accounted for about four years—from 2017 to about May 2021—but about 21 months have passed since then and I agree that the Government response does need to come out quickly. Indeed, since my appointment a couple of months ago I have asked for it to be sped up, and I want to make sure that that happens this spring, following, of course, consultation with the families, which is extremely important. That will include responses to the points that the hon. Member made.
I reiterate that the statutory changes made to the professional standards for policing in 2020 include a duty of co-operation on police officers in relation to inquiries, which, as he has said, is very important. He is right: we do need to get on and respond comprehensively to the bishop’s recommendations, which is what I am working on.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
The apology from the police is, of course, welcome, but it would have been far better for them to have done their job properly on that fateful April day, 34 years ago. If they had done so, families of the 97—and, indeed, the whole Liverpool community—would not have gone through the suffering and anguish that they have had to bear over the past 34 years.
Let me say first to my right hon. Friend that I do not think saying vaguely that the Government’s response will be available this spring is good enough: five years on, they must now publish it. Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the elements that can be put in place to help families if, sadly, such an event—a tragedy of this sort— happens in the future is the introduction of an independent public advocate, which was promised in the Conservative party manifesto in 2017? Will he give a commitment now that the Home Office will not put any barriers in the way of the work of the Ministry of Justice in introducing such a body?
Chris Philp
As I mentioned, for approximately four years following the publication of the report there were ongoing criminal legal proceedings which nobody wanted to prejudice, but, as I have said in the House and as the Home Secretary said yesterday, we do now want to get on and respond quickly and comprehensively to the bishop’s report. As for the introduction of an independent public advocate—a measure being worked on by the Ministry of Justice, as the right hon. Lady said—a public consultation has taken place. The response is being worked on in the usual way, but it is happening at pace.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and all the other Merseyside MPs, for pursuing this matter, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this urgent question.
Ninety-seven people lost their lives as a result of what happened at Hillsborough on that terrible day 34 years ago. We remember the football fans who never came home, and we must also never forget the shameful cover-up that followed. The Hillsborough families have fought for decades against obfuscation and lies to get to the truth. Everyone hoped that the report from the Right Rev. James Jones would be a turning point, and I welcome the work that the former Home Secretary did in commissioning that report, but it is five years on. The police have rightly said:
“Police failures were the main cause of the tragedy and have continued to blight the lives of family members ever since.”
Nevertheless, five years is too long, and what makes this even more shameful is the fact that there is still no Government response to what has happened. The Home Secretary said yesterday that it was because of active criminal proceedings, but those finished 18 months ago, and the work could have taken place even while those proceedings were ongoing.
In September 2021 the Government announced that the response would be published by the end of the year, and we are still waiting. The Home Secretary also said yesterday that the Government were engaging with families, but what engagement has taken place? Has the Home Secretary met the families? Has she met the bishop? And I have to ask, where is she today? Previous Home Secretaries have shown respect to the families and acknowledgement of the appalling ways in which they have been wronged by being here to respond, and it is a devastating failure of responsibility and respect to them for her not to be here to respond.
The key measures on which we need a Government response are well known: the duty of candour, the public advocate and the elements of the Hillsborough law. The Labour party stands ready to support that law and get it into statute. Will the Government now commit themselves to supporting it, and recognise what the bishop has said about its being “intolerable”, given the pain of those families, not to have a response? The report is entitled “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”. Does the Minister accept that that is exactly what this continued delay will feel like to so many families and survivors now?
Chris Philp
I entirely agree with the shadow Home Secretary’s opening comments—and, indeed, with what has been said by other Members—about the appalling impact that this has had on the families of those who so tragically lost their lives. When I took my own son to a Crystal Palace football game a few weeks ago, I thought about how awful it must have been to be trapped in those circumstances, which is a terrible thing to contemplate.
As the shadow Home Secretary said, the police have apologised for the terrible failings that took place on the day and in the years subsequently. It is right that they have apologised to the families, and to the country as well. In relation to the timing, I have already said that there were legal proceedings ongoing. It has been 18 to 21 months since those concluded, which is why since I was appointed I have asked for the work to be sped up, and it will be concluded rapidly and it will respond to all the points in full.
I repeat the point I made earlier that a number of things have happened already. The right hon. Lady mentioned the independent public advocate. As she will know from her own time in government, where a public consultation has taken place, it is generally speaking a prelude to action. On the question of co-operating with inquiries, the 2020 statutory professional standards for policing did introduce that requirement, but the response needs to cover all the points, and that will happen soon.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I listened with great care to my right hon. Friend’s response to the urgent question, but I have to press him on the independent public advocate point. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, the Ministry of Justice, which I had the honour of leading—I worked with her and the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle)—is in a position to go ahead with this policy. The consultation was five years ago. What is stopping the Government from doing this?
Chris Philp
As I have said before to others, including the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the consultation has, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) said, taken place. The usual processes in government are going on to respond to that consultation. As soon as the Ministry of Justice can make an announcement on this, it will most certainly be doing so.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
May I also start by commending the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and his colleagues not just on securing the urgent question, but on all their campaigning work on behalf of survivors and families affected by Hillsborough? The persistence, bravery and decency of the people of Liverpool over these 34 years has been utterly extraordinary in the face of cover-up and smear, but they need more than warm words—they need a comprehensive response. The long overdue police report, while a start, does not provide a complete response. That needs the Government, and we should have had a Government response before now.
As Bishop Jones has said, the wait has been “intolerable”, and the families are speaking about the bishop’s report gathering dust. I appreciate that questions are being raised that will not be answered today, in the light of the announcement of a spring publication, but can the Minister at least assure us that when that long overdue response from the Government is published, we can have a full debate on the Floor of the House on its findings?
Secondly, the Minister referred to engagement with the families. There has been some good engagement, but there have been some ropy times as well, so can he say a little more about what form that engagement will take going forward?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the sentiments he expressed, which I completely understand. In relation to a full debate, scheduling business in the House is not my responsibility, but it would seem to me like a reasonable request to make, and I will certainly pass it on to my colleagues who are responsible for scheduling parliamentary business. Families have been fully engaged. One reason why the independent pathology review, which had been commenced, has been temporarily paused is to allow for more engagement to take place, because families rightly felt that they wanted to be more involved. That engagement is continuing. Critically, before the Government response is published, there will be more such engagement, for the obvious reasons that the hon. Gentleman rightly points to.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Hillsborough disaster and the following cover-up by South Yorkshire police was a devastating tragedy that undermined the faith of my communities in Rother Valley and South Yorkshire in the police. The police apology yesterday was the bare minimum that could be done. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, as part of this process, the Government will thoroughly engage not only with the families of the 97, but with the wider communities in Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield, to make sure that lessons can be learned so that such an awful tragedy does not happen again and that there will be no more police cover-ups of such awful disasters?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I agree with the points he has made. I can confirm that the engagement he rightly requests will happen.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It was a great pleasure to meet Bishop James Jones recently. As an aside, I pay tribute to his work in securing the infected blood inquiry, which is another example of the patronising disposition of unaccountable power, where cover-ups and secrecy become a further scandal on top of the original events. Given that the Home Secretary is not here, may I ask the Minister whether she has met Bishop James Jones to discuss his report on Hillsborough and the Government response?
Chris Philp
I am afraid that I do not have visibility of the Home Secretary’s diary, so I cannot give a direct answer, but I can certainly ask the Home Secretary to write to the Chair of the Select Committee in response to that question. I add my thanks to hers to the bishop for the work he has done in both of the areas to which she referred. In the coming months, there will be very full engagement with all the interested parties, including Members of Parliament who represent the relevant communities, for the reasons that she mentioned.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I was at university in Sheffield at the time of the Hillsborough disaster. A friend of mine died in that tragedy; another was seriously injured. I pay tribute to the residents of Sheffield, who are very rarely mentioned but who showed compassion and gave real practical support on that day to people they did not know. They raced to the stadium, they offered free taxi journeys to help people to get where they needed to go, and they looked after people in their homes and provided them with hot meals. It was an incredibly moving thing to witness.
It has taken too long to learn the lessons of Hillsborough. Will my right hon. Friend confirm, irrespective of the timing of the publication of a Government response, that he will emphasise to all police forces around the country that if such an appalling tragedy ever happens again, their officers must behave openly and sympathetically, even if it means showing their own shortcomings?
Chris Philp
Yes, I can do that. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, particularly in the light of how he has been personally affected by the tragedy. I can give him that assurance. Some steps have already been taken, partly through the changes made in 2020 to the statutory professional standards for policing. That will be further reinforced by the updated code of ethics, which will be published by the College of Policing, following its announcement yesterday, with the exact purpose that my hon. Friend has just set out in mind.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is unconscionable that 18 months after the collapse of the criminal trials, there has still been no Government response to the bishop’s report. The fact that we will have to wait until spring, whenever that is, shows that the work is not finished, more than five years after that report was written and published. It is outrageous that the Government have done nothing to sort this out in that time.
The Minister keeps referring to the consultation on the independent public advocate. That happened in 2018. The Government have not yet responded to their own consultation on the independent public advocate. But I can get the Minister off the hook. My Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill will be considered again in the Chamber this Friday. If the Minister were to stop his Whip objecting to it for the 12th time in this Session, we could get it into Committee and start this legislation rolling. It is a key part of the Hillsborough law, along with the duty of candour and the equality of arms at inquests. With the support of Labour Front Benchers, the Minister could do himself and his Government a favour by getting that legislation through.
Chris Philp
As I have said, we are working quickly on the comprehensive response. The hon. Lady says that nothing has happened since 2018, but with great respect I do not think that is entirely accurate. I have referenced the professional standards for policing introduced in 2020, which introduced a duty to co-operate. I have mentioned the pathology review that has happened. I have mentioned the consultation on the independent public advocate, and I can tell her that that is being very actively worked on by the Ministry of Justice as we speak. We have had changes made to the exceptional case funding at inquest, so the means testing has been removed. A lot has been done. But I do accept that a comprehensive Government response is required. Since arriving at the Home Office, I have asked for that to be done as quickly as possible, and it will be.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Anyone who knows the story of Coventry City’s 1987 cup run will know that there was a match at Hillsborough where a near crush took place, making what then happened two years later tragically predictable. The Hillsborough disaster was a tragedy; the lies, smears and cover-ups that followed were an absolute disgrace, worrying echoes of which we saw after the Champions League final last year, so the extended delay in getting this response out just makes it even worse. Will the Minister at least commit today to the principle of the independent public advocate, to ensure that in future, families would be on a level playing field?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and agree with his point about the policing failures at the time. It is right that the police comprehensively apologised yesterday for the police’s behaviour, both at the time and in the years subsequently. As I say, the consultation on the independent public advocate did happen, and it is under active consideration at the moment. I do not want to pre-empt the Ministry of Justice’s work on that, because it is for the Ministry of Justice to publicly respond, but I can tell my hon. Friend and others that they are actively working on it at the moment.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
It is an absolute disgrace that the Home Secretary was sat on the Government Benches just before this debate started, but has left—a debate about a disaster that has no parallel, in terms of what happened and the injustice that took place. I am quite sure that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) would never have left the Front Bench in these circumstances.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as you may be aware, I have a number of constituents who lost loved ones at Hillsborough, and I myself was present that day at the disaster. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) will agree, my hon. Friend and I are so proud to have been privy to the work of the Hillsborough families over the years in fighting for justice. Part of the injustice that has existed over the years—apart from the general injustice—was the continued delays, the time it took to try to get to justice and get to the bottom of what went wrong, even though we all knew, and to get the report out. It took a long, long time, and this is adding to the torture of the families and those people who were affected by Hillsborough, so the Minister saying that he hopes to have a response by the spring is just not good enough. I ask him to come back to the House before the recess in February with an actual date for when that response will be given to the House.
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for his question, particularly given that he has such direct personal experience of the tragedy that unfolded—that he was there himself, all those years ago. I agree that speed of resolution is now important after all this time: too much time has passed, and I can give the hon. Member my assurance that I want this done as soon as possible. It is something I have personally pressed for since arriving, and I will be doing everything I can to expedite this process and get the comprehensive response published as quickly as possible.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
For football fans everywhere, 15 April 1989 is seared on the memory, and my sympathy is with the families of the victims who tragically lost their lives. One of the problems here is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) alluded to, this could have happened in 1987—it could have happened in 1981. I was present for the semi-final held at Hillsborough when crushing took place, but the difference then was that there were no cages. In 1989, the Liverpool fans who lost their lives were caged in and could not escape.
The key problem is that, in the same way, following the policing in 1981, 1987 and 1989, the lessons were not learned. I personally gave evidence to the inquiry about what happened in 1981, yet nothing seems to have happened about those aspects of policing. Will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that there will be a duty of candour and the other legislative measures that we need to ensure that the police own up to their mistakes, rather than cover them up for 34 years? They may apologise now, but it is far too late for the victims.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right to point to the police failings at the time, and the fact that they essentially created the tragic situation that unfolded. The apology they gave yesterday was important: it was comprehensive, I think it was heartfelt, and it is good that they have done that. It is also important that they change the way that they respond in those circumstances, as my hon. Friend has said. That is why the changes to the code of ethics that the College of Policing will be bringing forward are important, and it is why the duty of candour I have referred to previously, enshrined in the statutory professional standards, is important as well. But I do agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Former Bishop of Liverpool James Jones’s report laid bare the sheer scale of the failure of the police at Hillsborough and the lies, smears and state cover-up that followed. It is disappointing, to say the least, that it has taken this long for an apology to come from the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, and it does nothing to undo the horrific abuse of power that has been seen. What is worse—what is more shameful—is that five years on, we are still waiting for the Government’s response to the report.
The appalling treatment of the Hillsborough families did not happen in isolation. As we have heard, from the contaminated blood scandal to Grenfell, it is part of a problem of failure and cover-up. When will the Government finally listen to calls for the Hillsborough law? Will the Minister back the Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) so that the scales of justice can be levelled in favour of the bereaved families?
Chris Philp
We will be bringing forward the full response as quickly as possible. That is important, as Members on both sides of the House have pointed out. In relation to the Hillsborough law, that will be included in the response. However, via the professional standards of policing in 2020, which are statutory and were introduced by regulations, we have already introduced the duty of co-operation in relation to inquiries, which is one of the most important elements of that. Our response on the independent public advocate, which is also important, will happen as quickly as possible. The Ministry of Justice is working on it actively right now.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is not good enough. First of all, the Minister criticises his immediate predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who, as I understand it, really was trying to get to grips with this issue. Secondly, he fails to explain why the Government are blocking this legislative vehicle for establishing the independent public advocate. What is going to happen is that the Government will report at the end of the spring, and then they will say it will take a long time to get through any legislation. We have a legislative opportunity before us. The debate began last July! Why will the Government not allow that Bill to have its Second Reading this Friday?
Chris Philp
First of all, to be clear, I am in no way criticising my immediate predecessor, who was only in post for a matter of two or three months. For the record, I am most certainly not criticising him, and I frankly resent the insinuation that I was. The Government are not blocking progress on the issue of the independent public advocate, but there is a process to go through to get cross-Government agreement. The Ministry of Justice is working on it, and we will respond as quickly as possible.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I would like to place on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this debate, and to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for their work. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope)—something I never thought I would say in this Chamber.
After 34 long years, the police finally acknowledged what every decent Scouser and every decent person in this country knew: a failure in policing was the main cause of the tragedy that saw the death of 97 innocent men, women and children. Our city has never given up the fight for truth, justice and accountability. I have heard nothing from the Minister at the Dispatch Box today to say why the Government have not responded to the report for five long years. This Friday, the Minister has the ideal opportunity to back the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and the duty of candour. We do not want to hear the reasons why it cannot be done or that something will be brought forward in the spring. The Government have an ideal opportunity to back this Bill on Friday. The first question is, will they do that? If not, why not?
Secondly, the Secretary of State for Education—herself a Scouser—did the media round today. On BBC Radio 4, she said that there had been no Government response to Bishop James Jones’s Hillsborough report because of ongoing criminal trials. The last trial finished in May 2021, and the police conduct investigation is ongoing. Does the Minister agree, after all the smears and all the lies, and after 34 years, that Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that what they say in the media round is truthful?
Chris Philp
As I said earlier, several things have been done in the last few years to address the issues that have been raised—not comprehensively and not everything—but they include the professional standards for duty of co-operation; the pathology review; consulting on retaining documents, which is another recommendation; the consultation on the independent public advocate, and the removal of means-testing for exceptional case funding for bereaved families and inquests. All those things have been done.
The IPA is a Ministry of Justice lead. I cannot speak for that Department, but I can say that it is working actively on it.
The position on the delay is as I explained earlier. Between 2017 and May 2021, there were ongoing legal proceedings, as the hon. Lady just said. For the past 18 to 21 months, that has not been the case, and we need to get on quickly and bring forward the full Government response. I will make sure that that happens.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Because of the nature of the urgent question, I am giving a bit more latitude on the length of questions, but please help me by trying to focus as quickly as possible on the question in hand.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My constituents have waited long enough. That was true last month when the Secretary of State for Justice gave me the same pathetic response. I am afraid that I have concluded that the Minister does not know very much about the issue. It affects not just Merseyside, but the whole country. As others have said, it is not just about football or Hillsborough. It affects people who have suffered because of Grenfell, contaminated blood and a host of matters where the state has tried to protect itself instead of putting the interests of the citizen first.
I want a straightforward yes or no answer. When the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) comes before the House on Friday, will the Government block it—yes or no?
Chris Philp
I have already explained several things that the Government have done in the past few years to address the issues that the bishop’s inquiry raised—[Hon. Members: “Answer the question!”] I am going to. They include the duty of candour on police in relation to inquiries. That was done in 2020. I have been asked about the independent public advocate several times and I have given the same answer. It is a Ministry of Justice, not a Home Office lead. I cannot speak for another Minister’s area of responsibility. It is with the Ministry of Justice, which is actively considering it and will respond shortly.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing the urgent question.
More than 30 years after the Hillsborough disaster, and more than five years after the publication of Bishop Jones’s report, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing have finally apologised for what they described as decades of “deflection and denial”. However, for many of my constituents, who are still haunted by that terrible day, that is too little, too late.
Does the Minister agree that while plans to revise the police code of ethics are welcome, a new duty of candour on public authorities must have a statutory footing, so that no family ever again has to struggle for truth and justice, which the Hillsborough families sought for decades?
Chris Philp
A duty of co-operation on police in relation to inquiries was set out in the professional standards for policing in 2020. We will respond to the wider duty of candour, to which point of learning 14 in the bishop’s report referred, along with everything else, shortly.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Minister speaks from the Dispatch Box for not only his Department, but the entire Government. I would have expected him to know what the approach of the Ministry of Justice to the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend and sister the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on Friday would be before he came here. Will he at least say from the Dispatch Box that when he leaves the Chamber, he will go to the Ministry of Justice and get permission from them to ensure that on Friday, my hon. Friend and sister’s Bill, which provides for an independent public advocate, will be let into Committee and not be blocked, so that the clauses that the Ministry of Justice is currently drafting can be incorporated into the Bill in Committee? We have a legislative vehicle, we could do it now, and he could enhance his reputation. We have a legislative vehicle, we could do it now, and he could enhance his reputation.
Chris Philp
I would be very happy to convey the hon. Lady’s request to my Ministry of Justice colleagues.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I send my support and respect to all the families and friends who have fought for justice for the victims of Hillsborough. The Government have said that they will respond in due course, and today we have heard that might be in the spring but it could be any time soon. The Labour party has pledged to create a new Hillsborough law. Can the Minister, without looking at his notes, commit to supporting the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and to supporting an independent public advocate?
Chris Philp
I have just responded on the public advocate point. On the Hillsborough law point, which is different, we will respond to that and the recommendation in point of learning 14 with the rest of it. But as I have said quite a few times, we have already, on a statutory basis, changed and updated the professional standards for policing to include a duty to co-operate with inquiries imposed on the police.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to everybody who has campaigned for justice for the 97. I was a young school teacher in Liverpool when Hillsborough happened, and I remember how traumatised the children were on the following Monday and in subsequent weeks and months. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing the urgent question.
I hear what the Minister is saying about a Hillsborough law, but can he tell us whether, in principle, he agrees that we should have a Hillsborough law that would place a new legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials—not just the police, but all public authorities and officials—and would ensure that victims of disasters or state-related deaths are entitled to parity of legal representation during inquests and inquiries?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, particularly given that she and many other Members have been affected personally by the tragedy. It has touched an extraordinary number of lives in many different ways, including hers. We will respond fully when we reply to the bishop’s report, and I want to make sure that happens as quickly as possible. It is very important that public bodies respond quickly, openly and honestly, and with integrity, and that they do not try to cover things up, as obviously happened in this terrible case. We all have a shared interest in making sure that it never happens again.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this urgent question, but the truth is that he should not have had to do so. As soon as the police made the apology, there should have been a Government statement, and it should have been the Home Secretary giving that statement. I am afraid this gives the impression that this issue is not a priority, which, given the history, is completely unforgiveable. Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), I suggest to the Minister that he should go back to the Home Secretary this afternoon and express in the strongest terms that it would be sensible for her to come back at the next opportunity with a concrete date by which the Government will respond to the bishop’s report.
Chris Philp
The Home Secretary did of course reference this issue during her speech in yesterday’s debate—I think it was in response to an intervention. To be fair to the Home Secretary, she addressed the issue in the House as recently as yesterday, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is already the subject of urgent discussions. I want to see action on this as quickly as he and others do, and I am committed to making sure that happens.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
As someone who was present at Hillsborough on that terrible day and who was the leader of the council, I echo comments made by Conservative Members—first, about the incredibly generosity and warmth of Sheffield residents around the ground, who welcomed very distraught people into their homes and gave them whatever help they could.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is right; the South Yorkshire police are accountable for what they have done. They probably have not been accountable enough, given their enormous failings. But there was also a failing to recognise that circumstances had changed, with cages being put around grounds. As Lord Justice Taylor recommended in his report, those cages had to be taken down because they were making so many grounds in this country unsafe. Essentially, they were put there to treat every football fan as a hooligan, without any thought for spectator safety, and we ought to learn some lessons from that as well.
When the Government eventually produce their report, rather than merely giving us warm words and commitments, will they say how they will ensure that every single police force in the country abides by the recommendations in the report and implements them in full?
Chris Philp
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Like so many in the Chamber today and across the country, he was personally affected—indeed, he was actually present. I completely agree with his point about caging; as a football fan myself—I take my son to Crystal Palace—the idea of people being caged is completely wrong. In answer to his direct question: yes, when there is a response to the report, which will be soon, it is important to make sure that it has teeth and is not just warm words; that it has biting and binding effect. I am confident it will, in the way that he asked.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing this urgent question. Like many others, I have never forgotten that day. I lived just around the corner from the football ground and remember seeing young people queueing outside phone boxes—probably 50 of them—with not one word being spoken, because they were so traumatised. I have never seen anything like it. There were young people trembling around the streets in my area. Yes, lots of us went out to support them, because that is what we do in Sheffield. None of us has ever forgotten that tragic day, let alone the travesty of justice that has followed.
The Hillsborough disaster will live long in the memory of my constituents, but it is completely unacceptable that, more than 30 years on, 97 families are still waiting for justice and assurances that this can never happen again. It would show those families the respect they deserve if the Government were to do exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) has asked for, by supporting the Bill that will be debated in the Chamber on Friday. Let us show the families the respect that they deserve and have not received until now.
Chris Philp
A lot has been done already to address many of the issues that the bishop raised in his report. I have gone through them previously, but they include, critically: those professional standards for policing, the removal of the means test on exceptional case funding, and many other things that I have set out and will not repeat. We want to honour the families by responding in full. We want to make sure that this will never happen again. I have already committed to raising the IPA point with Ministry of Justice colleagues, which I will do straightaway. I hope that, through the actions taken already and the response we will bring forward as quickly as possible, we will show the families of those who suffered this appalling tragedy that the Government and the whole House are with them. I want to make sure that no one has to go through what they went through.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I do not think that the Government’s response is acceptable, and neither is the Minister’s; he can read out the same thing again and again, but he is simply not answering the question. Why will the Government not back the Bill on Friday? I would like to press him further on the Hillsborough law. The Government have access to a blank cheque for legal representation, yet victims have to navigate an often alien and complex system to access limited legal aid. Does he agree that victims should have access to public money on the same terms as the state for legal representation during inquests and inquiries?
Chris Philp
That is an important issue. It was one of the points that the bishop raised in his report, which we will respond to. We have already taken action in this area already by removing the means test for exceptional case funding at inquest for the reason the hon. Lady set out.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The fact that the Home Secretary did not think that it was a priority to be here to answer this urgent question is a complete disgrace, and yet another snub to the families of the Hillsborough 97. We know what will happen on Friday. The Bill being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) is No. 10 on the Order Paper. The Whips will sit on the Government Benches and anonymously shout “Object” when the Bill is read out, unless the Government change their position. We need no further debate on this issue. We can get the Bill into Committee, debate it line by line and get the legislation through. There is a vehicle for doing it right here, right now in this House. It will be forever to the condemnation of this Government if they do not take that opportunity.
Chris Philp
As I have said, the Home Secretary spoke about the issue when she was asked about it in this House yesterday. The private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) is due for consideration on Friday; I have already committed to communicating with my Ministry of Justice colleagues on the topic, and I will do so.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Any indication of obfuscation is dangerous for the Government. We must have a Hillsborough law. We must have a report in full, as soon as possible. A functioning democracy depends on public trust in the police forces; without that trust, democracy itself is undermined. I would like to hear a word of recognition from the Minister that this is a dangerous situation that we have to put right. We have to make sure that the general public—our voters, the people of the United Kingdom—have proper faith in their police forces. Right now, that faith has been damaged by all that we have seen.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. Policing takes place by consent, and it is important that the public have confidence in the police force. That is why the apology yesterday from the police and the acknowledgment of the terrible, terrible mistakes and wrongdoing—not just all those years ago, but in the years that followed—was right. That is important. The police have committed to change their own code of ethics to build trust in policing, which reflects the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Action is also being taken on the vetting issues that we have debated in this House over the past two or three months. We are looking to review the way in which dismissals from the police happen, so we can allow chief constables more readily to remove officers who are guilty of misconduct or of poor performance more generally. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point; action is under way.
Let me end my answer by saying that, despite the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised and other points that we have debated in this House over the past few months, the vast majority of police officers are dedicated, hard-working, decent people who put themselves in danger for our safety. But where there are terrible failings, as there have been in this case and others that we have debated recently, it is critical that robust action is taken, because without public confidence we cannot have an effective police force.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
We absolutely need a Hillsborough law. We hear that all police forces in England and Wales have signed the charter for families bereaved through public tragedy, but the Minister should not be surprised if that has been met with some cynicism. To prevent the charter from being just empty words, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all forces are fully trained in and regularly updated on its requirements, and that they implement it in full when they deal with any future tragedy?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which is a good one. Charters, codes and so on, in this context or any other, are only as good as their implementation. The College of Policing—particularly Chief Constable Andy Marsh, who leads it—has made it clear that implementation of the charter will be a topic in training across all 43 police forces. Moreover, I expect His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to ensure it looks at that when it conducts its regular PEEL—police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy—inspections. I would be happy to raise the matter next time I see Andy Cooke, the chief inspector, to make sure that he is keeping an eye on the issue. The hon. Lady raises a very good point, and I will take it away.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), as always, and others in this Chamber who have consistently brought this matter to the fore. No words and no amount of money can bring back a loved one or soothe the grief of loss, but the Minister will know that full accountability and openness can help some people to move on. Does he really believe that is being achieved? Will he consider implementing and legislating on the proposals in the 2017 Jones report as a signal that changes will be made to prevent this from ever happening again?
Chris Philp
Closure for victims’ families through openness is critical. The bishop’s report was an important part of that, as were the various inquiries that happened in the aftermath; we will respond in full. There were, I think, 25 points of learning, some of which address the issues that the hon. Gentleman has quite rightly spoken about. When we respond in full to the bishop’s report, those issues will be addressed.
In closing, I repeat that I want to see this happen as quickly as possible. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made very clear the House’s expectation that it will happen as quickly as possible. I will make sure that it is my duty to ensure that it does.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Ian Byrne for his urgent question, all those who have taken part and the Minister for responding for over 50 minutes.
Environmental Improvement Plan 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I would like to update the House on the next steps that the Government are taking to help nature recover through our new environmental improvement plan. It is a delivery plan setting out how we will achieve our ambitious, stretching environmental targets, the most critical of which is to halt the decline of nature by the end of this decade. We can and must achieve that, both here in the UK and globally.
We are already under way. In this Government’s first 100 days, we have already delivered with legally binding targets to halt nature’s decline, clean up our air and rivers and support a circular economy; playing an instrumental role in a new global agreement for nature at the UN nature summit COP15; enacting the legal duty on Government, national and local, on considering biodiversity; publishing our environment principles policy statement; setting out in detail our transformational farming schemes with the full range of actions we will pay farmers and land managers to do to restore nature; announcing we will ban the most commonly littered single-use plastic items from October 2023; agreeing to enact mandatory sustainable urban drainage systems for new development, which will reduce the risk of surface water flooding and pollution; putting in place the plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain, a five-year vision for plant health to protect native species, with plants providing an annual value of £15.7 billion to the UK; and agreeing with the devolved Administrations our approach to managing fisheries. There is much more I could add.
Nature is a crucial part of our islands’ story and our shared future. We know what is special with our rare habitats and our iconic species, and we also know the pressures it is under. We rely on our natural capital for a secure supply of food, for clean air, and for clean water, as well as for leisure and genuine joy. However, nature has been taken for granted for too long and used freely as a resource with little thought for the consequences. We have to reverse that and respect nature.
Seventy years ago, people were waking up to the devastation of the great flood of 1953, in which more than 300 people died, reminding us that the full force of nature can bring us challenges. We took action then and it is why we have continued to invest billions of pounds in protecting people’s homes and in better protecting more than 100,000 local businesses to safeguard around 100,000 jobs. However, nature can also help us to tackle some of our great challenges, so we need to help protect nature too. Undoubtedly and understandably, the pandemic set us back in some areas, as we responded to the emergency at hand. A silver lining to that experience, if any is to be had, was the opportunity for us to reconnect with nature, and I am particularly pleased by our pledge in this plan to bring access to a green or blue space within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s homes, be that parks, canals, rivers, countryside or coast.
Our focus is on picking up the pace and scaling up at home, and around the world, and that is why we are putting nature top of the international agenda as well. We brought nature into the heart of our collective response to climate change under our presidency of COP26 in Glasgow. At COP27 the Prime Minister said that
“there is no solution to climate change without protecting and restoring nature”.
The House may have heard me before extol the marvel of mangroves as the ultimate example of how investing in nature is an essential, effective and cost-effective way to take on a multitude of challenges. The key achievement of 2022 was the agreement reached at the UN nature summit, the Convention on Biological Diversity COP15 in Montreal.
To level with the House, there is much, much more to do to restore the natural world. Some of the challenges are not always so easy or so quick to fix as we might all hope, yet I assure hon. Members that with our new legal duty to consider biodiversity, guided by our environmental principles policy, we are embedding nature in the heart of every decision that Government will take for the long haul. We have a plan for the whole of Government to support this national endeavour and we have already started the journey with a great many improvements.
We are replacing the EU’s bureaucratic common agricultural policy, which did so little for farmers or nature, and rewarding our farmers for taking action to help nature retain and regain good health, reduce emissions and produce food sustainably. Those things are absolutely symbiotic and we are leading the way in making this essential transition. We have cleaner air, with major decreases in all five major pollutants. Emissions of fine particulate matter, PM2.5, the most damaging pollutant to human health, decreased by 18% between 2010 and 2020. I want our air to be even cleaner. That is why we are working with farmers to tackle ammonia emissions.
Councils ask for a lot of powers, but I need them to use the powers they already have, including on tackling litter and fly-tipping, rather than just asking for more. I will be publishing what they are doing and seeking to share best practice across the country.
We are accelerating the rate of tree planting. The Forestry Commission will start growing its estate and increase planting, fulfilling its original statutory obligation to help to rejuvenate the forestry and timber industry. We have strengthened the financial support through our environmental land management schemes and we will continue to promote urban tree planting so children everywhere can enjoy their local woods.
On the chemical status of our water bodies, the science and modelling are clear that it will take decades to recover and heal completely, but we are keeping a spotlight on water quality and getting industry to clean up its act. We are restoring 400 miles of river through the first round of landscape recovery projects and establishing 3,000 hectares of new woodlands along England’s rivers, as well as doubling funding available for the catchment-sensitive farming programme to £30 million in each of the next three years, to cover all farmland in England. We have already seen a huge improvement in our bathing waters. Last year, nearly three in four beaches were deemed excellent—only about half of them were back in 2010—but I share people’s concern about sewage in our waters. That is why we, a Conservative Government, turned on the monitoring, and why we are holding industry to account on fixing this issue. Through our storm overflows discharge reduction plan, we are requiring water companies to deliver their largest ever environmental infrastructure investment, an estimated £56 billion of capital investment over 25 years. We have set clear expectations on improvements on which we will track performance. The next formal review will be in 2027, so if we can go further and faster, that is exactly what we will do.
This issue remains an international endeavour as well. We have a globally recognised track record of action, helping communities protect and restore their national treasures. Reinforced by our science expertise and financial support, we are helping nature around the world. That is the right thing to do and it is absolutely in our interests as well. Having committed to doubling UK international climate finance to £11.6 billion, and to spending at least £3 billion of that on nature, we are building on decades of action, backing efforts to take on the whole host of threats that now face the world’s flora and fauna well beyond climate change alone. We are doing that through the blue belt programme, protecting an area of ocean larger than India around our biodiverse overseas territories, through our world-renowned £39 million Darwin initiative, and through the illegal wildlife trade challenge fund. We are ploughing all that expertise and experience into our newly established £500 million blue planet fund, and our £100 million biodiverse landscapes fund, to help some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities restore, protect and connect globally important but fragile habitats.
I am so proud that the UK is leading, co-leading and actively supporting the global coalitions that are committed to securing the maximum possible ambition and achieving the greatest possible impact on everything from taking on the scourge of illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, to persuading countries to agree a new, legally-binding global treaty to end plastic pollution by 2040, to supporting efforts to establish a global gold standard for taking nature into account across our economies.
I could spend hours talking about nature, about our mission, about what we have already achieved. As the Member of Parliament for Suffolk Coastal, I am blessed to represent a very special part of our country, with many precious habitats and protected sites, on land and offshore. I always said it felt like I had had six years of a perfect apprenticeship before I became the Environment Minister in 2016. There are many more parts to the plan that we published yesterday. I recognise that we have work to do, and our aim is to catalyse action across Government, across the economy and across the country, with the whole Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs family, our agencies, including Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, our delivery partners and regulators, the whole of Government, and individuals, communities and businesses, from farms to finance, all working together to bring this to life.
Nature needs us to accelerate and scale up our help if we want to enjoy nature and have its help for generations to come. Together, we can achieve it. Whether someone lives in a city or town, in the countryside or on the coast, we all have a part to play in the truly national endeavour and the decade of global action that we need now to see this through. I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I am pleased that on this occasion we are actually getting an oral statement, rather than a DEFRA Minister having to be dragged to the House for an urgent question or sneaking something important out as a written statement. However, even on this occasion, she made a speech announcing this plan outside this House yesterday. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), the shadow Secretary of State, is unable to be here, as he has a pre-arranged medical appointment. I am glad the Secretary of State is here to be held accountable, but it must be difficult for her to continue to try to defend her Department’s record.
The Conservative Government are big on promises but little on delivery. The proof is in the pudding, and the Secretary of State’s own appalling environmental track record speaks volumes. As water Minister, she presided over a new sewage spill every four minutes—321 years’ worth of sewage was spilt in just three years; and she cut the resources of regulators that are there to protect the environment by a third. Her three months as Environment Secretary have not been any better. First, she broke her own statutory deadline for publishing environmental targets. Then she told Parliament that meeting polluting water bosses is not a priority, before announcing measures that inflict more sewage dumping and toxic air on our country. [Interruption.] She can correct the record when she responds. Even her Department’s own regulator, the Office for Environmental Protection, gave the Government “nul points” on their 25 year environmental goals. On chemicals, the Government are missing in action. Their UK REACH system is evidently not working properly. Never mind Dr Dolittle, it is Dr Damage—a lot.
Let us look at this latest plan, as I have questions. Why will our sites of special scientific interest, which have been so neglected, not be assessed for five years, until 2028? Why is there no mention of reintroducing species to help nature recovery, aid flood management and increase pollination? Does the Secretary of State agree that she is betting the house on environmental land management schemes—ELMs—by relying totally on take-up and farmer co-operation? She had the opportunity to come to Parliament to say, or to outline at the National Farmers Union conference in Oxford, that she is on the side of farming communities, but she failed to do so. Where is she on the Dartmoor issue, and the increasing threat to access to nature? How does she plan to deal with the 1,781 retained EU environmental regulations we are going to have to deal with this year?
Trust is an important word in politics, and it is clear that there is very little trust in this Government to get anything done. Actions speak louder than words. The environmental improvement plan is full of praise for the action the Government have taken since 2018 to deliver improvements in our air quality, but light on detail on the actions they will take over the next five years to deliver change. That is why when Labour plans to introduce a stand-alone, ambitious, effective and comprehensive clean air Act, it will do what the Minister will not: save lives, save money and clean our air. Labour will expand meaningful access to nature and clean up the Tory sewage scandal. We will hold water bosses to account, not just pay lip service, and ensure that regulators can properly enforce the rules.
This environmental improvement plan, which was so long in gestation, still has glaring omissions, and there is no evidence on how it will be delivered. Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, said at the plan’s launch yesterday:
“It’s now all about delivery”.
Yet, DEFRA has continually failed to deliver. How can we trust this failed Government to deliver for our natural environment? Only Labour will deliver a fairer, greener future.
Dr Coffey
Well, what can I say? I am not sure how much that deserves a response, but out of respect for the House I will say that it is important to make sure that these long-term environmental plans are in place. We brought in legislation saying that we would refresh them every five years, and that is exactly what we have done.
If we are talking about track records, of course the Labour Government never did anything about sewage. They did not know anything about it. [Interruption.] They did nothing—nothing. I am used to the usual spew coming out of those on the Labour Front Bench and, frankly, it is not good enough.
Let us go through some of the questions on which the hon. Member wanted some updates. On chemicals, we still have the system in place, and as is set out in the environment improvement plan, we will be publishing a chemicals strategy this year.
On SSSIs, I am very conscious of the risks that exist. There are variations in what is going on around the country, which is why I have asked for an individual plan to be put in place for every single SSSI. Natural England will be going through and making the assessments of what is there and what needs to be done, and we will get on with it.
I think environmental land management schemes have been transformational. This is a journey for those in the farming industry, who are the original friends of the earth—the people who want a very special countryside—and that is why we have brought forward measures, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries laid out to the House when he came here to talk about this transition last week. We will be working with farmers, and indeed I will be at the NFU conference next month. There has not been any NFU conference since I have been in the Government, but we make sure that we continue to speak to farmers and others.
On retained EU laws, I have already told Parliament the approach we have set out. Where there is legislation that is superfluous, we will get rid of it. We will be looking carefully at all the regulations that are in place, and that is what we are going through. It seems to have escaped Opposition Front Benchers’ attention that we have of course already repealed 146 regulations. They did not even notice, so there we go.
In the meantime, we want to make sure that we are holding different people to account, but there is an individual endeavour, a local endeavour and a national endeavour. That is why provisions such as those on biodiversity net gain, which will be coming into effect later this year, will start to help local nature recovery strategies. It is why we have announced extra funding for more projects, with second rounds of things such as the landscape recovery scheme. There are also species reintroductions happening in different parts of the country.
I am very pleased we have published our environmental improvement plan. I think it shows a clear path for how we will get nature recovery, recognising that this has been going on for centuries. Finally, I am delighted to say that we in the UK Government should be proud of getting nature very much at the forefront of international thinking. We are leading the way on that, and we are doing our bit around the world. I trust that we will continue to be the Conservative party because we believe in the conservation of our precious land.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Goal 5 of the plan aims at eliminating waste, and while we have made great progress—for example, in phasing out single-use plastics and substituting more sustainable materials for plastic in packaging for foods—the sad fact remains that our local authorities are very good at collecting waste, but the majority of our plastic waste is exported overseas.
Will the Secretary of State look at two things she could do to improve that situation? First, will she look at the operation of extended producer responsibility, and maybe look at what is being done in Belgium to make sure there is work with industry to incentivise investment in our plastic waste recycling here? Secondly, will she look at setting a date, as my Committee has suggested, for the phasing out and elimination of plastic waste exports to countries such as Turkey, where standards are not as good as ours?
Dr Coffey
On exports of plastics, we have recognised this issue and want to make sure that we are not exporting to non-OECD countries, but that does not mean that we give a blank cheque when there are exports to member countries of the OECD. That is why we have a rigorous process in place, but we will continue to investigate, through the Environment Agency, where issues arise and get them fixed.
On our thinking more broadly, one of our sadnesses during covid was of course the explosion in single-use plastics and the throwaway elements that were necessary for public health. We also had a reduction in our recycling rates. We do want to turn that around, and that is why we will continue to work on the important EPR reforms to which my right hon. Friend referred.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
At yesterday’s launch of the plan, the Secretary of State claimed that
“we are embedding nature in the heart of every decision that government will take”.
That is a very worthy aim, but how on earth does it square with the action we see from her Department? Just last week, the Department gave the green light to an authorisation of the pesticide neonicotinoid, which we know kills bees. I hope she will not tell us that this was just an emergency authorisation; this is the third year in a row that the Department has ignored its own expert committee on this issue, so this is now becoming routine. How can she reassure us that when she says words such as, “We are going to put nature at the heart of all our environment policy making”, she means it? Where is the consistency?
Dr Coffey
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We commenced the legal duty on public authorities, at national and local government level, to consider biodiversity from 1 January, so that is already in place. The environmental principles policy statement was published yesterday. It will take some time for the Government to bring that in, and it will come into effect formally from 1 November this year.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries went into considerable detail in the consideration of the decision about neonicotinoids. Every year, if an application is made, it has to be considered separately. From discussion with our chief scientific adviser, my understanding about what happened in that process—[Interruption.] That is not true. We increased the threshold for usage and we set a bar, to be decided by Rothamsted Research, for how much of the crop has to be at risk. Only when those thresholds are reached can the neonicotinoid be applied to the seed. That is further strengthened by a prohibition on the planting of flowering crops for, I think, 36 months—it may be 32 months, but certainly between two and three years—after the use of the pesticide. Very careful consideration has been given to the matter, and we continue to consider these applications with a great deal of care. I am conscious that with the sustainable farming initiative, for example, we have brought forward eligibility for integrated pest management grants so that we can continue to try to accelerate away from using pesticides routinely.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I warmly welcome the incredible amount of work that the Secretary of State and her team, fresh into post, have put into the five-year environmental improvement plan. This is a holistic, comprehensive update of the 25-year environment plan, and it introduces for the first time a whole slew of targets and interim targets on the journey to where we wish to get to in the next 20 years.
Looking at goal 3 on clean and plentiful water, a topic that has been of great interest to Members across this House, I ask the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to help Opposition Members who seem to have deliberately confused what we voted for in this House in trying to introduce targets, particularly in connection with persistent chemicals. They are substances such as flame retardants that are banned from use, but that exist in sediment on our riverbeds and other places and are being released through the natural process of decay. This is not something that this House has voted to continue for 40 years, as some Opposition Members have tendentiously claimed.
Dr Coffey
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. He is absolutely right to say that a lot of effort has gone into this review. That is quite right, because nature matters so much, not just to those of us who have a passion for it, but because it is critical to the global web of life.
This is not the first time that Liberal Democrats have put stuff out and it has been a complete load of the proverbial. I will make a point to the House more broadly about the chemical status of water. In the last decade, while we were still a member of the European Union, we added a particular type of chemical—it includes elements such as mercury—to the list of those to be considered in assessing the chemical status of water bodies. Before that, nearly every one of our water bodies had good chemical status. When that provision came in, none of our water bodies had good status. Exactly the same thing happened to countries such as Germany. This is a natural process, and we now need nature to heal and recover before we can get that status changed.
On the other aspects that are more within our control, we have pressed the case through our strategic policy statements and things such as the water industry national environment programme. We are getting water companies to really tighten up and clean up waste water treatments.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday I introduced the Clean Air Bill, which would require us to reach World Health Organisation air quality standards for PM2.5 of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, in alignment with the ambition of the EU, which is achievable. Yet today, five years into the 25-year plan, the Secretary of State comes along, on the 10th anniversary of the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah, and extends that another 10 years to 2040. How many thousands of extra avoidable lives will be lost due to that? How many millions of children will have to go into hospital with asthma attacks because of that delay? What will she do to bring forward that target to 2030 in alignment with the EU? If we were still in the EU, thousands of lives would be saved, instead of which she is ensuring that thousands will die.
Dr Coffey
I am conscious of the hon. Gentleman’s passion on this and know that he has a long-standing interest in air quality, as do I. I seem to recall that, when I was first in the Department, the focus was on NOx, because we were in legal breach, but we are not in any legal breach now. [Interruption.] That is not the case either. It was I who pointed out to the various groups at the time that the thing that we should worry about is PM2.5 because it affects everybody. I have long been passionate about this matter, which is why, with me in post, we introduced the ban on the sale of smoky coal and we got rid of wet wood as best we could, because that was the principal source of what was happening with PM2.5.
As I have said publicly, I would have loved for the target to be 2030, but the powers of the Environment Act 2021 require me to believe that it is achievable. I am very sad that, in London in particular, we do not seem to be able to fix the problem. Many issues need to be addressed; we still have a problem in 14 out of 21 London boroughs. That is why I am very keen for the Mayor of London not to be doing all sorts of tokenistic things that make a marginal difference, such as the expansion of the ultra-low emission zone, but to be encouraging the councils to use their powers to inform people of the issues, so that we can really tackle that PM2.5. If we can go quicker, the next time that we review the targets I will make sure that they are changed.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
May I say a huge thank you to my right hon. Friend and extend a big, grateful Herefordshire hug to her for this excellent plan? Will she meet me to discuss the Environment Agency’s permitting department, which I believe is struggling, the rivers Lugg and Wye, and how we will deliver through the work that farmers do?
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I would be delighted to meet him. Hopefully I can bring along the farming Minister and the water Minister, because this is a good example of where we need different agencies to come together, as well as our farmers. We need to think through how we can improve the capture of run-offs and other elements. That is why we have made sure that money is available to farmers for slurry storage, for example, so that we can try to trap ammonia, as well as for some of the other activities that they can undertake. That is how we can help them to do the right thing.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I want to declare an interest: I am a trustee of the small charity, Fields in Trust, that works with some local authorities in trying to achieve the target of no household being more than 15 minutes away from green space.
The Secretary of State said that this was about the whole of Government. Before Christmas, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities introduced a consultation on changes to the national planning policy framework, which required the 20 major urban areas in this country to have a 35% uplift to their house building targets. On 9 January, the permanent secretary and his officials came to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, and Emran Mian, the director for regeneration, said that that uplift had been plucked out of thin air and that it did not have to be followed if it meant building on the green belt, but if it meant building more homes on green spaces, the uplift would have to be implemented. So, if in implementing that uplift—the 35%—authorities find that they cannot deliver the Government’s target of everyone being within 15 minutes of green space, do they follow the uplift or follow the aspiration on green space?
Dr Coffey
I hold the Chairman of the Select Committee in high regard. As he will be aware, we do need to build more homes in this country, and while we of course want to prioritise brownfield sites, I am also very conscious of some of the changes that may be needed in different parts of the country. While I of course regret, as Secretary of State for DEFRA, the loss of any good farmland—although protections are already in place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood is further consulting on aspects of that—it is important that we can design in great green space access. That might be something as simple as community woods. I grew up in Liverpool—I was very aware of what was happening in relation to the urgent question—and Liverpool City Council has some of the best tree programmes. I think we can design with nature in mind. That is why biodiversity net gain, which this Government have introduced, will come into effect later this year. Those are the sorts of important changes that we can make in order to ensure that people have access to green space.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. As I have mentioned in this Chamber before, in my constituency we have already seen a dramatic reduction in the number of storm overflows released on to our beautiful beaches. Analysis has shown that the only way to completely eliminate sewage overflows is to dig up and replace 60,000 miles of old pipes with two separated systems, or to build the equivalent of 40,000 Olympic swimming pools of storage. Does my right hon. Friend know which option the Lib Dems claim they would deliver?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is a very good champion for her constituents and for nature, and so she should be. I recall going to the beautiful Croyde beach and doing litter picking, which brings joy in terms of the beauty of nature. She is right to champion our improvements on sewage. As she will know, the Liberal Democrats will often say one thing to get elected and do the complete opposite when in power.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Government’s own regulator, the Office for Environmental Protection, has found that this Government are seriously failing on every one of the goals set out in their own 25-year environment plan. What are the Government going to do differently in order to deliver these commitments, or is this yet another case of the Government talking the rhetoric of meaningless words and not delivering?
Dr Coffey
I recognise what the hon. Lady has said. I was disappointed by the OEP, given that it had put out statements that we were getting cleaner air and making progress on all these things. I was a bit surprised by the headlines that came out of that. Of course, to some extent, one of the issues with the goals, which are complementary goals, is that targets had not been set at that point. I am very confident. This is a delivery plan.
Dr Coffey
As the hon. Lady will be aware, it is available—it was available yesterday. I am conscious that it does not cover Wales, where her constituency is, so I do not know what the Welsh Government are doing in that regard. [Interruption.]
I am not decrying them. This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom, so I am very happy to take questions from Welsh MPs and have already done so. But what I am keen to say is that we have already delivered. I have already shared information on how bathing water has got much cleaner under this Administration, and we will continue to do a number of activities. What we have done, and what the Welsh Labour Government have not done, is transform farming funding to make sure that we have sustainable food production, but that we also protect and enhance the environment.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
There are very many farmers in my constituency who love the Kentish countryside and are proud to be custodians of it for this generation. At the same time, they have to run profitable businesses, producing and selling good, healthy food. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and them that the new scheme has enough strength behind it to enable them to run viable businesses and to continue to protect and, indeed, enhance Kent’s beautiful countryside?
Dr Coffey
I congratulate my right hon. Friend, who is right to stand up for his farmers. Kent is the garden of our country and the producer of many fine foods, fruits and, of course, wines. The same amount of money is being dedicated to supporting our farmers and landowners. I am conscious that we are on this transition journey, and that is why I wanted to offer people opportunities to get Government funding as we reduce the guaranteed BPS. We are in a good place whereby farmers have a genuine menu from which to choose—a lot of this was informed by a practising farmer, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Farming—and, as well as saving the planet, the farmers in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) will have opportunities to have a viable, sustainable and profitable business.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) highlighted, the Office for Environmental Protection put out its report last week. It talked about the need for
“better alignment and co-ordination at all levels of Government, local and national, with actions that extend beyond Defra”.
Two years ago, the Public Accounts Committee published a report, which the Secretary of State’s Department agreed with, in which we described that simply as a lack of clout across Whitehall. Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), how will the Secretary of State ensure that these plans are actually delivered across Whitehall? Does she have the clout and the backing of the Treasury?
Dr Coffey
It is the first time that anyone has ever accused me of not having heft. Since the hon. Lady’s report came out—I am sorry to say that I am not aware of it—we have passed the Environment Act 2021. That included a biodiversity duty, which we have commenced from 1 January. We have set out the environmental principles policy statement. The hon. Lady does make an important point: it has to be done with local government, with individuals and with businesses. That is why I am keen for councils to use the powers that they have asked for in the past yet are still not using. It is for them to decide, with local nature recovery strategies, how they can best make nature improvements. Of course, we want to help them achieve the best outcomes possible.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I welcome this hugely important plan for the potential that it has to protect nature and the environment. Now, we need to see it delivered. With that in mind, I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that we are meeting our manifesto target of 13,000 hectares of tree planting every year. That is a crucial means to meet our target of halting species decline by 2030.
Dr Coffey
As a former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend knows how important our Department is in ensuring not only that we are champions for nature but that we deliver for nature. We are trying to ensure that we increase the opportunities to plant trees. We have had the woodland creation offer already. Some of the changes that we are bringing through, as well as the targets that we have put in law, will help us to accelerate that tree planting.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
These environmental targets will be a complete waste of paper if there are very few farmers left to put them into practice. Farmers have had their basic payment cut by 5% in 2021 and by 20% in 2022, and it will be cut by 35% later in 2023. Farmers are struggling to access schemes to supplement their income, and they are struggling to meet the inflated costs of feed, fuel and fertiliser. When I was walking down a lane in Devon a few weeks ago, a farmer in a 4x4 wound down the window and asked me, “Do you know what DEFRA stands for under this Government? The Department for the Extermination of Farmers.” Can the Secretary of State explain how the Government will support those farmers who are being forced out of business to deliver the environmental improvement plan?
Dr Coffey
I am not surprised by the quality of that question. The hon. Gentleman represents a very rural constituency in Devon. He should see this transition in farming as a positive action about having sustainable production as well as saving the planet. It is absolutely vital that our farmers are supported to do that. That is why we have continued the £2.4 billion of available funding. And yes, there will be a transition as the guaranteed payments start to decrease, but we will be able to target the money and pay the farmers for eco-services. That is critical to making sure not only that they can have a sustainable business, but that they work they do will enhance the nature that we all enjoy and that they need in order to make sure we have future harvests.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I, too, congratulate the DEFRA team, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for bringing forward the environmental improvement plan, which is full of deliverable plans with real action. As she knows, I am a passionate user of the River Medway in my constituency: I sail in it and swim in it. I have the misfortune, however, of living not far from a storm overflow, so it gives me great pleasure that, because of her Department’s actions, 98% of all storm overflows on the River Medway are being monitored and tested regularly. Will she outline how the actions she has taken will further reduce the sewage and dangerous chemicals that are pumped into our river?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is clearly a champion of her special part of Kent. The best way I can put it is that a plan was set out and monitoring is taking place. We are not trying to hide anything—far from it. We have opened up to the problem and have a laser-like focus on tackling sewage. It is imperative that we continue to hold the water companies to account. In that regard, the investment will start flowing. That is all part of the impending price review.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I have had a pretty good read of the plan, and it is disappointing that there is not more about the urban environment and the contribution that it can make, particularly in terms of the nature section. As the parliamentary species champion for the swift, I am keen to see more swift bricks installed in buildings. A lot has been said about trees, hedgerows and so on, but when it comes to reversing the decline in swifts, we need to look at buildings. Is that something that the Secretary of State can go away and look at, and perhaps introduce it, despite the fact that it is not in the plan?
Dr Coffey
I am very aware of swift boxes. There has been successful awareness raising in my constituency. Indeed, I think the guidance from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities talks about what can be done to make safe spaces for nature in our urban environments and in future buildings. That is, of course, important. Our Department is not just for the countryside—far from it. We can touch everybody’s heart when they think about how they can reconnect with nature.
I will continue to try to make sure that prominence is given to urban areas. I grew up in a city, and over 80% of people live in urban settings. That is one of the reasons why the pledge is very clear about people having access to a green or blue space within a 15-minute walk. It is also why we will continue to focus on air quality, which is of course a particularly prevalent issue in urban situations.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement. My right hon. Friend made an important point when she said that the proportion of excellent bathing water quality beaches has increased from about half to nearly three quarters. That is very positive, but 98% of our waters with bathing water status are coastal, and inland waters with that status are mainly lakes. Does she agree that improving river water quality is an important priority, too, and will she back my campaign for the River Nidd to be given accredited bathing water quality status at the lido in Knaresborough?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say how important this issue is. It is not just about the coast. Traditionally, bathing water statistics have focused on coastal areas, because that is where the majority of people go to enjoy that leisure, so that is vital. More broadly, the quality of water matters dramatically. I think of our chalk streams, which are so precious.
Let me tell the House a little anecdote about an occasion when I went to see the River Itchen. The landowner in front of me, having spotted a bottle of dog shampoo, started to cry and said, “This person may not have realised that they have just ruined the chemical status of this river for about the next 25 years.” That will not have been done deliberately, so we need to ensure that everyone is more aware. I understand why my hon. Friend is campaigning for his local river to be brought into the bathing water statistics, and I am sure that his case will be considered very carefully indeed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While I note that the plan applies to England specifically, the protection of 30% of land and sea, including through marine protected areas, must apply equally to the Irish sea. What discussions have taken place with officials from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to ensure that Northern Ireland Water does not drop the ball, and that that protection is fully extended?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point. In preparation for the CBD COP15 in Montreal, we brought back together the four nations of the United Kingdom that we are proud to represent. We have the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which is a body that covers the UK. Last year, wearing a different hat, I visited the Giant’s Causeway, which is, of course, extraordinary.
We want to ensure that there is more access to Northern Ireland in this regard, and I know that that has been an important part of the discussions that have taken place. However, we will also continue to work closely with officials—although we all want the Executive to be re-formed so that we can really make progress in Northern Ireland, which is a fantastic part of the United Kingdom.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The quality of the water off the new city of Southend-on-Sea is fundamental both to our world-famous cockling industry and to our swimming group, the Bluetits Chill Swimmers, who swim all the year round. I welcome the statement, but does my right hon. Friend agree that claims by the Opposition parties that Members have voted for 15 more years of sewage dumping are totally false, and a bit rich coming from Labour, which ignored sewage discharges when it was in power, and from the Liberal Democrats’ Minister for water in the coalition, who did nothing?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend has been in the House for a relatively short time, but she has shown how savvy she is in standing up for her constituents in Southend. Where we identify issues, we put the spotlight on them and try to fix them. We do that because we are Conservatives: we want to conserve, and we want to enhance. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to support her in what she is trying to do for the great people of Southend, and try to ensure that our beaches are as clean as ever.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend and her team on today’s announcement of the plan. Devon’s farmers produce some of the best food and drink in the world; I should know, having sampled a fair bit of it. They are custodians of our countryside and have been for generations, and we owe them a debt of gratitude and certainty. Will my right hon. Friend explain how this plan will help them to go on producing fantastic food throughout the south-west?
Dr Coffey
There is great food in a number of counties, and I do not want to come between Devon and Cornish MPs about who has the right pasty or where cream should go on a scone, but I will say to my hon. Friend that it is very important for us to involve farmers and landowners in improving our natural environment. I think that, by default, most of them are already doing that, but I am very conscious of the challenges they face. The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries has been very active, in a number of ways, in responding to the issues that they have raised. I am convinced that what we are doing, and what we did last week, is opening up many more activities that will allow us to pay farmers to improve, for instance, the quality of soil and integrated pest management. We will help them not only to farm more sustainably, but to enjoy the extra benefit of ensuring that the quality of Devon’s food is the best it can be.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State, and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), for the tremendously hard work they have put into developing this world-leading environmental improvement plan. Local residents in the Kettering constituency are keen to support any measures to protect, preserve or enhance our natural environment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that (a) nature has been neglected for far too long, (b) environmental and agricultural policies were returned to this country as a result of Brexit, and (c) she is drawing on (b) to fix (a) so that we can clean our waters, tackle air pollution and increase biodiversity?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend sums it up perfectly. By leaving the European Union, we have removed ourselves from the constraints—the handcuffs—of the common agricultural policy. We have been able to develop a policy that, certainly in England, will translate into sustainable food production and improving the environment. The Lords are about to pass the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill—another Brexit freedom—which will allow us to develop climate change-resilient wheat. We can use the best of technology and our freedoms to do what is right for the farmers and people of this country, ensure that we have a healthy and wealthy farming community, and continue to enjoy all the fabulous produce for generations to come.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
Going back to the Victorian era when the water companies were putting in their pipes, they did not take action on sewage overflow. Perhaps they should have. In the 13 years that the Labour Government were in office, they took no action on sewage overflow. Perhaps they should have. This Government are taking action on sewage overflow, but doing so will cost tens of billions of pounds of investment. Therefore, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is right to work within the constructs of this environmental plan and other environmental plans to achieve that long-term change?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is spot on. We identified the issue—indeed, it was Lord Benyon who spotted it early on as a DEFRA Minister. He got on with it, and that is what we are dealing with. The monitoring will be in place completely by the end of this year, so we can have that laser-like focus on sorting out the unacceptable sewage problem. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that it will cost tens of billions of pounds. Some of what was proposed before was going to cost hundreds of billions of pounds, which would have added at least £800 to people’s water bills. We need that balance and to focus on where we can make the most impact right now. That is what we will continue to do.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Secretary of State will know that the packaging sector and its customers welcome the measures in the plan to reduce littering and increase recycling rates. Does she agree that they will be at their most effective if they are introduced consistently and at the same time across all countries of the UK?
Dr Coffey
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is trying to make. We have to make progress in this country. We are trying to get consistency in the recycling process alongside the introduction of the EPR, but although there are many things that we and other parts of the UK agree on, we need to ensure that we have a plan that will deliver our recycling targets that we have set in law. We want to make this straightforward for our manufacturers. We need to press on with the important targets that we have passed into law in the past few days.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I was pleased to see that the environmental improvement plan included the Lapwing estate near Bawtry, which is on the border of Rother Valley, as a case study. This 5,000-acre piece of land will abate emissions, store carbon and produce food. It is funded partly by the Government. Can the Secretary of State confirm that she will continue to fund such projects across South Yorkshire and in Rother Valley to store our carbon, secure our food supplies and support our local rural communities?
Dr Coffey
Indeed, there are a number of funding streams, of which our nature for climate fund is a key element. My hon. Friend will be aware that as we make the transition to environmental land management schemes, we will continue to ensure that activities that do good things for the environment will be rewarded. Indeed, we will be going further by giving a premium where there is greater connectivity, so that the opportunity is enhanced. Improving the quality of our land is a symbiotic relationship. That will have results in improving the biodiversity we all enjoy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Apologies to Kelly Tolhurst who I have known for years, but Kellie Hughes, a very popular hairdresser in my constituency of the Ribble Valley, will be delighted with the publicity.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement today and for responding to questions for well over 50 minutes.
Points of Order
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on how my constituent, Mr Walker, can get a response to his pension credit application. He made his application on 13 September last year but has had no response. Despite many follow-up calls and three complaints by his Age Concern caseworker, he has heard nothing from the Department for Work and Pensions. He is 73. The long delay means he is dependent on food bank vouchers and is at imminent risk of homelessness because his housing benefit is contingent on his pension credit.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. Clearly, this is a very urgent matter and it is right that it should be addressed in this way. I hope that the Whip on the Treasury Bench will ensure that the Minister gets to hear of it and that action can be taken as quickly as possible.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise unreservedly for the intemperate language I used during Prime Minister’s questions. I was wrong to use the term “fascist” in relation to the Israeli Government and understand why this was particularly insensitive, given the history of the state of Israel. While there are far-right elements in that Government, I recognise that the use of the term in this context was wrong. I would also like to apologise for the use of the term “apartheid state”. While I was quoting accurately Amnesty’s description, I recognise this is insensitive and withdraw it.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It now stands on the record.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. An essential part of being a Member of this House is to represent and support our constituents when they approach us for assistance. Members on all sides engage, or hope to engage, with UK Visas and Immigration on a regular basis through what is called the MP engagement team. My team and I have been seeking to engage with the MP engagement team since September 2022, without a single response. Given that it is my duty, and that of Members across the House, to support our constituents in their engagement with UKVI, what would you advise me and other Members to do on behalf of our constituents when there is an utter lack of engagement from UKVI’s MP engagement team?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for notice of it. Again, he makes an incredibly important point. We expect, when we contact Government agencies, that they will respond in a very timely manner. That clearly has not happened in this case, and I ask the Whip on the Treasury Bench to ensure that the Department gets to hear of it.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) for making that statement in her point of order, but my understanding is that the use of language such as “apartheid” and “fascist” is not just insensitive but a breach of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism.
Mr Deputy Speaker, what advice will you and the Speaker’s Office be providing to the leaders of all the parties in this House about the language we use here and the importance of tackling deep-rooted antisemitism in our political culture, which at this point in time is so evident on the left of politics? It is less than a week ago that you sat in the Chair when we were here for the annual debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. You ended that debate with very powerful words. It is incumbent upon us to tackle this deep-seated problem, is it not?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point order. Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear on several occasions that temperate language should be used throughout proceedings in this Chamber, and there are very good reasons for that. Thank you once again.
Bill Presented
Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Gillian Keegan, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Steve Barclay, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Michael Gove and Robert Halfon, presented a Bill to make provision about the determination of the fee limit for higher education courses provided by registered English higher education providers subject to a fee limit condition; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 240) with explanatory notes (Bill 240-EN).
Scotland (Self-Determination)
Wednesday 1st February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill 2022-23 View all Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer to the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament; to provide that that power may only be exercised where the Scottish public has demonstrated its support for the holding of such a referendum; to provide that no such referendum may be held sooner than seven years after the previous such referendum; and for connected purposes.
The question of whether the ancient nation of Scotland should be an independent country once more continues to be the subject of much debate, indicating that the matter is far from settled. Of course, it is entirely proper for any country to review such matters. Scotland will only become independent as and when the majority of the people of Scotland choose that path, yet that requires a democratic mechanism that is constitutional and satisfies international legal precedent. The Bill seeks to standardise and codify such a requirement in line with the motion passed by this House that endorsed the principles of the 1989 claim of right, which acknowledged the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.
The Bill is explicit on the necessary conditions to bring that mechanism into play: first, that the power to legislate for a referendum requires a democratic mandate from the Scottish public. Since 2014, that criterion has been met in successive general elections to the Scottish Parliament, most recently in 2021, when a majority of MSPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to deliver an independence referendum. In addition, a majority of the votes cast on the d’Hondt regional list were won by parties that support independence—the SNP, the Scottish Green party and the Alba party. Secondly, the Bill states that no such referendum may be held sooner than seven years after any previous such referendum. In terms of established UK precedent, that would bring Scotland into line with the provisions for a border poll in Northern Ireland regarding the constitutional future of the island of Ireland. As Robert McCorquodale, professor of international law and human rights, sets out, that would be in keeping with the UK’s international legal obligations, applicable to all states, including to peoples within states worldwide, to seek to exercise their right to self-determination.
It is necessary to put the Bill into its political and historical context. In 1707, a majority of Scottish parliamentarians may have been persuaded, but the people were never consulted. The Acts of Union 1707 between England and Scotland created the kingdom of Great Britain, establishing a single political entity yet preserving the territorial, legal and institutional integrity of each partner country. The UK’s constitution is not codified in a single document, so the question of whether the Acts of Union can unilaterally be dissolved by one party is not clear. However, the accepted position hitherto is that the Union is a voluntary association of equal partners and Scotland has an unquestioned right of self-determination. That is a right underpinned by Scots common law which rests not on the Magna Carta, but on the claim of right which continues to assert that it is the people who are sovereign in Scotland.
The Scotland Act of 1998 established the Scottish Parliament, which has the power to legislate on agreed devolved matters within Scotland, while the UK Parliament retains legislative competency on matters reserved to Westminster. It is generally understood that for a country to gain independence a legal process, such as a vote in a referendum, is required. Such a process was established in 2012 through the Edinburgh agreement which was signed by First Minister Alex Salmond and Prime Minister David Cameron. The Edinburgh agreement established a clear process whereby a Scottish general election that returned a Government with a mandate for an independence referendum would enable that Government to petition for authority under section 30 of the Scotland Act to respect the democratic force of that vote in a referendum. While respect for that established process has since been affirmed by the UK Government, in absence of any legal constitutional consensus the matter of Scottish independence has reached a political impasse to the detriment of Scotland’s democratic process.
The Bill seeks to remedy that by setting out the process by which the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland can be respected and enacted. This would preserve their inalienable human rights as a distinct people of the ancient nation of Scotland in accordance with the constitutional tradition of Scotland, the UN charter and extant international law.
Scotland’s distinct constitutional tradition is best expressed by Lord Cooper, in the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate:
“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”
In the pleadings of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) in her prorogation case to the UK Supreme Court, it was noted that the 1707 parliamentary Union between England and Scotland may have created a new state, but it did not create one nation.
The UK Government enthusiastically claim that they seek to preserve democracy the world over, yet they have moved to block Scotland’s consistently expressed democratic aspirations at each and every turn. Surely it is now time to move to eliminate accusations and counter-accusations of brinkmanship and set out a clear pathway consistent with the precedent across these islands where constitutional friction exists.
Can Government Members imagine the circumstances where, having entered the common market and ratified every subsequent treaty leading to the European Union, the EU Parliament moved to block or interfere with their Brexit vote, or set a limit on when and if such a vote should be held? The notion is ludicrous, because democracy is not a single event, but an evolving and continuous process. That is how civilised people behave and how fundamental rights of freedom of thought and expression are peacefully demonstrated.
As a member of the EU, the UK Government possessed and exercised a veto, yet they claimed their sovereignty was impeded by membership. Scotland has no such equivalent mechanism available to our people and remains subject to the wiles of our larger neighbour, as exemplified by Brexit. How does that constitute access to meaningful political process, as claimed in the recent UK Supreme Court judgment?
Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s signing of the 1941 Atlantic charter brought into being the principle of self-determination of peoples, as now enshrined in the United Nations charter. Margaret Thatcher in her memoirs said of Scotland:
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination”.
John Major, when Prime Minister, said of Scotland that
“no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will”.
None of these senior Conservative politicians sought to constrain the democratic right to self-determination.
In the aftermath of the 2014 referendum, the all-party Smith Commission agreement was signed by all of Scotland’s main political parties and it stated:
“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”
The effect of this Bill should be uncontroversial for every Member. It merely establishes in law an equivalent mechanism to the principle, already conceded by the UK Government in relation to a border poll in Northern Ireland, that no such referendum may be held sooner than seven years after any previously mandated referendum.
In 1889 in this place, the equality of UK partner countries was asserted by one William Ewart Gladstone MP, saying
“I am to suppose a case in which Scotland unanimously, or by a clearly preponderating voice, were to make the demand on the United Parliament to be treated, not only on the same principle, but in the same manner as Ireland, I could not deny the title of Scotland to urge such a claim.” —[Official Report, 9 April 1889; Vol. 335, c. 101-102.]
That begs the question: why would the UK Government deny democracy to Scotland but not to Northern Ireland? Could the clue lie in the words of former Prime Minister John Major from 1993’s Downing Street declaration that the UK has
“no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland”?
In the case of Scotland, the opposite is true. With unconstrained access to our vast resources, energy is transmitted south to millions at no cost.
The decision on Scotland’s future ultimately and rightly must rest in the hands of the people of Scotland. In the constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty in our great country, it is the people who remain sovereign. This Bill is neutral in its effect. It favours neither one side nor the other, but seeks to codify the Scottish people’s right to choose their own constitutional future. To return to 1889, Dr Gavin Clark, MP for Caithness, said on the matter:
“Everybody, even old Tories on the other side, must admit that some change is necessary. Then what is the remedy to be?”—[Official Report, 9 April 1889; Vol. 335, c. 71.]
If democracy matters at all, every Member in this House should support the remedy contained in this Bill regardless of their view on Scottish independence. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Neale Hanvey, Kenny MacAskill, Joanna Cherry, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Douglas Chapman and Margaret Ferrier present the Bill.
Neale Hanvey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 241).
UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No.2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 1 November 2022 (UK Infrastructure Bank Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours before the moment of interruption on that day.—(Scott Mann.)
UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 1st February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 View all UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 1 February 2023 - (1 Feb 2023)
15:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 271 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 269 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 41 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Businesses and bodies the Bank invests in—
“(1) The Bank must publish an annual report setting out—
(a) the geographical spread of businesses and bodies it invests in, and
(b) the ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in.
(2) The Bank must prepare and publish a ‘Good Jobs’ plan for all businesses and bodies it invests in, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.”
This new clause would ensure that the Bank considers the location and ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in and only invests in businesses and bodies who create “Good Jobs” plans to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(i) to reduce economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.
(c) to support supply chain resilience and the United Kingdom’s industrial strategy.”
This amendment would ensure that the Bank’s objective to support regional and local economic growth includes reducing economic inequalities within and between regions and improving productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards. It would also create a third objective for the Bank to support supply chain resilience and the UK’s industrial strategy.
Amendment 3, page 1, line 14, at end insert, “, and
(c) to improve water quality in the UK.”
This amendment would add improving water quality in the UK to the Bank’s objectives.
Amendment 4, page 1, line 22, at end insert—
“(4A) The Bank may only provide any of the support listed in subsection (4) to water companies if they have produced a costed, time limited plan demonstrating they are committed to preventing discharge.”
This amendment would require water companies to have a costed, time limited plan, demonstrating they are committed to preventing discharges before they can receive investment from the UKIB.
Amendment 2, page 2, line 9, leave out “consult” and insert—
“gain the express consent of”.
This amendment would require the Treasury to gain the express consent of the appropriate national authority before making provision in regulations under subsection (6).
Government amendment 1.
Richard Foord
I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendments 3 and 4.
I welcome the UK Infrastructure Bank Bill. We previously had a Green Investment Bank, founded by the Liberal Democrats in government. It was short-sighted for the Government to sell it off, especially as it made £144 million in profit for its Australian owners last year. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats are glad to see steps finally being taken to put the replacement UK Infrastructure Bank on a statutory footing.
Liberal Democrat new clause 1, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), seeks to ensure that this new UK Infrastructure Bank will remain in operation until the Government’s net zero and environmental commitments have been met.
I hope to see this new bank change investment in green infrastructure for the better, and this brings me to the two amendments—amendments 3 and 4—tabled in my name and those of Liberal Democrat colleagues. They seek to ensure that water companies set out costed, time-limited plans to deal with discharges before they can get funding through the bank. This is important because communities across the UK are currently being impacted by the actions of some negligent and wayward water companies. For years, we have seen these firms failing to invest in our vital infrastructure, but instead prioritising shareholder payouts and bumper bonuses for chief executive officers. It is shocking that this practice has been allowed to continue, and that the Government have resisted several attempts by the Liberal Democrats to clamp down on these sewage spills.
South West Water, which covers my patch in Devon, was awarded a one-star rating by the Environment Agency after having been found to have discharged sewage into rivers and lakes and on to our beaches over 42,000 times. This represents more than 350,000 hours of dumping, including at our prestigious blue flag beaches. Three of the 10 most affected beaches are in Devon. And what was the reaction at South West Water? It gave the chief executive a bonus of more than £1 million.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
We on the Government Benches are aware of some of the comments—if I may say so, the somewhat misleading comments—in Liberal Democrat propaganda about this issue. The hon. Gentleman is obviously familiar with the situation at South West Water. Could he tell me what the cost is to South West Water of eliminating sewage overflow, and what are the implications for water bills for residents in the south-west, because that is what the literature from his party has been saying needs to be done?
Richard Foord
The amendment that we are considering is about loans from the UK Infrastructure Bank. Whatever figure is required, the bank should not be permitted to release funds for the purpose of improving our sewerage system until there are plans by water companies for the system’s complete restoration.
Richard Fuller
I shall go through the amendments thoroughly and therefore I shall not detain the House long.
New clause 1 on the future of the UK Infrastructure Bank would have the effect of not permitting a sale of the bank until the duty set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the targets of the net zero commitment by 2050 had been met. That puts significant strictures on the maintenance of one bank and its objectives. I think the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) probably acknowledges that. He wants us to reflect on the sale of the green bank that was set up under the coalition Government. He talked about the profits that it made last year—about £180 million, perhaps a little less. However, I hope that he recognises a couple of things.
First, when the sale was made, the taxpayer benefited to the tune of £2.3 billion. That included a surplus of £186 million on taxpayer-invested funds and a commitment from the successful acquirer, Macquarie bank, to invest a further £3 billion. In the round, I do not think that was a bad transaction to make, because it enabled the attraction of more third-party capital—private capital—to try to achieve some of the objectives of that green bank under its new owners, and indeed that has taken place. Part of the balance with this Infrastructure Bank is: how are we going to evaluate its abilities and success in attracting third-party capital? If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton reflects, he will see that his broad point in new clause 1 is a fair one, but I hope that he will not press it to a vote, because there are strong arguments on the other side and I would not support the points that he would be trying to make.
Again, I can understand some of the import of Labour’s new clause 2 and amendment 5. Labour is saying, “Here is an opportunity, with a major institution, with which we are going to look at and try to expand the infrastructure of the country, to make sure it has a full focus on the round of public interest in the things it is doing in our name.” That is a good intention but, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) knows—we have talked about this in Committee—there are trade-offs to be made within those sets of objectives. As we add objectives to our institutions, those trade-offs make it more obscure to parliamentarians and to the public what the intention of the bank will be.
The objectives that the Government have set out in the Bill are already clear. They have the benefit of clarity, as we know what they are. They also cover a wide range of sectors and intentions, but with the underlying core objective of helping us to meet our green net zero and climate change objectives.
So if the Opposition wish us to support their amendments, where do they see the trade-offs being made between achieving those objectives and having the duties to reduce economic inequalities between regions, to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards, and to support supply chain resilience? Very few of us would disagree with some of those objectives—indeed, the Government are making great strides on some of them with their levelling-up initiatives—but we have to accept that as we give directions to some of these institutions with a broad range of objectives, we are, as democrats, losing some control over how public money can be directed; we are giving more discretion to the chief executives of those organisations to do as they see fit and not perhaps to do as we were laying down in statute. I encourage the Opposition to think again, and to consider that perhaps having the clarity and precision of objectives set out in the Bill is precisely what will enable this and future Parliaments to exercise control over the Infrastructure Bank.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who is speaking for all the Liberal Democrats today, as he has graced us with his presence in a number of the debates, talked a little about the water companies again. I hope that he will have been listening today and will be reflecting back to his party’s leadership that some of the publicity the Liberal Democrats have put out has been substantially misleading about the intentions and actions of this Government. Obviously, parties make political statements all the time, this way and that. However, particularly as he has now followed up with his proposal for how water company discharge can be managed, I hope he will see that it is a serious issue and therefore we should treat it seriously.
Amendment 4 seeks to provide that the support the bank can give can happen only after the water companies have produced a “costed, time limited plan”. I think the water companies would say, “We have already done that.” They have a plan, but not one that can be implemented just like that, in the flash of an eye—I mix my metaphors there. I am not sure that the amendment will have the intention that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton wishes it to have, given what the water companies are already doing and what the Government are already doing with the monitoring and the objectives being set to reduce sewage discharge.
I will step over what the SNP spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), put forward, because I am sure he will be able to elucidate that point clearly—I believe we have heard it here a number of times, although we are never bored by the repetition. Finally, I thank the Minister for listening to the points that were made in Committee and coming forward with the Government’s amendment.
Finally, I thank the Minister for listening to the points that were made in Committee and coming forward with the Government’s amendment. I can see that the Opposition have not put down a further amendment on that matter, which is a sign that he has got that judgment call right.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I will speak to amendment 2 in my name, but before I address that fully, I will say a little about the other Opposition amendments and new clauses.
New clause 1 seeks to stop the bank being sold prior to net zero targets being met, which is sensible in principle, given the fate of the old green investment bank, as I described on Second Reading. New clause 2 seeks a report on the geographical spread of investments, which, again, is sensible given the Government’s recent track record on allocating money from the levelling-up fund. It still strikes me as rather absurd that the Prime Minister’s wealthy Richmond constituency should have been allocated £90 million, while the entire city of Glasgow received nothing in the second round of funding. I think we would all want to ensure that the UK Infrastructure Bank was far more equitable in its disbursements.
Amendment 5 seeks to reduce inequality and improve productivity. Amendments 3 and 4 seek to ensure that investment in water supply quality is permitted, but with conditions on the private companies receiving it. Each of these amendments and new clauses have merit, and we will be happy to support any if they are pressed to a Division.
Government amendment 1 seeks to reduce the gap between reporting from a maximum of seven to a maximum of five years. That is progress of a sort, but five years is still too long. I would be looking for a commitment from the Dispatch Box that the Government anticipate the review and reporting frequency to be within the proposed five-year maximum.
Let me briefly reprise what I said about my own amendment on Second Reading, when I gave the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Bill a broad welcome. Taking it at face value, there was nothing to criticise in its objectives of helping to tackle climate change and supporting the efforts to meet the UK Government’s 2050 target. Nor was there anything to criticise in the objective to support regional or local economic growth.
What I pointed out, though, is that—the Minister on Second Reading alluded to this in his speech—the delivery of support to facilitate local and regional growth in Scotland is provided by the Scottish Government, local government and other agencies, and that the green targets in Scotland, such as the earlier net zero target, are also set independently. It is therefore important that the UK Infrastructure Bank actually supports the devolved Governments’ objectives and does not, even inadvertently, end up working against them. That remains important because we have our own infrastructure investment plan, our own global capital investment plan and our own national strategy for economic transformation that provides the framework for the Scottish Government’s policy priorities.
In giving the Bill a broad welcome, I also made the point that while there is clearly an overlap between the strategic objectives of the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank—the wording of the aims of both the UKIB and the Scottish National Investment Bank are broadly similar—it is vital to ensure that both banks meet their goals and deliver the maximum impact for the people of Scotland. In line with the objectives set in the Bill, it is essential that the two banks are able to work together to identify and support appropriate infrastructure projects in Scotland. It is also vital that Scottish interests are appropriately represented and that there is an awareness of the Scottish economic context and the Scottish Government’s policy goals.
To ensure that there is alignment between both banks’ aims, I have argued that there should be an administrative mechanism, such as a memorandum of understanding, between the UKIB and the Scottish National Investment Bank to ensure that policy alignment is maintained. I fear that unless we have a firm mechanism, the UKIB’s aims might also be undermined, and there will ultimately be a risk that it will not deliver fully on its objectives. However, the Bill merely suggests in line 9 of clause 2(7) that the Treasury must only
“consult the appropriate national authority before making provision in regulations…that would be within the legislative competence of”
one of the devolved Administrations.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I was going to make my points through interventions, but as so few Members want to speak, I thought I would take the opportunity to make a speech. I will speak very briefly to new clause 2 and amendment 5—which stand in the name of the official Opposition, and deal with the need to ensure that the geographical investment is spread across the UK, which is of course is something we all support—and amendment 2, tabled by the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), which deals with the constitutional challenges created by these post-Brexit agencies and frameworks. The right hon. Gentleman made his points very eloquently, and I fully support what he said.
In my speech on Second Reading, I highlighted how I thought some of the challenges outlined in these amendments could be dealt with. In my view, that is primarily by ensuring that post-Brexit frameworks and agencies such as the UK Infrastructure Bank have a formal role for the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments within their constitutions and their administration. When I made that speech on Second Reading, the Welsh Government were withholding consent; they have now decided to offer consent because the UK Government have given an element of a concession by outlining that a director of the UK Infrastructure Bank will be responsible for liaising with the Welsh Government—I suppose the same will be true for the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments. That does not go quite as far as I was calling for on Second Reading, when I made the case for the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Governments to be able to appoint their own individual directors.
That concession is a step forward, which I of course welcome. However, the Minister might be aware that the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee in the Senedd, which was responsible for scrutinising the legislative consent mechanism, advised the Welsh Government against awarding legislative consent because of that lack of a formal role—indeed, there was no role whatsoever for the Senedd. I would be grateful if the Minister reflected on my Second Reading speech, where I made the case that it would be very helpful if the UK Infrastructure Bank had to be scrutinised by the relevant Senedd committee, as well as by the Welsh Government.
In conclusion, this really comes down to the Labour party. We expect that it will form the next UK Government; how is it going to Brexit retrofit the UK constitution in light of all these frameworks and agencies that have had to be created since the Brexit referendum, and since we left the European Union and the single market in particular? In Labour’s response to this debate, I very much hope to hear that it is looking at a radical realignment of the British state when it forms the next UK Government, giving the Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, where appropriate, a formal role in these post-Brexit agencies and frameworks.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
A lost decade of broken Tory promises has left much of the UK with second-rate infrastructure, which is why we support the establishment and the strengthening of the UK Infrastructure Bank and will not be opposing the Bill. The bank is much needed. It will invest in projects that support our net zero targets and contribute to local and regional economic growth. However, we will go further than the Government and harness the full potential of the bank to provide good jobs and opportunities across the country. I will speak to our amendments a little later.
I wish to start by saying how much I welcome the Government’s U-turn in relation to their amendment 1. I see Ministers on the Front Bench who were with us when the Bill was debated in Committee. I am sure that they notice how similar their amendment is to the one that Labour tabled at that stage. Indeed, it is identical to our amendment—an amendment that they voted against. As Labour has repeatedly emphasised, reviews of the bank’s performance will be essential to ensuring that it meets its objectives to invest in the industries of the future. It was shocking that the Government wanted an initial review in 10 years with subsequent reviews every five years. The bank needs momentum and drive behind it, and I am glad to see that the Government have now realised the error of their thinking and committed to reviews of the bank every five years.
Richard Fuller
I commend the hon. Lady for holding the Government to account on this particular issue of the review period. This is where we are setting the bank free to go on its mission. As she and I agree—I think we agree—the initial few years are really very important. I notice that the Minister has restricted to five years subsequent assessments, as both the hon. Lady and I thought would be wise, but there is still that initial seven years. She did not table an amendment on that, so I wondered what the Opposition’s thinking was on that initial period?
Abena Oppong-Asare
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He might remember that we tabled amendments in Committee and again on Report on that issue, but because the Government announced a U-turn, we decided to withdraw our amendment.
Yesterday’s dreadful IMF forecast makes it very clear that Britain has so much potential but that the Conservative Government are holding us back. The UK is the only G7 country forecast to see negative economic growth. Let us look at the Government’s record on infrastructure: a green homes scheme closed just six months after its introduction, with a £1 billion cut from its budget; an energy system that sees fossil fuel companies making record profits while hard-working people’s bills soar; and just a fortnight ago, a crucial gigafactory, Britishvolt, went into administration, leaving the future of the British electric vehicle market in jeopardy. According to the Government, the purpose of the UK Infrastructure Bank is to provide access to money, particularly where there is an undersupply of private financing. Britishvolt, a UK battery start-up, was expected to support new jobs and green technology with a factory in Blyth. Now it is being sold by administrators, with the Government seemingly abandoning their promises of levelling up and supporting a green economy.
Just this week, the British electric van start-up “Arrival” announced that it is cutting 800 jobs, as it moves for extra funding and green subsidies in the US. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that Labour has no faith in the Government harnessing the potential of the UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in the high-skilled jobs of the future. A Labour Government will use our green prosperity fund to invest in wind, solar and nuclear energy; insulate 19 million homes; grow our economy; and get Britain winning the race to net zero. We have tabled new clause 2 and amendment 5 to ensure that the UK Infrastructure Bank can play its role in this mission. New clause 2 would require the bank to publish an annual report setting out the geographical spread and the ownership of businesses and bodies that it invests in. It would also require the bank to publish a good jobs plan for every project it invests in, to ensure that the project will improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that by failing to commit to Northern Powerhouse Rail, the Government have failed on their levelling-up promises to the north? Would she, along with me and other Members who have expressed opinions earlier in the debate, suggest that the Minister needs to offer the House some assurances that the UK Infrastructure Bank will distribute its benefit to every part of the country, with the geographical spread she just mentioned?
Abena Oppong-Asare
My hon. Friend makes strong points about what the Government should be doing, and I hope the Minister takes them on board. We have all seen the allegations of favouritism that have beset the Government’s levelling-up funding, with nothing in the Bill to guarantee that the bank will distribute its funds to the areas that need them the most. Our new clause would ensure scrutiny and transparency over bank investments. Given the Prime Minister’s now famous boast—I quote it in case Members have forgotten—about reversing Treasury formulas that
“shoved all the funding into deprived…areas”,
I hope the Minister can see why we think transparency is necessary. His party, after all, is the party responsible for the loss of £6.7 billion to fraud and mismanagement.
I hope, too, that the Minister is paying attention right now and agrees that we want the UK Infrastructure Bank to create high-skilled, well-paid jobs. With a good jobs plan for every project that it invests in, we can ensure value for taxpayers’ money. That approach has been taken with previous significant infrastructure projects in the UK. For example, the Olympic Delivery Authority worked with trade unions and others to ensure that the project delivered good quality local jobs, and a similar approach was taken with High Speed 2. If the Government are as committed to their levelling-up agenda as they claim to be, I am sure that they will vote for our new clause today.
Amendment 5 would strengthen the bank’s objectives. It would make it clear that the bank’s target of boosting regional and local economic growth includes reducing economic inequalities within and between regions in the UK. Despite the Government’s assurances to the contrary, the Bill contains only a watered-down commitment that could result in the bank’s resources being poorly targeted and ineffective.
We want a further objective for the bank to contribute to the UK’s supply chain resilience and industrial strategy. I have mentioned the collapse of Britishvolt and the warnings of green investment moving abroad. Those are serious concerns. The importance of supply chain resilience has become particularly clear in the wake of the pandemic and as concerns over energy security have come to the fore with the war in Ukraine. We want the benefits of the UK Infrastructure Bank to be seen here in the UK, with home-grown renewables such as offshore wind, solar, nuclear, hydrogen and tidal power.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way, and I am grateful to her. I want to probe her thoughts a little further on amendment 5. The Bill, as I have said, has the benefit of being quite precise in its current objectives. As parliamentarians, we know that when we take something from statute and leave it to regulators, the House’s ability to hold them to account in the public interest is somewhat weakened. Does she accept that additional objectives would give an Executive a lot more discretion to say, “I didn’t achieve that because I was focusing on this objective”? We have created some primary objectives about climate change and so on. Adding others would leave us somehow disempowered, because those Executives could move and shake around where they said their priorities were. As I said earlier, I am concerned about the balance between laudable objectives and ensuring that, when we have put the Bill into statute, we parliamentarians retain the ability to control what is actually happening on the ground in one, two, three, four and five years from now.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—as I say, I always like to take them on board—but I fundamentally disagree with him, because our amendment would ensure that we take the Bill further. As he once said, the best way to promote UK manufacturing jobs and production is to
“shape regulation to support enterprise.”—[Official Report, 16 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 438.]
That is exactly what Labour seeks to do with our amendments, so I really hope he will support them. I understand where he is coming from, but our amendments would make sure that we deliver the projects that we need in the UK.
We know that the UK Infrastructure Bank could be a national enterprise. We have a world-leading offshore wind industry in Scotland and on the east coast, hydrogen in the north-west and on Teesside, nuclear power in the south-east, and solar power in the south and the midlands, but the potential of these industries can be realised only if investment stays in the UK. The amendments we have tabled would allow that to happen. The lack of domestic champions has compromised our security and stalled progress, and our amendments would enable the UK Infrastructure Bank to help reverse the trend.
I will speak briefly to the other amendments we are considering today. Labour strongly supported the circular economy and nature-based solutions being on the face of the Bill, and we were disappointed to see the Government remove them, but we are clear that amendment 4 has not been properly thought through. Nothing in it would do anything to improve water company performance or reduce sewage dumping; on the contrary, it would give water companies an excuse to not undertake the necessary improvement works. We will therefore not support it. Labour has set out a clear plan to end the Tory sewage scandal by introducing mandatory monitoring with automatic fines, ensuring that regulators properly enforce the rules, and holding water bosses personally accountable for sewage pollution.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not agree, having been in the Chamber earlier today, that the Government are already monitoring storm overflows across the country? One of the reasons why we are aware of the size of the problem that we are trying to tackle is because we have increased the monitoring from only 6% a few years ago to nearly 100% now.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I am not going to take any advice from the Government. They have been in government for 13 years, and what have they delivered so far? I suggest that the hon. Lady support our amendment, which would ensure that things go through properly.
The devolved Administrations must be included in the development of the UK Infrastructure Bank. I have already mentioned the fantastic wind energy sector that we have in Scotland, and I was excited to read about the opportunities that the bank has identified in Northern Ireland. We do not believe that amendment 2 is necessary to ensure that all regions and nations of the UK benefit from the Bill, so we will not support it.
As we enter another year of low growth and failed Conservative government, we know there is a vital need to invest in the infrastructure of the future. We support the establishment of the UK Infrastructure Bank and have sought to improve the Bill throughout. We want to see stronger objectives and reporting for the bank, so that it can play a role in meeting our net zero targets while creating good jobs across the country and supporting the UK supply chain’s resilience, but what the bank needs most of all from the Government is an ambitious plan. Once again, the Government are on the back foot and U-turning at the last minute with amendment 1, on the bank’s reviews. It is yet another sign that Labour is the party with a plan for government—a party that will grow the economy and create jobs for the future.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare). I thank all hon. Members who have tabled amendments and contributed to today’s debate, as well as those who made valued contributions in Committee. Notwithstanding a certain number of amendments, I feel that generally there is good consensus across the House about the core purpose and objective of an important institution.
If we are fully to meet our responsibilities to spread opportunity to all parts of the United Kingdom and support the all-important transition to the clean energy economy, it is right that we take bold action now with institutions such as the UK Infrastructure Bank. We have therefore introduced the Bill to make explicit—with a legislative lock, if you like—the scope of the bank’s objectives
“to support regional and local economic growth”
and
“to help tackle climate change”.
Enshrining the bank in legislation will help to establish it as a long-lasting institution. That is important to colleagues across the House, as we have heard, who agree that it is a welcome initiative. I am glad that there has been general consensus today about the importance of the Bill.
I turn to Government amendment 1, which stands in my name. In Committee, I committed to looking again at the frequency of statutory reviews into the UK Infrastructure Bank and undertook potentially to propose a different frequency at a later stage of the Bill’s passage. It would be a gross mischaracterisation to call the amendment a U-turn; it is simply an example of a listening Minister in a listening Government trying to do what is best to get the institution on the right footing. I thank hon. Members who brought the matter to my attention and shared their views, particularly my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who raised the point in Committee.
It is, I hope, a sign of strength that I considered afresh what was appropriate for the first review period. However, given the pre-existing reviews to which the Cabinet Office and HM Treasury have already committed, and the need to allow a nascent institution time to embed itself, I remain of the view—having taken the question away and looked at it again—that it is right for the first review period to be seven years. However, I recognise the strength of the arguments for, the appropriateness of and the desire for a shorter period between every subsequent review to ensure that this House applies the necessary accountability. My amendment 1 would therefore reduce the interval between each regular review after the first.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Does the Minister remember rejecting our amendment about the reviews? He is saying that this is not a U-turn, so I just want to hear from him about that aspect.
Andrew Griffith
I hope the hon. Lady would never dream of trying to score cheap political points, as distinct from our good-natured and collaborative discussions in Committee. Rather than setting a new timeframe there and then, we looked at precedent in a quest for the optimal timeframe. I undertook to come back on Report and share a proposal with the House, precisely as I am doing today. Having listened and having made that determination, I can feel the warm radiation of support from the Opposition. I hope to see that good will extending to supporting the rest of the Bill without further amendment.
Richard Fuller
As it gets warm and huggy between the two Front Benchers, I would like to remind the Minister that I also tabled an amendment in Committee. I hope that he is feeling warm and huggy towards Government Back Benchers as well. He seems huggy, though I am not sure it is politically correct to say that any more. I want to emphasise that the Minister has been listening, which is why he has come back with the amendment. That is the right thing for him to do.
The serious part of my point is how the institutional culture of the bank is set. The Minister will know from his own experience that the first few years are very important. He says that the first review period will be seven years, and I understand that, but can he share with the House some of his thinking about how that responsibility will be balanced? I think Members on both sides of the House are concerned that we set the institutions and regulators out there a task, but then we do not have the time, the information or the control to hold them to the original principles that we have set. Does the Minister broadly agree with that? Is he comfortable with the way the legislation will now be framed?
Andrew Griffith
Let me assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that this institution will not lack the proper scrutiny. In that initial set-up period it will be reviewed by both the Cabinet Office and His Majesty’s Treasury. It will not lack scrutiny. It has an obligation to report annually. On some of the amendments we have discussed today, I have already procured a commitment from the bank to put more information into the public domain about its investments and their location, which Opposition Members have rightly pressed us for.
Although the bank is yet to reach its full complement of staffing and run rate of operations, it has already benefited from a serious review by the Public Accounts Committee of this House. I think it would be worth trying to correct some misapprehensions, but I do not for one moment take away the importance of regular scrutiny. We are talking about public money, and it is of the utmost importance that we engender trust as well as good value for public money.
That Public Accounts Committee report is a good and important piece of work. I absolutely commend the work of the Committee, which does a sterling job to protect the interests of taxpayers. We should always remember our duty of care when we are spending other people’s money. It is a good piece of work, and I am grateful for it. We will respond to it in the usual way through the Treasury minute process to get that on the record.
However, I want to address one or two of the points raised. The report raised concerns about governance, but this is an institution that has benefited from strong financial governance from the get-go. All deals done to date have been reviewed by the full UK Infrastructure Bank board before being approved. Because of that, early deals were also approved by HM Treasury Ministers to ensure that we protected taxpayers’ money.
I am proud, as we all should be, of the bank’s work as it continues to engage with the market and across Government, building on its first 18 months in which it has done 10 deals worth more than £1 billion of additive, incremental investment across all parts of the United Kingdom.
Richard Fuller
My hon. Friend has just used the magic word “additive”. Would he care to explain further, in the context of these new clauses and amendments, that the issue of additive capital is a crucial part of the bank’s responsibility? This is not just about protecting taxpayers’ money, but about attracting third-party private capital. One of the points about the proposal to spread the objectives is that it becomes harder to attract that capital when the mission of the institution is more diffuse. The more focus it has, and the more focus my hon. Friend has, the more likely we are to achieve the objective of additive capital that he has outlined so clearly.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is, once again, absolutely right. The principle of being additive is baked into the core charters and constitutions, as well as the steer that my colleagues and I will give.
New clause 1 would insert a provision to prevent the sale of the bank. I understand the concern that has been expressed by Members in the past, but I can reassure them that the bank is intended to be a long-lasting institution. I have detected a strong degree of consensus about the importance of this, both in Committee and here in the Chamber, just as our commitment to net zero is long-lasting and a subject of consensus. We intend the bank to be permanent; it is an essential part of the Government’s infrastructure strategy. Moreover, the new clause is simply not necessary. In the event that any future Government considered a sale of the bank—and that is not my expectation—it would require primary legislation at the time. The new clause cannot bind the House on a future occasion, and in any event it is not necessary, so I ask for it not to be pressed to a vote.
The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead has tabled a new clause and an amendment. New clause 2 would require the bank to publish an annual report addressing the geographical spread and ownership of bodies in which the bank invests. That is, of course, its core purpose, and I therefore do not think we need the new clause. We debated this proposal in Committee and, for the reasons that we set out then, we do not propose to accept it now.
The new clause is simply unnecessary, because the bank will already be reporting on its investments: it will publish a summary of them in its annual report and accounts. It captures data in all its deal assessments, and will be happy to make them publicly available. I have received a letter from the bank confirming that it will make publicly available the names of developers and/or sponsors of the projects it supports. It will also provide the geographical location of these projects. I feel pressed by colleagues on this matter. I have procured more information, as the hon. Lady has requested and, again, I ask for this new clause not to be pressed to a vote.
As for jobs, it is actions, not lines of statute, that count. We do not need to deliver an amendment to deliver good jobs; just ask the employees involved in the NextEnergy, Gigaclear and Fibrus investments which the bank has already supported. Every job is a good job. The bank is committed to pursuing the highest environmental, social, resilience and governance policy standards, and we do not feel that there is any added value in simply adding extra lines of statute or red tape for the sake of it, as the hon. Lady proposes. It is actions, not words, on which we are focused.
Amendment 5 asks for the bank’s objective to include reducing regional inequality and improving pay, productivity and living standards, as well as supporting supply chain resilience. However, those are already implicit in the bank’s current objective. That is the very purpose of setting up a UK infrastructure bank—the clue is in the name—and we now have a track record to show what the bank is doing to support regional and local growth.
Andrew Griffith
I will give way one final time, but my hon. Friend will have to make it count.
Richard Fuller
I am not so sure about that, but I know that my hon. Friend has a lot of reading to get through. As he obviously knows, part of what is inherent in the net zero objectives is the fact that there will be an increase in supply chain resilience.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend did indeed make his intervention count, because that is a very pertinent point. Of course, the whole purpose of the bank is infrastructure and capability building, and the commitment to regions is at its heart. Regional and local growth are among its core objectives. The more diverse infrastructure we have in all parts of this great United Kingdom, the more we are naturally adding resilience and achieving our objective. Indeed, the strategic steer set by the then Chancellor in March last year makes it clear that the bank must focus on geographic inequalities by reference to the levelling-up White Paper, which includes a comprehensive set of levelling-up objectives and measures and supports the Government’s strategic approach to levelling up. We would rather do that on a portfolio basis than investment by investment, as proposed by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead.
Amendments 3 and 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), focus on the important issue of water quality. This is an area where the Government do not need any lessons. We are taking the lead in this matter, and are taking the action that the hon. Gentleman’s party and its leader failed to take in coalition. Sometimes one detects the fervour of a convert, or even the working-out of some past guilt about their failure to take action on water.
Selaine Saxby
It is obviously delightful to have another Devon MP who cares passionately about the environment, as did his predecessor. I cannot help but wonder whether, if the Liberal Democrats were serious about this, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change from 2012 to 2015 might have implemented some of these things. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that there seems to be a trend of creating opportunities for dodgy graphics and social media content, rather than making serious changes to legislation?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It ill behoves a party that aspires to be taken seriously as a force in British politics to be all about clickbait, misleading graphics and half-truths, rather than about, for example, the data, which show that monitoring has increased from just 5% in 2016—a level at which it would be wrong for anyone to characterise themselves as having their arms around this long-standing issue—to more than 90% today. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that it will be 100% by the end of this year. We are the party that is taking action. We are the party that is finding the data, exposing the conduct of the water companies and putting record investment into the sector to solve this long-standing problem. We are the party that provides the solution.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton needs to consider whether he wants to be part of the problem or, as we all are, part of the solution. One of his amendments is entirely superfluous, as such a measure is already underwritten by the objectives in the world-leading Environment Act 2021. Only yesterday, we announced ambitious interim targets to deliver those objectives in our environmental improvement plan. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for the statement that preceded this debate. For that reason, we will accept his amendment, because it sits within the actions that we are taking and the commitments that we have made.
Finally, the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) would require explicit consent from the devolved Administration before using powers under clause 2(6) that touch on devolved competence. However, I was pleased when his colleague, John Swinney, the acting Finance Secretary, wrote to me indicating that he was happy with the content of the Bill, and would recommend that the Bill receive a legislative consent motion. Last week, I was even more pleased—imagine my delight—when the Scottish Parliament gave the Bill an LCM. The right hon. Member for Dundee East will see that not just the Government but his colleagues suggest that his amendment is not required by the Government in Holyrood. As a result, I very much hope that he will not seek to push it to a vote.
This is an incredibly important milestone and moment in establishing a new national institution that will deliver real social purpose and make an enormous difference to the lives of our fellow citizens across the United Kingdom. Establishing it today in statute will give the market greater certainty and confidence, and encourage significant private sector investment in all of the bank’s priority sectors. By partnering with the private sector—by mobilising the life force of private capital, the ferocious, problem-solving power of business—in areas that might otherwise struggle to get the investment they require, we will help speed up the transition to net zero and level up the UK. With the exception of amendment 4, which I have indicated the Government will not oppose, I hope Members understand the reasoning—even if they do not agree—that I have set out as to why we cannot accept the amendments and new clauses and that they respect the time of the House and agree not to press them to a vote.
Richard Foord
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Businesses and bodies the Bank invests in
“(1) The Bank must publish an annual report setting out—
(a) the geographical spread of businesses and bodies it invests in, and
(b) the ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in.
(2) The Bank must prepare and publish a ‘Good Jobs’ plan for all businesses and bodies it invests in, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.” .—(Abena Oppong-Asare.)
This new clause would ensure that the Bank considers the location and ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in and only invests in businesses and bodies who create “Good Jobs” plans to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
Andrew Griffith
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
The Bill will place the UK Infrastructure Bank on a statutory footing and enshrine key aspects of it in legislation, ensuring that the bank’s purpose is clear and enduring. It will enable the bank to lend directly to local authorities and the Northern Ireland Executive, and His Majesty’s Treasury will be able to put the bank into funds. The Bill also guarantees a high standard of transparency and accountability to this House.
The Bill will now enable the bank to be fully operational, ensuring that its two strategic objectives are put into statute. It marks the next chapter for the UK Infrastructure Bank as it continues to develop operationally. Since the summer of 2021, when the UKIB became operational, 10 deals worth close to £1.1 billion have been completed, including providing financing for a new £500 million fund that could double the amount of subsidy-free solar power in the UK.
The UKIB has a transformative potential that I know is recognised and supported on both sides of the House. I would like to thank my immediate predecessors, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I also thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) and her colleague the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for their appropriate challenge, but also for the support they have given the Bill.
I would also like to put on record my sincere thanks and the best wishes of this House to the UKIB, including its chair, Chris Grigg, and its chief executive, John Flint, who have both done such great work in establishing the UKIB to date. Finally, as is customary, I would like thank my Bill team—Alex McBeath, Milly Rainford and Lorna Cosgrave—along with those in my private office at the Treasury, who have supported me ably throughout this process.
I am honoured to have played a part in taking this Bill—one that will deliver meaningful, material benefits for our country and our constituents—through the House of Commons, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Backbench Business
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Raising the State Pension Age to 68
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of raising the State Pension age to 68.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for providing the time for this debate, and Members for staying here on what I know is a tricky day for travelling. Some people may have somewhere more exciting to get to later in the evening, and I suspect we will not be able to drag this out until 7 o’clock, but you never know. There is plenty to talk about on pensions, and we can but try.
I wanted to hold this debate because the Government have recently received the periodic review of the state pension age from Baroness Neville-Rolfe. They have not yet published that review, but we have been seeing stories in the media suggesting that there may be an announcement in the Budget of a change in date for the increase in the state pension age to 68 from 2044 to sometime in the 2030s. I should probably declare an interest in that, depending exactly when that choice is made, it may change my own state pension date. That is on the record, but I have no idea what year the Government are thinking about.
I hesitate to say it, but this is actually a really important decision that will have a very significant impact on a lot of people. It needs to be made very carefully, and with very careful consideration of the impacts on people of different genders, backgrounds and occupations and on those in different parts of the country. Its impact for a manual worker will be very different from that for a professional, or someone living in an area with much lower life expectancy than, say, in the south-east of this country, and it is the same for those who have had a high-earning career rather than a lower-earning one. So it is quite a hard thing to get right, as various studies have shown. The other reason to be very careful is that the whole success of the pension regime depends on certainty and predictability, and if people start to think that nothing is certain or predictable, then they cannot have confidence, the whole basis on which we save for our retirement starts to become unclear and people start showing behaviours that we would much rather they did not show.
I actually support—I did support and I still support—the position the coalition Government got to in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, in which we raised the state pension age to 66 in 2011 and brought forward the increase to 67 really quite considerably. That was based on the principle that we should get roughly a third of our adult life in retirement, and I think we should be very clear about sticking to that principle. However, it is right that, if life expectancy increases, that has to be paid for. If we are going to get longer in retirement, we have to find a way of paying for that. The inevitable impact is that we have to work a bit longer to pay for that. If there is a clear principle that we will spend about a third of our adult life in retirement, people can at least understand what the situation is and what may be coming down the line. I urge the Minister to not move away from that principle, to at least give people that understanding.
I fully support all the other pension reforms introduced by the coalition Government, including the successful roll-out of auto-enrolment and the introduction of the single-tier state pension, which was designed to say to people, “You will get a state pension and it will be above the poverty threshold, so there will not be any means test. If you save more and have your own private pension, you won’t be losing benefits.” It is therefore absolutely worth saving for that pension. The success of auto-enrolment ties directly into that. Everybody is clear that it is well worth their doing that.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
May I take the hon. Gentleman back to a point that he made a moment ago about raising the pension age because of increasing life expectancy? That has always been the justification that has been given. However, at best, life expectancy is now stalling, and in Scotland it has been falling for the past two years. Does he agree that, in that context, it seems bizarre to use that information to raise the age further and faster?
Nigel Mills
I will come to that point in my argument. If we accept that we should stick to the principle that we get roughly a third of our adult life in retirement, the reason why we would increase the state pension age is that we have seen a three-year increase in life expectancy, and that should give us two more years on the state pension age. So for every 12 months life expectancy goes up, people should effectively get four months of that in retirement and expect to work for eight months of it. The hon. Lady is right: the data does not now show, sadly, life expectancy increasing, certainly not at the rate that was forecast by all the actuarial calculations at the time of previous reviews. The data for the 2018 to 2020 reference period showed that male life expectancy had fallen by seven weeks compared with the 2015 to 2017 reference period, and female life expectancy had gone up by half a week, or something really quite insignificant.
On that logic, we would be thinking, “Yes, we are due a periodic review and it would say that nothing has changed—in fact it has got a bit worse. There is nothing to see here, so let’s not make any more changes.” The Minister can intervene if she wants to say that that is what the review says, and we can all go home quite early, but I suspect that nothing is ever quite that simple.
I suppose what we are asking the Minister to confirm later in the debate is whether the Government will stick to the principle of people getting a roughly fixed proportion of their adult life in retirement, and whether they will therefore be guided by that 33% figure. The hon. Lady’s point would appear to suggest that the position is, if anything, worse than that at the time of the Cridland review six years ago and we should presumably come to the same conclusion as that. That is not what the media stories are suggesting. They seem to be saying that the increase to 68, scheduled for the mid-2040s, will come forward to perhaps as early as the mid-2030s—possibly around 10 years from now.
That leads me on to two keys asks of the Government, and I think they were principles that were previously set. First, increases in the state pension age should always come with 10 years’ notice, so we should never give people less than 10 years to have to change their retirement plans. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that there will be at least 10 years’ notice.
Furthermore, we should make one of these changes only every 10 years; we should not be making multiple changes. Had the Cridland review been handled differently, we could have had the increase to 66 from 2011, the increase to 67 in 2014, and then the move to 68 a few years after that. That would have been far too much change too quickly for people to handle.
Those key principles that we established were not that different from what the Labour Government did in previous pension Acts when they brought in pension age rises. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of a stable pension system that we keep those fundamental principles in place. We do not want to end up in another situation like we had with the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, where women—and I met many of them in my constituency—genuinely did not know that their state pension age was going up significantly until they tried to claim it or thought they were about to get it, only to in some cases find out that it was another five or six years away. That is why we need to ensure we have that certainty in place. I know that that was changed in the Pensions Act 1995, so everybody had at least 15 years’ notice for most of it, but people just were not told, or at least not in a way that they understood or noticed. We need a clear, stable pension architecture, as was established under the coalition Government, with a single-tier state pension above the poverty threshold, so that people could save for themselves and had predictability.
This is not random conspiracy theory nonsense. Articles are occasionally written by people who just do not believe that when they get to retirement age, their state pension will be there, or that they will ever get to it. In fact, there was an article in the Daily Mail raising exactly that point. Reading other stuff around, we see that there is a general pervasive fear that people will never get to state pension age—that it will always be pushed just out of reach and they will never actually get there. That is why we need to be absolutely clear that that is not what we are trying to do here. We have a predictable and reliable state pension system that people can factor into their retirement savings and then use to plan for the later years of their life. I am sure the Minister will be able to reaffirm that that is absolutely the Government’s position.
There is a question about whether the Government are minded to make a change. I think the Cridland review suggested that we could have brought the change forward to the late 2030s, at least, so it should not be a complete surprise if we think that 2044 is probably too late and would result in that figure of roughly 33% becoming a bit generous and people getting a bit longer than that. We need to set out the rationale for that pretty clearly and try to work through how we can help people who will be put in the most difficult position by that change. Intriguingly, the Cridland review said that if the Government are after Budget savings, increasing the state pension age is not a very clever way to do that. Instead, the review recommended abolishing the pension triple lock, which, I suspect, is not a view that has great support around Parliament. Hopefully this latest review does not re-recommend that, and the Government will not accept it if it does.
There were, though, some sensible analyses and recommendations as to what we can do to help people who are out of work in their mid-60s because they are either not really fit for work or not realistically going to get a job then. How do we give them financial support when we cannot give them their state pension? Do we subject them to full universal credit conditionality, or can we find a way of giving them a better experience? The review recommended potentially allowing people to access the state pension a year early, having a benefit equivalent to the state pension at least a year early or having a tapering-off approach to UC or UC conditionality, in case people fall out of work at just the wrong point.
I am not actually aware that the Government have ever really put in place any of those measures, so that would be another ask of the Minister. If the Government are thinking of making a change, while we do need the notice, can we also put in place a plan early for handling those who will be the worst affected by the change? I think we will need that for the rise to 67, anyway, which is coming up much sooner. It is just not realistic for people who fall out of work very late in their working life to get another job, and leaving them in financial trouble for those last few months before they get their pension seems to be a rather inefficient and cruel situation. Hopefully we will have made some progress on that before we get to the next pension age.
I would also like to say that I do not think handling this sort of issue as part of the Budget process is necessarily sensible. This change will not affect the public finances this year or next year, or, actually, the next Parliament; it may not be until the Parliament after that, or possibly even the Parliament after that, when this triggers any financial savings. There is not, as far as I can tell, any real Budget sensitivity to how the Government make this announcement, so I do not think we need to have a shroud of secrecy over what the Government are thinking of doing.
What the Government should do is publish the Neville-Rolfe review. It would be helpful if Baroness Neville-Rolfe could appear before the Work and Pensions Committee and explain the findings of her review. I think she has been brought back as a Minister in a different Department, so I am not entirely clear whether that would be permitted. Could we have a Minister from a different Department answering questions about a review they led before they were a Minister? I cannot think of any reason why not. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the Government would be happy for her to come and explain the findings of her review. We could then have an open consultation about the content of that review and come up with a coherent policy, rather than it being dropped out by the Treasury and perhaps consulted on afterwards. The fear is always that once something has been announced, there is much less chance of it being changed.
I hope that the Government will get the feeling from this debate that people are concerned about there being further rises in the state pension age before we have had a chance to assess fully the impacts of the rise to 66—let alone the rise to 67 that is coming. I think we all recognise that it is a difficult situation and that it is worse for different parts of the country, worse for people in different occupations and possibly worse for women than for men. It would be useful to understand those implications and how we can mitigate them before we make any further decisions.
Fundamentally, if life expectancy data is not going as has been forecast, we should respond to the facts as they change and accept that our policy on expected changes to the state pension age can change as well, that we do not need the increases to come as fast and as often as we had thought, and that we should just leave things as they are. Let us hope that life expectancy starts to increase again. We can make these decisions then, rather than rushing into things that really hurt people, that bring uncertainty to the pension system—we do not need that—and that will probably not bring any financial savings for several Chancellors.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Let me restate my point: our pension architecture and the foundations on which we have been trying to build the system are all still there and are robust, and we can all rely on them.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this Backbench Business debate, which gives us the chance to ask for the Government’s views on this topic of great importance and enormous public interest. I am delighted that the Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), and the former Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), are in their places on the Front Bench.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Amber Valley said. The idea of spending a third of adult life in retirement is a sensible yardstick to run with. He made the point, in passing, about the importance of implementing the recommendations of the auto-enrolment review, and I agree with him that that is important. We are repeatedly told that it will be done in the mid-2020s, but time to implement it before 2025 is either running out or has possibly already run out.
In my remarks, I will focus on the process we are in. I recall the wise words of David Cameron, who said:
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
He argued—rightly, in my view—for a culture of openness in government. One of the results of his view was the 2010 protocol on publication of all Government social research, which was most recently updated last year. It states:
“Principle 1: The products from government social research and analysis will be made publicly available”,
and that research should be published “promptly”, within 12 weeks of completion.
For a number of years, that was, to their credit, the Government’s approach. In 2017, when the first review of state pension age was undertaken for the Government by John Cridland—as the hon. Member for Amber Valley has pointed out—his report, and the report of the Government Actuary, were both published on 23 March 2017, nearly four months before the DWP’s own review was set out on 19 July 2017, shortly after the hon. Member for Hexham took up his former post as Pensions Minister in June 2017.
I have often expressed great regret that the Department, for some reason or other—perhaps reflecting a different approach across Government—has abandoned the practice set out by David Cameron and instead now resists publication of research and analysis, or delays it for as long as it possibly can. Preventing public discussion no doubt has the benefit of allowing Ministers to avoid having to answer difficult questions, but it has the disastrous drawback of worsening policy outcomes. The policy cannot be informed by public debate before the decisions are made, because the evidence that would allow a debate is not available. The Government publication protocol was watered down a little last year, but its essential gist remains unchanged. It says, for example:
“The primary purpose of social research commissioned and conducted by government is to inform…policy and delivery, but it also plays a role in wider policy debate.”
That is quite right, but, as we have discussed in the Chamber on various occasions, in the DWP the requirements of the protocol are simply ignored. They are not being fulfilled.
I have been hoping very much that the new ministerial team will turn over a new leaf and take a more enlightened approach. Indeed, the new Secretary of State has hinted that he is considering the advantages of greater openness. But here we have a flagrant example of his predecessor’s bad habits of hiding analysis and evidence until it is convenient to the Government to release them. Instead of publishing the evidence four months before the Government’s decision, as was done in 2017—around the time the former pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Hexham, was appointed—the Department is keeping the evidence hidden until it makes its announcement “early in 2023”. Presumably, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley has suggested, that will be at the time of the Budget next month.
In my brief contribution to this important debate, I mainly want to press the Minister to publish now both the report by the independent reviewer, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which the Secretary of State received on 16 September last year—more than four months ago—and the related Government Actuary’s report, which was submitted to Ministers on 5 October. Publish them now. Why have they not been published already? What possible benefit can there be in keeping this important work and evidence hidden for all this time?
The Select Committee has published today an exchange of letters with the Minister on the subject. When asked why these reports are not being published before the Government’s announcement as they were for the 2017 review, the Minister, who is in her place, replied that
“this is a different publication schedule to the last review, the issues are still under consideration and so we think this approach is more appropriate.”
In other words, they appear to be saying, “We don’t want anyone to see the evidence until we have made up our mind. This is still under consideration, so we think it is not appropriate to publish the evidence.” Surely, there ought to be a public debate about all this before the Government make their decision, not afterwards. This instinct of hiding things, not disclosing them, and not complying with the requirements of the cross-Government protocol is very damaging to the Government’s ability to make good policy.
Surely, Ministers should take advantage of public debate to inform their decisions, rather than refusing to show anyone the evidence until after the Government have made up their mind. What has become of David Cameron’s belief in sunlight? We are talking here not about confidential advice to Ministers—there is no requirement to publish that—but rather about expert analysis that will eventually be published, and which sets out the evidence that will underpin the Government’s decision. Publish it now so that everybody can see it. The protocol says that
“analysis should be published promptly…as early as possible following agreement of the final output.”
So it should be. The recent independent review was announced in December 2021. The terms of reference said that it should explore what metrics the Government should take into account when considering how to set state pension age. They stated that it should include a consideration of recent trends in life expectancy in every part of the United Kingdom; whether it remained right for there to be a fixed proportion of adult life that people should, on average, expect to spend over state pension age, and what metrics would enable state pension costs, and the importance of sharing those fairly between generations, to be taken into account.
The Select Committee agreed months ago that once Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s review had been published, we would take evidence on it, including from her, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, before the Government announced their decision. Now that the Government are unwilling to publish the analysis before they announce their decision, we clearly cannot do that.
The Sun has reported that the Government plan to raise the state pension age from 67 to 68 as early as 2035, which will affect everyone who is 54 and under, instead of 10 years later, as set out in current legislation. Is that the right thing to do? Well, we need to see the evidence. The key evidence is about future projections of life expectancy. As we heard from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), emerging evidence shows that the trend of rising life expectancy is not what it was before the pandemic.
One of the expert witnesses at this morning’s meeting of the Select Committee said, “Mortality seems to have peaked, because one reason why there was increasing mortality was that the second world war lifestyle was ironically quite healthy for people, and the numbers are now going down quite a lot.” We were discussing something else this morning, and I do not know what evidence the witness was drawing on there, but I do not know what evidence the Government will draw on either, because it has not been published and it should have been. There should be no delay in publishing it.
Cohort life expectancy statistics are produced every two years. A new set is expected this year. The latest, 2020-based projections show life expectancy at 65 still rising, but at a slower rate than in previous releases. Of course, the 2020 figures did not take any account of changes arising from the pandemic. The change in projection has prompted some commentators to call for the planned rises in the state pension age to be abandoned, or at least to be slowed.
Lane Clark & Peacock took the latest Office for National Statistics life expectancy projections and reran the 2017 calculations of the Government Actuary’s Department. They concluded that any move from 67 to 68 would not be needed until the mid-2060s rather than the mid-2040s, and certainly not by the late 2030s, as suggested by The Sun. They also suggested that the move from 66 to 67, which is currently scheduled to be phased in over two years from 2026, could be put back until the end of the 2040s. They went on to argue that if further ONS statistics show relatively lower life expectancy growth, that could imply further delays to planned increases, and perhaps even abandoning the planned rise to 67.
The former pensions Minister but two—I think— Steve Webb, who is now a partner at Lane Clark & Peacock said:
“The Government’s plans for rapid increases in state pension age have been blown out of the water by this new analysis. Even before the Pandemic hit, the improvements in life expectancy which we had seen over the last century had almost ground to a halt.”
Those are important public policy questions. They should be debated in Parliament and among the public before the Government announce their decision, so that that public and parliamentary debate can inform the Government’s decision. We should not just see the evidence after the Government have announced what they plan to do, because changing the Government’s mind at that point will not happen.
A wide public debate should take place now, but it cannot happen unless the independent review and the Government Actuary’s report are published before the announcement is made. I ask the Minister to resist the temptation to keep the documents hidden for even longer and instead to remember the wise words of David Cameron, and to be open and publish those two key documents.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). He is very knowledgeable about these matters, as his comments demonstrated; I thank him for them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for securing the debate and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it, because statutory pension age and pension amounts are of such importance to my constituents in Dover and Deal.
For a person of my age, the statutory pension is like one of those Scottish mountains. It is an optical illusion: as we get ever closer, it seems that there is just that bit further to go. When I started my working life, my pension age was 60. When it was changed in 2010, I was already roughly two thirds of the way through my expected working life. Should the pension age be raised to 68, a woman of my age, at current rates, will have lost out on the equivalent of between £59,000 and £77,000. That matters because of the basis on which I began paying national insurance contributions when I started work.
The first point that I would like to raise on behalf of all pensioners-to-be is that pensions are an unusual area because the rules on grandfathering rights that are usually applied are simply not followed. Surely it would be fairer to use the basis that applied at the point at which people started to work and started to pay national insurance contributions. If someone’s pension age is to be changed, it should be changed in the first third of their expected working life, not right towards the end. No one affected by a date change can go back in time to take out an ISA, top up their pension or use their income differently, as they might have done if they had known that such changes were due. People affected by the changes might have made different decisions if they had known that they would have to work for considerably longer, and it might have made a difference to their quality of life at an older age.
Secondly, people might have made different career choices or made career changes if they had known that they would have to work for longer. Thirdly, the expected extra years of work—eight whole years, in the case of women of my age—may mean that people will need extra skills training and support during their working life. If the pension age is to be extended even further, budgetary consideration will need to be given to support for lifelong learning, with leave being given for skilling up and study being prioritised for people affected by the change.
For many people, the ages of 60 to 68 represent a period in which, in the eyes of bosses or fellow workers, they may be considered past the peak of employability. I am pleased to say that that is not the case for contributions in this place, but age discrimination in our society is very real. I suggest that no further changes should be made to pension age unless such age discrimination is firmly and clearly tackled.
If we want people to work later in life, we have to give them the tools, support and legal protection that they need to do so. That is all the more important because age discrimination in particular terms and conditions of employment is currently perfectly legal. If the pension age is to be extended, the law needs to be changed. Age discrimination, like any other form of discrimination, is humiliating, demeaning and damaging. We do not want to subject people to it by making them remain in work while such prejudice continues.
I have a constituent, Stephen, who at the age of 66 —the current statutory pensionable age—is facing just such lawful age discrimination. He has worked for a very large Kent company for more than 30 years. He is an effective, respected and well-liked employee with a fantastic track record of work. When Stephen reached his 66th birthday, he did not get a birthday card from his bosses; he got a letter to the effect that it was not possible to sack him on grounds of age, so instead they were terminating his life insurance, his health insurance and all his other insurance benefits.
Stephen was doing the same job at 66, at 66 minus one day and at 66 plus one day, but now he does not get the same money’s worth in relation to his contract of employment. If he falls ill, he cannot get the same access to speedy private healthcare that other people working for the company can. If—heaven forbid—he died, his wife would no longer have compensatory insurance. However, he is doing exactly the same job as someone else. It is the same job he did before, and the same job he will do the day after. The attitude demonstrated by the company communicates to him and to the wider employment community in Kent that it thinks a person who is older is worth less. We must tackle that issue if people are to stay in the workplace longer.
I have looked into the policy considerations that are sometimes put forward. The first, essentially, is that an older person does not need to work. As a woman who has been in the workplace for quite a long time now, I remember a time when employers would say that a woman did not need to work, did not need to get the same bonuses as a man, and did not need to be offered overtime, because it was men who had families to feed. We have outlawed that, because equal pay at work is not about who is doing the work, but about what the work is. Allowing age discrimination, as we do now, sends a message that an older person is not worth the same as a younger one. The continual changes in the pension age also send a clear message that older people’s safety, stability and security in managing their own lives are not a priority.
The second reason put forward is that it becomes more expensive for everyone—the premium for the company itself goes up—if older people are included in corporate benefits, or global benefits, beyond the statutory age. To apply that logic, would it be okay to disallow health cover in an employment context to someone who had a chronic condition that could give rise, or had given rise, to needing that policy? Of course not; we would say that that was discriminatory and wrong. At the heart of equalities law is the fundamental view that employers cannot discriminate between those they employ based on characteristics that are not relevant to whether they can carry out the job. By continuing a discussion of the type that has been happening about the pension age moving and whether people will be supported in older-age working, we are failing to address this absolutely dreadful discriminatory environment.
The third and final reason given is that a disincentive to recruit older workers would be created, because the costs I have mentioned would be higher for the company. I agree that we do not want to create disincentives to employing older people, particularly if we are to require people to work for years and years more than they had expected, but the argument sounds awfully similar to the well-known discussion about whether the cost of maternity leave would dissuade employers from employing women who become pregnant. We outlawed that, and we know that a woman can still add value, be productive and be effective when pregnant, so why are we making people work longer? Why are we raising the statutory pension age and communicating from this Parliament that it is okay to discriminate against older workers? It is not, and it is wrong—all the more so if the pension age is raised from 66 to 68, because we would be raising it above an age at which employers are already discriminating against workers, as I have illustrated. Unless we tackle age discrimination, we will continue to have an environment in which it will be very difficult for people who are working in older age.
As these pension changes are brought forward, I do not feel that enough has been done to support, encourage and incentivise employers to look favourably on an older workforce. For example, national insurance contributions could be reduced for older workers. Also, if people are excluded from benefits by reason of the current law, older workers should receive money or money’s worth in cash or vouchers to make up for the work benefits that have been removed from them.
By way of conclusion, I am not persuaded by the arguments for increasing the pension age further or discriminating on the grounds of age. It is simply not acceptable. There is no justification for the treatment of my hard-working and loyal constituent Stephen with the discrimination he has faced in his workplace. If the pension age is to be raised again and we are going to keep making these changes, forcing people to stay in work for longer, age discrimination must be tackled first. We should be taking steps now to change behaviours in the workplace to make sure that older people who now have to work longer will be able to do so and will be treated fairly and equitably. We should be outlawing this outdated and discriminatory law against older workers.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this debate. How to calculate the state pension age is an intensely technical topic, but it fundamentally impacts on people’s lives, and what we have heard so far this afternoon illustrates that, because there is a great deal of consensus across the Benches. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) on her speech and the areas she covered.
Obviously, it is our job on the Opposition Benches to scrutinise the Government, and I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt an independent review process, but I absolutely agree with the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) that we should be publishing any reports and looking at this issue before the Government make a final decision in the public space. This debate is an opportunity for the Government to make a political statement to commit to some of the existing methodologies we have used to date for the state pension age, and primarily that means keeping it based on life expectancy.
We have heard significant concerns today that planned pension ages might be accelerated, and that does not fit with what we are seeing with life expectancy. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said in her intervention, life expectancy is not increasing. In fact, the evidence suggests it is falling, so far from seeing the retirement age going up faster, we should be seeing no change or at the very least a slowdown in planned increases.
It is highly technical, looking at actuarial tables to work out statistics, but it is important that we do not forget the faces behind the figures. In fairness, the WASPI women have made sure that we never forget the faces again. I am sure that every Member here, including the Minister and me, will have spoken with WASPI women in their constituencies about what they have suffered as a result of process failures with previous age increases. I have met many of the representatives who come to Parliament on fiscal event days. They often stand in the cold and damp waiting all day to be heard. I urge the Minister and Members across the House to meet them, if they have not done so previously.
Although this debate is about the future, I cannot mention the WASPI women without talking about their ongoing right for compensation. They have been waiting years now, and thousands have died without ever seeing a penny. The ombudsman is expected to report within a matter of months, but the only thing that has taken longer than their investigation is the Government’s inability to decide to do the right thing and to promise to follow the results of that report. I hope the Minister will make reference to that in her closing remarks.
The Government must learn lessons from what has happened to the WASPI women. If we are going to see changes, they must be communicated early and fully. People must be able to plan ahead. Age UK suggests 10 years as the length of time in which people need certainty to plan for retirement, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley mentioned. I hope that the Government can continue to commit to that.
I said it was important to remember the faces behind the figures, and it is vital that the Government remember that life expectancy is based on averages, and that all people are not alike. There are already people struggling to work to 66 through no fault of their own. Manual workers, whether farmers or factory workers, are just more likely to struggle to keep up as the impact of a life of labouring catches up with them. The fictional police sergeant Catherine Cawood of “Happy Valley” may hopefully be reaching her retirement from the police on Sunday night in the concluding episode of the series, but she will be 56 when she does so. That is because we accept that police officers are not necessarily physically capable of being able to chase offenders or fight or do any of the physical things we expect. We may hope, however, that Catherine Cawood, as well as going to the Himalayas, can also continue to contribute in a part-time work capacity elsewhere.
Health problems for many mean that people cannot work full time. Part-time working is increasing, and many people have caring responsibilities. This is the generation of sandwich carers who take care of their parents, their children or grandchildren and, when needed, their partners. There is of course a benefit to the economy, and to older workers themselves, of continuing to work if they can. If that is the Government’s aim, I implore them to see that increasing the state pension age, when we are not seeing a corresponding rise in health and life expectancy, is not the solution. People might be living longer, but they are not necessarily doing so in good health.
There are steps that the Government could take. I continue to champion the needs of unpaid carers, many of whom are in the pre-retirement age bracket. I welcome the Government’s support for my Carer’s Leave Bill, which will have its Third Reading on Friday, and look forward to their support as it passes through the Lords, but there is still much to do. Reforming carer’s allowance, securing flexible working as a day one right, offering more training and respite for carers, and investing in local services such as day centres would all help, as would more re-training, as the hon. Member for Dover mentioned, and a greater understanding of what is keeping older workers out of the workforce. We need to ensure that there is a social security net for people who have paid in and who, for whatever reason, cannot manage those final few years. That would be more effective at encouraging people to work longer, even past retirement age, than just forcing people somehow to soldier on.
Of course, there is a balance to be struck. The pension age must be both effective and sustainable. I agree that it must realistically reflect how long people can expect to live after retirement. We all see adverts pop up on our social media about how to retire at 40, but we know the Government could not be expected to fund such a period. Knowing that there is a balance means also making the expectation of the state pension realistic. I want my children, and my children’s children, to have it to look forward to one day. Our younger generations have suffered the outcomes of Brexit, of covid and of the cost of living crisis. Owning a house is a dream, not a reality for far too many. Future generations deserve the same promises, the same security as those that came before. We must not pull up the ladder.
I urge the Government to use this opportunity to reassure the House that they will follow the rules on determining retirement age by looking at life expectancy, protect those who struggle to work later in life and help those in work who can do so. Too often in recent years the Government have trailed potentially detrimental pension changes only to withdraw them later. Today’s debate gives them an opportunity to make sure that that is not the case in future.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I echo the appreciation of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for bringing the debate on the state pension age to the Floor of the House today. There is great concern that, according to reports, the UK Government plan to accelerate their current timeline for increasing the state pension age again, raising it to 68 by 2034. That means that those born in the 1970s or later could soon be told that a review of the increase in state pension age will further delay their retirement. If the Minister can tell us that that simply will not happen, we can all just go home and not worry about it, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said. We would all be delighted.
It is bad enough that the state pension age is due to rise again from 66 to 67 by 2028. It is even worse that the women born in the 1950s had their state pension age increased with little or no notice, a move that has robbed them of tens of thousands of pounds of their hard-earned and expected state pension, throwing many of them into deep poverty and unnecessary hardship. That is all bad enough, but now we face the prospect of the Government planning to bring forward the increase in retirement age from 67 to 68 from 2046 to affect anyone now aged 54 or younger.
The Minister may say that no final decision has been taken, but how can anyone, having witnessed how women born in the 1950s have been treated, have any real faith that the Government understand how the increase in retirement age would have a disproportionate impact on those who have worked all their lives for poor pay? The UK already has one of the lowest pensions in Europe, and these plans will have an impact on millions of people, many of whom are already struggling financially. Age UK has said that
“any Government decision to accelerate the rise in Pension Age will condemn millions to a miserable and impoverished run up to retirement—and often beyond too”.
So many people are already in poor health by the time they reach their state pension and they are already suffering financial hardship.
As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, probably every one of us has spoken to women born in the 1950s, and when we do they tell us that the biggest UK Government swindle in recent memory was robbing their generation of their rightful state pensions at the age of 60. Many discovered, often by sheer accident, that their anticipated pension would not arrive until years later, as there was equalisation with men. The anger, sense of betrayal and disappointment was only inflamed when UK Government Ministers bizarrely and insensitively insisted that this provided an opportunity for the women affected to train for new careers. Some of them then formed the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, which continues to campaign for the injustice against them to be recognised and remedied. They must be given the compensation that is their right and I applaud the work they have done, because those women faced delays of up to six years to access their state pension, one in four of them now struggle to make payments on crucial bills and one third are in debt, with single women the worst affected. So that we can avoid this happening again, will the Minister tell us what impact assessment the UK Government have carried out, or will carry out, on any further proposals to accelerate the rise in the state pension age to 68 by 2034 or, indeed, to accelerate it at all?
It seems to the people outside this Chamber who are worried about this or who have experienced this, as the WASPI women have, that this Government have developed a taste for robbing people of their hard-earned state pension. The website Interactive Investor calculates that bringing forward to 2034 the increase in someone’s pension age to 68 could mean a lost year of full state pension of almost £17,000 for workers aged 46. Royal London insurance found that more than half of those aged 55 and over are likely to have the state pension as their main income, with 1.5 million of those in pre-state-pension years, and 31 % with no savings at all to fall back on. Many of them are also struggling with caring responsibilities as well as financial ones.
Pensioners relying on state pension as their main source of income are more likely to have already undergone a working life of low pay, and they are more likely to have health challenges in retirement and a shorter life expectancy. They are also the pensioners who simply cannot afford to retire early, even when health problems occur. Raising the retirement age even further will therefore have a disproportionate effect on poorer older people who will enjoy fewer retirement years.
A review of the state pension age in 2017 established that people should expect to spend one third of their adult life in retirement. As we know and as has been said, life expectancy in the UK is, at best, stagnating, which seriously undermines the case for raising the state pension age. I am afraid that those considerations will not have an impact on Government thinking and that the very logic they have used in the past for increasing state pension age—rising life expectancy—will not apply. If that is the case, I would remind the Minister that not only have life expectancy rates stalled across the UK, but they have actually fallen for the second year in a row in Scotland. Perhaps the Minister would like to factor that in when determining the state pension age. According to the UK Government’s own argument and the logic they have used so far, the state pension age should perhaps even be falling.
The UK Government must abandon any further acceleration of the state pension age across the UK. I hope that all parties will oppose that and commit to continuing that opposition beyond the next election. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, if you keep tinkering with, accelerating and rising the state pension age, you create uncertainty and undermine the whole concept of a state pension, perhaps fatally undermining it for future generations.
Even talk of accelerating the state pension age feels like a grubby smash and grab of people’s hard-earned pensions to try to fill the black hole in the UK’s finances, which is a consequence of 13 years of austerity. That austerity started under Labour’s Gordon Brown and has continued ever since, compounded by the damage of Brexit to which Labour is fully signed up, cynically and disingenuously pretending that there is such a thing as a good Brexit after all. Labour knows that, but it is so desperate to win seats in England, it will say anything. But the public are watching.
To raise the state pension age further is bad enough. To raise it even faster than originally planned as a cost-cutting measure is unforgivable. People in Scotland were told in 2014 that the only way to protect the state pension was to vote no to independence. Here we are nine years later, and the state pension does not support the minimum standard of living. Pensioners have already been short-changed by £6,500 on average, due to the state pension underpayments to around 237,000 older people, and a further 100,000 potential underpayments that have been identified, which will take a year to correct. Let us not forget how easily the Government discarded their manifesto commitment to retain the triple lock, the abandonment of which means that current state pension payments are £520 less than they otherwise would have been.
We must all learn from the huge injustice perpetrated on WASPI women—I applaud their campaign for justice—but we cannot permit even more people to be robbed of tens of thousands of pounds of their rightful state pension as life expectancy stalls or even falls in Scotland. Meanwhile, our Government desperately seek to fill their financial black hole because of their own incompetence, and therefore have decided to pick a fight over pensions. That is an outrage. In the dying days of this Government, as they thrash around seeking to pick the pockets of others to pay for their own economic mismanagement, we must say that enough is enough.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Pensions are an incredibly important issue. People who have worked hard and contributed all their lives deserve a decent pension in retirement. The state pension has been a crucial part of all our lives in this country for a very long time. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and Members across the House for their contributions.
I am sorry to say that there has been a certain amount of unhelpful briefing in the media about a possible change to Government policy on state pension age. I urge the Government to stop that, and to raise issues in this House rather than in the media. If Ministers are serious, they should discuss the future of pensions policy with the public and the pensions industry in a proper public consultation. The current speculation fuelled by off-the-record briefings is hugely unsettling for people who are saving for a pension and trying to plan for their future. Ministers should remember that families and pensioners are living through an unprecedented cost of living crisis and facing huge pressures on household budgets. The last thing that people need is further stress and uncertainty.
We are living in challenging times, with inflation rates that the country has not seen for more 40 years. To make matters worse, as the IMF reported earlier this week, the UK faces the worst economic outlook of any major economy. After 12 years of economic mismanagement by the current Government, we are stuck in a period of persistently low growth and, unfortunately, persistently high inflation. As a direct result of that mismanagement, the Government are now trying to cut public spending. They have reduced spending on the state pension before by failing to increase pensions in line with inflation until April this year. That means that pensions have failed to keep up with the huge rise in the cost of food and fuel that has hit pensioners in the last six months.
Independent research by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association using data from Loughborough University showed the scale of the Government’s failure. It showed that the basic state pension has now fallen below the cost of living. The PLSA put the basic cost of living for a single pensioner at £12,800, more than £2,000 above the basic state pension, which will be £10,600 in the financial year 2023-24.
The Government’s mismanagement of the economy and their desperate attempts to cut public spending form the backdrop to today’s debate. This is made even worse by Ministers’ disregard for pensioners, the House and the public. The Government’s pattern of behaviour is in stark contrast to the way in which Governments have conducted themselves in the past. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a long-standing convention that pensions policy is based on evidence and agreed by consensus. For example, when the evidence showed that life expectancy was increasing, there was a discussion about the impact on the state pension age, and it was agreed that it should be gradually increased. The UK already has one of the higher state pension ages among OECD countries.
Following extensive consultation about the impact of increased life expectancy in the 2000s, the Government established the Pensions Commission to look into the issue. As a result, and after a great deal of discussion, it was agreed that the state pension age should be raised. The Pensions Act 2007 provided for it to be increased from 65 to 68 in stages over the period between 2024 and 2046. I should stress that those increases were agreed at a time of steady rises in life expectancy. The current situation is somewhat different, to say the least. As we heard earlier, there is clear evidence of a stalling of the increase in life expectancy. Data from the Office for National Statistics on healthy life expectancy between 2018 and 2020 shows a downward trend in most regions of the UK, and the situation for some pensioners seems to be even worse, with a fall in life expectancy among some groups since 2010. We have heard several examples of that today, and there are others.
There is also clear and, in my view, deeply troubling evidence of local disparities, with gaps of about 10 years between the average life expectancy of some people—often those living in better-off areas—and that of their neighbours living in less well-off areas comparatively nearby. The full impact of the pandemic on long-term health is unclear, and there seem to be a growing number of older people of working age who are suffering from serious health conditions. That evidence needs to be considered carefully.
I appreciate that time is limited. Let me end by saying that the Government are letting down both pensioners and people saving for pensions. They have broken with the long-standing convention that pensions policy is developed on the basis of evidence, through consultation and discussion. I hope the Minister will address these issues in her speech. I know that she does prefer to consult, even if some of her colleagues do not always follow that approach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Laura Trott)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) for raising this important issue, and all the other Members who have contributed to the debate.
The Government remain committed to ensuring that older people can live with the dignity and respect they deserve, and I absolutely reaffirm that the state pension is and will remain the foundation of state support for older people. As has already been pointed out today, changes in the state pension age have been made in a series of Acts by successive Governments from 1995—when the state pension ages of men and women were equalised—onwards, following public consultations and extensive debates in both Houses.
The state pension age is currently 66, and will increase to 67 in 2026-28. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), Labour legislated for it to increase to 68 in 2044-46, but, following the Cridland review of 2017, the current Government policy is to bring the increase to 68 forward to 2037-39. That is the baseline; we are required under law to review it every six years, and that is what is now being undertaken.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, the coalition Government of 2010 to 2015 were committed to the “core principle” that people should spend, on average,
“up to one third of their adult life drawing a State Pension.”
They were also committed to giving individuals at least 10 years’ notice of any changes affecting them. The first review of the state pension age following the Pensions Act 2014 was undertaken in 2017, informed by both the Government Actuary’s report and the independent report undertaken by John Cridland. As I have set out, Cridland recommended bringing forward the increase in the state pension age to 68 from 2044 to 2026, as set out in legislation, to 2037 to 2039.
Sir Stephen Timms
The two documents from 2017 to which the Minister referred were published four months before the Government’s announcement. Why have the Government not published the documents before their announcement this time around, and will she do so now?
Laura Trott
I had a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman might bring that up. As he rightly pointed out, I have written to him today to explain the rationale behind this, but I will confirm that both documents will be published in full. I look forward to discussing them with his Committee in due course.
Sir Stephen Timms
I just want to know why they have not been published. What is the public interest in keeping these things hidden?
Laura Trott
As I have said, they will be published in full. On the timing of publication, there is work going on in Government to undertake the review. Once it is finished the documents will be published.
The 2017 review was based on a recommendation to aim for “up to 32%” as the average proportion of adult life spent in receipt of state pension. The review used 2014-based life expectancy data. The Government accepted those recommendations, subject to a further review, before tabling the requisite legislative amendments. The savings from bringing forward this rise to 68 have already been included in published fiscal forecasts.
On 14 December 2021, the Government launched the second periodic review of the state pension age, and work is now under way to complete it, as required by legislation. The review must be published by May 2023, in accordance with section 27 of the Pensions Act 2014. At the autumn statement, the Chancellor committed to concluding the review in early 2023.
As part of the second review, the Secretary of State is considering evidence from two independent reports. The first, a report from the Government Actuary, assesses the latest life expectancy projections from all regions of the UK. There has been a lot of talk about life expectancy today, so I want to put on record the fact that the most recent projections from the Office for National Statistics show a slower rate of improvement in life expectancy than those that informed the Pensions Act 2014 and the Pension Schemes Act 2017. Nevertheless, despite the slower improvement rate, ONS projections continue to show increasing life expectancy over time, and the number of people over state pension age is expected to continue to rise. I can also confirm for the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) that the review will consider the latest recommendations, as well as a wide range of other evidence, before reaching any conclusions about the state pension age.
The second report that will be taken into account is an independent report by Baroness Neville-Rolfe, which will consider recent trends in life expectancy and the range of metrics that we could use when setting the state pension age, including the metrics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. We will publish both documents in full. With respect to the question of whether Baroness Neville-Rolfe will appear before the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, that is a matter for the Committee and for her.
Alongside examining the implications of the latest life expectancy data, the Government review is assessing the costs of an ageing society and future state pension expenditure, as well as considering labour market changes and people’s ability and opportunities to work up to state pension age, bearing in mind recent trends in life expectancy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley highlighted the position of those who cannot continue to work. The review will evaluate the impact of previous changes to the state pension age for all individuals, including those with long-term health conditions or disability. The Government continue to provide substantial support for people who are unable to work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) made some important points about age discrimination. The Government’s business champion for older workers, Andy Briggs, spearheads the Government’s work to promote the benefits of older workers and multigenerational workforces across England, influencing them strategically and by offering practical advice. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s points about discrimination are passed on to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
The review will aim to keep the right balance between affordability, sustainability and fairness between generations. The review has not yet concluded—it is very important to emphasise that, given some of the comments today—and I will not pre-empt its outcome. The Government are committed to ensuring that older people have dignity and security in later life, regardless of where in the UK they are living. The Government introduced further targeted support, including cost of living payments of up to £900 for the most vulnerable households and an additional £1 billion, including Barnett impact, to enable the extension of the household support fund in England in the next financial year. Since 2010, the full yearly amount of the basic state pension has risen by over £2,300 in cash terms. That is £790 higher than if it had been uprated by prices, and £945 more than if it had been uprated by earnings. For the first time, from April 2023, the full rate of the new state pension is worth over £10,000 per year.
Automatic enrolment is having a transformational effect on private savings. Over 10.8 million people have been automatically enrolled in a workplace pension, helping to deliver about an additional £33 billion into pension savings in real terms in 2021 compared with 2012. The hon. Member for North East Fife mentioned the PHSO inquiry. She will know that that is ongoing, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it until it concludes.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the state pension continues to provide the foundation for people’s retirement income and are proud of the support they have given pensioners since 2010. I welcome today’s debate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley. As I have outlined, the Government take the setting of the state pension age very seriously. I look forward to being able to discuss this matter further—I am sure we will—when the Government finally publish their second review.
Nigel Mills
I thank all Members for taking part in the debate and the Minister for responding to it. I do not think anybody spoke in favour of bringing forward an increase in the state pension age. I hope the Government will factor it in that, on a cross-party basis, there is not a lot of inclination for that. I hope we get to see the completed review in relatively short order, and that no decision will be taken until it has been published and there has been a chance for further consultation and consideration. I do not see any need for a rush, so I hope the Government will take a consultative approach. With that, I thank all those who took part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of raising the State Pension age to 68.
Sudden Cardiac Death: Young People
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I am very grateful to have the opportunity to speak on a genuinely important issue. What I am about to speak about was brought to my attention by my constituents, Stephen and Gill Ayling, who are in the Public Gallery today. They experienced the very worst thing that could ever happen to a parent when, sadly, their son Nathan died at the age of 31 in February 2019. While I was not fortunate enough to have known Nathan, we were close in age and we both went to the same local school.
Nathan lost his life to young sudden cardiac death after a problem with his heart went undetected all his life. Before his death, Nathan appeared fit and healthy. He played football and rugby regularly, and lifted weights and cycled. Stephen and Gill have previously described how they will never, ever be able to escape from the memory of when they found their son, who had died in his bed. As a parent myself, I cannot begin to grasp how utterly shattering that moment must have been. My condolences go out to them and to their family, and to all who knew and loved Nathan.
In the wake of Nathan’s death, Stephen and Gill became involved with the charity Cardiac Risk in the Young, which provides heart screenings—I will come on to this later—for young people. Stephen and Gill founded a community group, The Beat Goes On, which is a wonderful name and a wonderful tribute to Nathan. As part of the group, Stephen and Gill raised £10,000 to fund private screenings on 10 and 11 January this year, providing tests for 186 young people in our community. Ten of those young people have been referred for further cardiac investigation. I commend them for all their hard work and put on the record my thanks, and the thanks of many in our area, for all they have done for our community in Scunthorpe.
Last summer, I tabled a written question to ask the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care what steps his Department was taking to increase the diagnosis rate of cardiac conditions in people aged 14 to 35. Once those conditions are diagnosed, it is often possible for them to be treated, either with pharmaceutical or surgical intervention or through lifestyle changes.
In the Government’s response, I was informed:
“Since July 2021, we have launched community diagnostic centres (CDCs) to increase diagnostic activity and reduce patient waiting times. CDCs offer checks, scans and tests in community and other health care settings and delivered over 880,000 diagnostic tests…This will support Primary Care Networks to increase the detection of conditions such as heart valve disease.”
While that answer is good news for some people, I would welcome any assessment the Government have carried out of how helpful those diagnostic centres are in relation to heart conditions in young people specifically.
I was also told:
“The diagnosis of cardiac conditions is based on the presentation of symptoms, rather than the age range of the patient”
or their genetic risk factors. That is a crucial point, and for young people it takes us to the crux of the problem. Research has shown that in 80% of cases of young sudden cardiac death, there were no prior symptoms of a heart defect; no opportunity was presented to step in and intervene and potentially save a young person’s life. As a result, families have lost sons, daughters, brothers and sisters—someone they loved.
Doctors have raised with me their concerns about a completely symptom-focused approach to young people. Aside from the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who have this condition do not exhibit symptoms, my understanding is that the symptoms that GPs are trained to look for are breathlessness, heart palpitations, dizziness, chest pain and losing consciousness. Those are common symptoms that can be attributed to other ailments, many of which will be more common in young people. As such, GPs could potentially misdiagnose a heart condition, perhaps providing medication—for anxiety or depression, for instance—that could aggravate an undiagnosed condition.
The best approach to take in healthcare is always a preventive one—a process that intervenes to stop someone suffering or dying. In cases involving young people, the best way to do this may be through proactive screening. The majority of conditions—but not all—associated with sudden cardiac death in the young can be identified on the basis of an electrocardiogram, or ECG, abnormality. That is the type of screening that Stephen and Gill, and other parents like them, and CRY fundraise and campaign for, sometimes resulting in follow-up tests. Approximately one in 300 people screened by CRY will be identified as having a potentially life-threatening condition, and one in 100 will be identified as having a condition that could cause significant problems by the ages of 40 or 50. Those conditions need to be monitored every three to four months, so that action can be taken when most appropriate.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, in 2019 the UK National Screening Council recommended against a systematic screening programme for cardiac conditions in the young. There is set to be another review by the end of this year. I would like to speak briefly first on the previous review, and then on the future one.
One of the reasons cited for not rolling out a screening programme was the continuing uncertainty over the true incidence rate of sudden cardiac death. To say that there was not a consensus on what that figure was would be a gross understatement. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we have accurate data on that issue, especially if it is influencing clinical or policy decisions.
In preparation for this debate, I spoke to representatives from CRY. They said that, just on the basis of the number of autopsies they are performing at their centre for cardiac pathology each year, we are disastrously underestimating the full extent of the problem. I want my language to be very clear, so I repeat that they say that we are disastrously underestimating the full extent of the problem.
In order to shed light on the issue, one of the stakeholders contributing to the review stated that it would be
“very helpful if the review outlined more specific research recommendations, providing potential researchers with a framework of the characteristics of a project that could address the uncertainty.”
I have spoken to others involved with the review, who advised me that that framework was not in place. I would be grateful if the Minister could urge the UK National Screening Council to provide clarity, so that we can get reliable data that we can use to make policy decisions. Without that, we risk having an unhelpful fog shrouding this issue; if we do not dispel it, we may lose more lives to undiagnosed heart conditions.
Similarly, there are questions about testing accuracy. Some stakeholders have asked for more specific research recommendations. In particular, it is really important to specify the test, or group of tests, that would enable simultaneous screening for all the potential causes of sudden cardiac death. Again, I ask the Minister to push for those recommendations to be laid down, so that the scientists can get on with the job that they do best.
Looking forward to the next review, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed a timeline for when this will be completed and when we should expect the findings to be published. It is important to note that several other countries are steps ahead of us when it comes to proactive screening programmes, and, although I appreciate that these might be out of scope of the review, I do think it would be a missed opportunity not to raise them. Several American sporting bodies—
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. My goddaughter, Sophie Pearson, passed away in 2006 at 12 years of age from cardiomyopathy. Sophie’s parents spent many years helping to raise awareness and raise funds. I congratulate the hon. Lady on the work that she is doing and hope that the awareness that she is raising today will go some way in supporting families and avoiding unnecessary deaths of young people.
Holly Mumby-Croft
I am terribly sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman said, and I thank him for his intervention.
Let me continue on the sporting aspect. Italy has introduced pre-participation screening. Although I appreciate that there are issues with extrapolating the data to the non-athletic population, one study in 2006 did show that screening led to an 89% fall in sudden cardiac death in that cohort.
I know that every Member in this House will be united in wanting to reduce the number of young people dying from undiagnosed cardiac conditions, and expanding access to the screening available will help to reduce that.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and pay tribute to her constituents who are with us today for doing so much to raise funding for screening in our area. She is talking about the important issue of screening, particularly in relation to young people and sporting activities. Is it not also important that we ensure that sports facilities have access to defibrillators for when cardiac arrests take place? She will know that, through North Lincolnshire Council, scores of defibrillators have been funded across our area. With the Government announcing a £1 million fund to expand defibrillators, is it not important that that fund also takes into account sporting clubs and the issue around young people and sudden cardiac arrests?
Holly Mumby-Croft
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he is very well placed to have a view on this matter through his work as a first responder in our community—something that he has been doing for a number of years—so I listen very carefully to him when he raises points around health and care.
I would be grateful if the Minister pushed the points that I have made in relation to the review, with scientists and stakeholders calling for more research to be done. I would also be immensely grateful if the Minister found time—I know that he is incredibly busy—to meet Stephen, Gill and myself to talk about this issue. That would be very much appreciated.
That takes me to the last point that I wish to make, which is once again to thank Stephen and Gill for the work that they have done. Their experience, and Nathan's experience, was a tragic one. Despite that, they have managed to do fantastic work in our community. I know that, along with me, everyone that they have helped through screening, such as those 10 people who have been referred for further testing, will be extremely grateful to them. I often say in this House, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have many people to be proud of in Scunthorpe. The work that Stephen and Gill are doing puts them very firmly in that category, and I want to be clear today that they have both my support and my thanks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I am extremely sorry to hear about Nathan and about Stephen and Gill and, indeed, about the constituents of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones). I would very much welcome the meeting that my hon. Friend described with her constituents, and we will set that up.
We recognise, though it is hard to understand, the devastation caused to families by the sudden cardiac death of a young person. Sudden cardiac death is an unexpected and sudden death that is thought to be caused by a heart condition.
The implementation of genomic laboratory hubs across England provides an opportunity to explore the systematic introduction of post-mortem genetic testing for SCD. Seven NHS genomic medicine service alliances play an important role in the support of genomic medicine. Those NHS GMS alliances are supporting several transformation projects, including a national project with the NHS inherited cardiac conditions services, the British Heart Foundation and the country’s coroners.
The project will test the DNA of people who died suddenly and unexpectedly at a young age from a cardiac arrest, and their surviving family can also be offered genetic testing to see if they carry the same gene changes. In addition, a pilot project based in the NHS South East Genomic Medicine Service Alliance is aimed at people who have had an unexpected cardiac arrest and survived. They will be offered a genomic test to enable access to treatment, and further genomic testing will be offered to identify immediate family members at risk if a gene change associated with a heart condition is found.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe mentioned, screening programmes in England are set up on the advice of the UK National Screening Committee. These are not political decisions; they are decisions based on the best currently available evidence, and they determine whether the introduction of a screening programme would offer more good than harm. As my hon. Friend said, in 2019 the National Screening Committee reviewed the evidence to provide general screening, and concluded at that time that there was not enough evidence to support the introduction of a national screening programme.
Research showed that the current tests were not accurate enough to use in young people without symptoms, because incorrect test results can cause harm by giving false reassurance to individuals with the condition who may have been missed by the screening test, while individuals without the condition may receive a false positive test result that could lead to unnecessary treatments. The review found that most studies for SCD were in professional athletes, whose hearts of course have different characteristics from those of the general population. Tests can work in different ways in different groups of people. That is why it is very important that research is gathered in a general population setting, as to base it on athletes would not provide a good indication of what would happen if we tested all young people under the age of 39.
The UK NSC was due to review SCD in 2022-23, as my hon. Friend mentioned, but has been unable to do so for a variety of reasons to do with covid and competing priorities. I am unable to confirm this evening when the regular review of SCD will take place, but I am assured that it will take place as soon as constraints allow. I will write to my hon. Friend setting out more details very shortly, because I know how urgent it is to understand when that will happen.
In 2022, the NSC’s remit was expanded to set up a research sub-group to keep abreast of ongoing research related to screening, and to identify research requirements and advice on mechanisms to address them. The committee has encouraged stakeholders to submit any peer-reviewed evidence it may have on incidence for review by the NSC via its early update process, but so far it has not received anything. My hon. Friend asked a series of detailed questions and made a series of very helpful suggestions about how we change the process. The NSC will doubtless have heard the issues that she has raised in this House, but I also undertake to raise directly with the NSC all her very constructive points.
The consensus at present has been to focus on rapid identification of sudden cardiac death and automated external defibrillator use in people who suffer a cardiac arrest, in line with the NHS long-term plan. The Government continue to encourage communities and organisations across England to consider purchasing a defibrillator as part of their first aid equipment, particularly in densely populated areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) mentioned some of the excellent work that has been done in his local area on this front. At the end of last summer, the Government announced that all state-funded schools across England will receive at least one AED on site, with more devices delivered to bigger schools, boosting their numbers in communities across the country. In December, we also announced the community defibrillator fund, which gives communities matched funding and aims to install about 1,000 more defibrillators across the country. I know that many hon. Members in this House will want to take up that offer and are spearheading work to get more AEDs out into the community.
To conclude the debate and start the process that we will be going through, I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe for raising this hugely important issue. We have heard some truly heartrending stories this evening, and I thank all those involved in The Beat Goes On and other similar organisations for their hugely important work. I promise that this issue will continue to get our utmost attention as a Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Descriptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The regulations will complete the definition of higher-risk buildings, setting which buildings will be subject to legal requirements of the new regime for building safety, which was created by the Building Safety Act 2022. They are an important part of our ongoing reforms to ensure that all residents’ homes are a place of safety.
I will start by providing some context and background to the regulations. After the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government recognised the need for an overhaul of our building safety regime. In 2017 we appointed Dame Judith Hackitt to conduct an expert review of the current regime. Her review pointed to an industry that needed significant cultural and regulatory change, and identified a range of problems with the current building and fire safety regimes. Dame Judith Hackitt recommended a new approach to managing fire and structural safety risks in high-rise residential buildings. She advised that a new strengthened regulatory regime to improve accountability, risk management and assurance for higher-risk buildings should be brought forward. We accepted her recommendations, and in April 2022 the Building Safety Act received Royal Assent.
The Act establishes a new regime, which creates stronger oversight of and clearer accountability for, and places stronger legal duties on, those who are responsible for the safety of higher-risk buildings throughout their life cycle. It also brings forward stronger enforcement and sanctions to defer and rectify non-compliance. There are two parts to the new regime. The first covers the design and construction of new higher-risk buildings and the building work to existing higher-risk buildings. I will refer to that as the design and construction part. The second part establishes a new regulatory framework when higher-risk buildings are occupied. I will refer to that as the occupation part.
The definition of a higher-risk building is set, in part, by the Act. The Act sets the height thresholds for higher-risk buildings at 18 metres or seven storeys. It also states that buildings meeting the threshold that contain two residential units are in scope of the occupation part of the new regime. The regulations build on the provisions set out in the Act, completing the definition of higher-risk building and setting out exactly which buildings will be subject to the legal requirements of the new regime that will be directly overseen by the new Building Safety Regulator.
The regulations can be considered in several parts. First, they specify that hospitals, care homes and buildings containing at least two residential units that meet the 18-metre or seven-storey threshold will fall within the scope of design and construction part of the new regime. They also specify that certain types of buildings are excluded from the new regime. Hotels, secure residential institutions such as prisons, and military premises such as barracks, are excluded from both parts of the new regime. In addition, the regulations specify that hospitals and care homes are excluded from the occupation part of the regime. All other buildings with at least two residential units that meet the height threshold set in the Act will fall within the scope of the regime.
The regulations provide definitions for care homes, hospitals and secure residential institutions, based on the definitions in existing legislation. We have set this scope, as we want to ensure that proportionate rigour is applied to buildings where the risk of fire spread or structural collapse is higher. Dame Judith recommended focusing on residential buildings, and we agree that occupied non-residential buildings are, in the main, already adequately and proportionately regulated for through other legislation. Such building types are therefore not included in the new regime. We have responded to the concerns of stakeholders regarding the design and construction of care homes and hospitals by including them in the regime, ensuring that high-rise buildings that may be occupied by those who are unable to evacuate quickly or without assistance are designed and constructed within this scope.
The regulations also provide an overall technical definition of a building for higher-risk buildings. Some buildings under the new regime will be large, complex structures with multiple parts and connections. The building definition therefore allows a building to be defined depending on its design and structure. We have adopted a broad definition in that regard, so that when a new higher-risk building is constructed, the Building Safety Regulator can consider the overall structure while it is built.
For work in existing buildings and the occupation part of the new regime, the term “building” is more narrowly defined in certain circumstances—for example, when multiple structures are joined but there is no access between them—because we believe it will be disproportionate to apply the duties and responsibilities of the occupation regime across an entire set of structures, especially when some, taken in isolation, may not meet the criteria for higher risk. This definition seeks to ensure that the requirements of the new regime are applied proportionately and to buildings that present the higher risk. We will produce detailed guidance allowing those constructing and managing buildings under the new regime to clearly understand whether they are in scope.
The regulations also set out how to measure height and storeys for higher-risk buildings. To support this, they define ground level and gallery floors. The regulations specify that height should be measured from ground level to the top of the floor surface of the top storey of the building. Similarly, storeys should be counted from ground level to the top storey of the building. In both cases, any storeys below ground level, such as underground car parks, or any area containing only rooftop machinery, can and should be ignored. We have chosen these methods because they are understood; they are existing ways of measuring within the sector and mirror a method already taken in building regulations. The two-pronged test for measuring buildings will also help to prevent the gaming of the system and ensure that the right buildings are captured. It will be clear to those constructing and managing buildings under the new regime, and will support the aim of creating a proportionate and effective system.
The regulations are important to setting up the new regime for building safety and to bringing about the lasting change that we know is needed to help people to be and to feel safe in their homes. I hope I can rely on the Committee’s support.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies.
I thank the Minister for that explanation of the purpose of the instrument before us. We welcome the introduction of the regulations, which, as the Minister has made clear, serve to complete the definition of higher-risk buildings that will need to meet the legal requirements of the new, more stringent building safety regulatory regime created by the Building Safety Act 2022, and we broadly agree with the Government’s approach. The instrument is largely uncontroversial. As such, I do not intend to detain the Committee very long, but I do want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister about regulations 7 and 8, which exclude certain types of building from the higher-risk definition.
For example, while hotels, hospitals and care homes are already regulated post occupation by virtue of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, only care homes and hospitals are subject to the design and construction requirements set out in these regulations; hotels are not. Instead they are excluded—I quote from the Department’s response to the public consultation—
“from all parts of the new regime”.
Given that concerns were raised in the consultation about the exclusion of some buildings from the completed definition, I would be grateful if the Minister would expand on why the Government believe that “temporary leisure establishments,” as they are termed, do not need to be covered by the more stringent design and construction regime.
We will continue to monitor the implementation of the new building safety arrangements, and to draw attention to our concerns about whether they will be able to function effectively and whether the new Building Safety Regulator, which the Act makes responsible for all aspects of the new framework, has what it needs to perform all the complex tasks assigned to it. For today, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response with regards to regulations 7 and 8.
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree for her questions and for confirming that the Opposition will support the regulations. We are grateful for their willingness to do so, as we collectively agree on the importance of the regulations’ progress, so that they can be operationalised and—hopefully, in time—improve the processes for the building and management of higher-risk buildings.
The hon. Lady asked specifically about inclusions and exclusions in regulations 7 and 8—an important and reasonable point. Ultimately, this is a question of proportionality, on which I recognise that different people here may have slightly different views. As the hon. Lady indicates, we did consult on the regulations, and received a variety of responses, including suggestions that the approach should be broader.
The key principle on which we have tried to build the regulations is that of the residential occupation of buildings. As hon. Members know, there are a broad variety of ways in which people live and manage the buildings in which they live. For other types of properties, where there tends to be a greater level of building management, by definition there is always likely to be somebody on site or nearby. For example, hotels will have an element of staff on site almost around the clock and there will be regular room management. Taking everything in the round, the view was that the proportionality was not there to extend the regulations to hotels at this stage. That is the core reason that there is a separate approach: there is a likelihood, in most such scenarios, that there will be more people on site and more management will be undertaken.
Within these rules—should it be appropriate; we are not proposing this now—we can in the future look at whether the proportionality is correct and whether we have got the thresholds right. There will be an opportunity for the Building Safety Regulator to propose changes and for the Government of the day to ask the regulator to look at whether changes would be proportionate, to report back, and then to come back to the House in the normal way to make those changes through secondary legislation, should that be appropriate.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation of proportionality. Is there also a cost implication?
Lee Rowley
I am not aware of a cost implication. From discussions with officials, and from working through the underlying purpose, reasons and rationale for the structure of the statutory instrument, my understanding is that it is simply a question of proportionality. It is primarily about acknowledging and recognising, as I think all hon. Members do, that hotels and properties that have the facets of hotels are operated, managed and staffed differently from residential buildings, and therefore it is proportionate to have a different approach for them.
I hope I have answered the question about definitional differences and the reasons for using one approach for some buildings and another for others. I am grateful to the Opposition for confirming their support. I hope we can make strong progress with the regulations, which set out the definitional changes necessary to build the new regulatory framework and architecture over the months ahead. Taken together, we hope they will improve safety for higher-risk and high-rise buildings over the long term in a proportionate and reasonable way that reflects and responds to what happened at Grenfell, and all the consequent discussions and debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge
Only a few days ago we heard from the BBC that in 2022 we had a record level of wind production in this country producing electricity: almost 27%, with just 1.5% from coal compared with 43% from coal in 2013.
[Official Report, 9 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 320.]
Letter of correction from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) during the statement on Non-Domestic Energy Support on 9 January 2023.
The correct statement should have been:
James Cartlidge
Only a few days ago we heard from the BBC that in 2022 we had a record level of wind production in this country producing electricity: almost 27%, with just 1.5% from coal compared with 43% from coal in 2012.
James Cartlidge
It may be that, because of the huge amount of support that has been needed by our country, particularly since the pandemic—we have seen £400 billion-worth of support, and potentially close to £100 billion on energy—a figure such as £5.5 billion does not look as large.
[Official Report, 9 January 2023, Vol. 725, c. 322.]
Letter of Correction from the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) during the statement on Non-Domestic Energy Support on 9 January 2023.
The correct statement should have been:
James Cartlidge
It may be that, because of the huge amount of support that has been needed by our country, particularly since the pandemic—we have seen £400 billion-worth of support, and potentially close to £100 billion on energy and cost of living—a figure such as £5.5 billion does not look as large.
Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill
Wednesday 1st February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 View all Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have some reminders. First, will hon. Members ensure that their phones are on silent? Any speaking notes can be emailed to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. For the benefit of any officials, do not hand the Minister any notes directly or I will have you expelled from the room.
My selection and grouping list for the sitting is available online and in the room. No amendments to the Bill have been tabled.
Clause 1
Requirements for sale of equipment
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The Bill seeks to prevent the theft of all-terrain vehicles such as quad bikes. ATVs have become all-too desirable to thieves and are largely vulnerable due to a lack of security features. An estimated 900 to 1,200 quad bikes and ATVs are stolen in England and Wales each year. I got live data yesterday from the national police lead on rural crime, Superintendent Andrew Huddleston, and we know that between 1 December last year and 30 January this year some 147 quad bikes were stolen across England and Wales, along with 248 pieces of heavy plant and other agricultural machinery. The figures are considerable.
The Bill gives my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the power to make regulations requiring immobilisers and forensic marking to be fitted to all new ATVs. An immobiliser is a device that allows a vehicle to start only if the correct key or fob is inserted. A quad bike, ATV or other vehicle fitted with an immobiliser is therefore protected against many forms of hotwiring or imitation keys from would-be thieves. Critically, forensic marking will enable police officers to identify a vehicle easily using a hand-held scanner or ultraviolet torch and to verify the true owner. Importantly, those measures make a stolen vehicle harder to sell on, which will have a deterrent effect.
Before I get to what each clause in the Bill does, I am aware of calls from colleague on both sides of the House for the measures to be extended to cover many more pieces of equipment, including power tools and other agricultural equipment. I entirely support those calls. Indeed, that is where the Bill started. However, to pre-empt any further debate on that, the Bill provides the power for the Home Secretary to extend its provisions through secondary legislation explicitly to other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on the Bill. As I have an urban constituency, I obviously do not see much theft of agricultural equipment, but many of my constituents—small traders in particular—have had machinery stolen from vans, so I agree that we should be using whatever innovations or technology are available in that area to try to protect those tradespeople from future thefts. I therefore add my voice to those encouraging the Minister to look at using the powers under the Bill for thefts from vans, sheds and other places where people try to store their important equipment, which is vital to their future prospects.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her support for the Bill, and I entirely agree with her. It is important that we prove the concept of just how effective forensic marking in particular can be and, as soon as is practically and humanly possible, get it rolled out to every piece of equipment that we see being stolen far too frequently across our country.
In my own constituency, we had a spate of break-ins to trades vans where thousands on thousands of pounds of power tools were stolen. That knocks people out from being able to work; it can be days, weeks and sometimes months before they can get back to earning their living. These tools are critical, but it is vital that we prove the concept in negotiation with industry, manufacturers, the police and bodies such as the National Farmers Union and NFU Mutual. That company insures a large proportion of the equipment in this country, starting with quads and all-terrain vehicles. I believe the explicit powers in the Bill to roll it out further at a later date through secondary legislation is the right way to go.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward such an excellent Bill. Farmers in Loughborough have explained to me the impact that the theft of their vehicles has on the farming community and business sheerly financially, as well as because they do not have those tools to work. In Loughborough, we also have Peter Booth, who set up the #noVANber campaign. As a plumber, he was sick to death of discovering that his friends were losing their tools from their vans. I urge the Minister to include that in future plans for the Bill.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. I discussed the Bill with her in some depth during its creation, and I am grateful for her input in getting it this far.
Let me briefly explain what each of the clauses is designed to do. Clause 1 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to restrict the sale of equipment where certain requirements have not been met. The requirements are set out in clause 1(3), including that the equipment is fitted with an immobiliser, a unique identifier and
“a visible indication that it is marked with a unique identifier.”
Clause 1(2)(a) defines machinery to allow the provision to cover all-terrain vehicles such as quad bikes. Clause 1(2)(b) allows regulations to specify
“other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities”—
for example, in the construction sector, or tools and equipment used by tradespeople. Clause 1(4) states that the provisions cannot relate to sales of equipment within the supply chain—for example, from a manufacturer to a trader—as the Bill is very much about the point of sale to the end user. I urge the Committee that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 provides a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify information to be recorded in connection with the sale—for example, the owner’s contact details and details of the specific forensic marking. At this point, it is important to note that there are many different types of forensic marking in the marketplace. The Bill does not seek to say one is necessarily better than the others—that is for the regulations that will be set out through secondary legislation in conjunction with negotiation with the industry. The regulations may include
“when the information must be recorded”,
how long it must be kept and what form it must be kept in. For example, the regulations may specify that the information must be held in an online database. In practice, I expect the information will be registered on the database maintained by the company whose forensic marking product has been used, rather than some form of new, national database. Clause 2(4) excludes second-hand equipment or sales within the supply chain. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 3 covers enforcement of the legislation in the event of non-compliance. Clause 3(1) creates the offence. A person commits an offence if they sell equipment in breach of the requirements imposed by the regulations made under clause 1 or clause 2.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing the Bill forward, and I am pleased to support it. I want to point out, particularly to the Minister, that while the losses that the farming community suffer are terrible, and it is awful when criminals benefit from the subsequent sale of this equipment, another dimension is its use for antisocial purposes, particularly in constituencies such as mine, where quad bikes are being used to terrorise communities. These individuals are using cycleways and cycle paths, and the police find it incredibly difficult to apprehend them, because they are really reckless in their use of these quad bikes. If, through the Bill, we can stop those individuals getting their hands on these all-terrain vehicles, it is to be welcomed, and I am happy to support it.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We work well together on the Transport Committee, and it is a pleasure to work with him on the Bill. He makes an excellent point. The immobiliser and unique key provisions in the Bill are the most critical to preventing the antisocial use of stolen quad bikes. As I said on Second Reading, at the moment it is far too common for a key for a particular manufacturer’s quad bike to be able to start all of them. If we make it far more difficult for opportunist thieves and those who wish to go joyriding in an antisocial manner to be able to start the things in the first place, it will cut down on that antisocial use.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
This is the nub of the issue, and it is why I support the Bill. I had a case in my constituency in a place called Derrykeighan—I will help Hansard with that afterwards—where two quad bikes were stolen. Because immobilisers were on the bikes, the owner and the police were able to trace them to where they were being held and retrieve his stolen property, which had been stolen to order. Other farmers in my constituency have had similar vehicles stolen without these excellent immobilisers on them and have lost their vehicles forever. This is a key aspect of the legislation and why I support it.
Greg Smith
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his support for the Bill.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman knows that I support his Bill, and I am pleased to be able to attend the Committee. I represent a city constituency, and there was a fatality in my constituency last year involving a quad bike not 50 yards from my home. I will not comment on the details, because not all the forensics have been done, but although only one person died, it could so easily have been much worse in a crowded urban environment, because it is a spot where families and others regularly pass by. Does he agree that it is important to emphasise that as well as helping to prevent theft and make theft less profitable, this legislation will also prevent antisocial behaviour and its very serious consequences?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of the Bill, and I am very sorry to hear about the fatality in his constituency. He is right that although a significant number of quad bike thefts are for resale and monetisation, some are for antisocial purposes. The thieves do not necessarily know how to ride them correctly, and these are not easy pieces of equipment to drive. It is very easy to have accidents, and therefore the antisocial and inexperienced use of them can lead to serious injury or, as in the tragic case in his constituency, the loss of life. I hope that the Bill will go some way to saving lives and preventing very preventable accidents from occurring.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being generous with his time. I echo the points that were made so eloquently by the hon. Members for Easington, for North Antrim and for Cardiff West. I represent a rural community, and this is a real menace to us. On enforcement, I really welcome the measures in the Bill that will enable trading standards and district councils to issue fines. Will he join me in encouraging trading standards and district councils to make use of those powers once they are granted to them?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has read my mind—or maybe my script—because I am coming right now to the very point of clause 3 and how the Bill will be enforced. It will be an offence to fail to install an immobiliser, forensically mark the equipment or register the relevant information on the appropriate database as will be set out. A person who commits that offence will be liable on summary conviction to a fine. The level of the fine will be specified in regulations, but it will be a level 5 fine, which is an unlimited fine.
Breach of the requirements will be enforced, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw alluded to, by a local weights and measures authority or district council under schedule 5 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Bill amends paragraph 10 of that schedule to include clause 3 of the Bill to provide trading standards officers with the necessary powers. I do not anticipate non-compliance as manufacturers and trade associations have been involved in the Bill’s development from an early stage. We have held many roundtables, including in Parliament.
I turn to clause 4. Subsection (1) provides further detail on what regulations made under the Bill may include. Such regulations may make different provisions for different purposes, which will allow for a requirement for certain equipment to be forensically marked and registered on a database while not requiring immobilisers to be fitted if they are not relevant to the equipment or not desirable. That goes beyond quad bikes and ATVs and into other equipment. Regulations made under the Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure so will be debated in each House.
Finally, clause 5 covers the Bill’s extent, commencement and short title. Subsection (1) states that the legislation extends to England and Wales. Subsection (2) provides for commencement, with the Bill coming into force six months after receiving Royal Assent and becoming an Act. However, its provisions will not commence until regulations are made through the necessary secondary legislation.
Ian Paisley
It is great to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I commend the hon. Member for Buckingham for introducing the Bill. These thefts probably affect every part of the UK. I mentioned earlier a theft in my constituency and, unfortunately, that was not a one-off but has been a feature, with crime gangs targeting and deliberately seeking to steal plant machinery and now quads and motorcycles from farmlands and farm owners as well as other private owners. It is very good to have legislation that puts the onus on both the manufacturer and a willing consumer to have his or her vehicle properly secured.
I hope that the Bill will ultimately extend to Northern Ireland and protect our farmlands and rural communities. I recently hosted a meeting with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Ulster Farmers Union and a number of rural dwellers who had suffered the scourge of these crimes, and there was a willingness in Bushmills that evening to ensure that something is done about it. Thankfully, this timely legislation touches on that and identifies the problem and a solution. I therefore commend it and will willingly support it.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of this Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who represents the constituency directly next door to mine. Our constituencies have much in common, not least beautiful countryside and excellent farmers dedicated to producing superb food and caring for our environment. Sadly, they also have in common the theft of a considerable amount of agricultural machinery, and especially quad vehicles.
I recently visited a farm near Saunderton in my constituency and was told that the theft of such machinery was undoubtedly a problem and had been for many years. In the current economic climate, theft of equipment is the last thing farmers need, not just because of the cost of replacing it but the fact that they are unable to carry out their work while they wait for new equipment, which is not always easy to replace quickly. The help that my hon. Friend’s Bill will bring will be extremely beneficial.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, for the second time in two days. I will keep this brief, but I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Buckingham on securing so much cross-party support for his private Member’s Bill and on getting it to Committee. We very much hope that the Bill will successfully play a part in clamping down on ATV and quad bike theft.
As other Members have outlined, this issue has long been prevalent in rural communities, afflicting those involved in agricultural work in particular, but as we have heard, the impact is felt in all our constituencies across the country in different ways. According to NFU Mutual, around 900 to 1,200 quad bikes are stolen every year. NFU Mutual’s most recent crime report, published in August 2022, found that rural theft had risen by 40% from the previous year, with the overall cost to the UK economy estimated at £40.5 million.
Quad bikes are predominantly manufactured by just two companies, with little technological development to the same basic key system they have had for over 35 years. I am reliably informed that it is possible to start up one of the most common makes and models of quad bike with just a screwdriver, and a quick Google search provides detailed instructions as to how to start these quad bikes without a key.
The theft of ATVs has a significant financial impact on both customers and insurers. As well as the financial impact, quad bike theft perpetuates further and wider criminal activity. On Second Reading, I spoke of a recent spate of quad bike theft-related crimes in my own constituency of Halifax. That includes their use in antisocial behaviour and vandalism. A number of hon. Members from all parties have made the point about vehicles, after their theft, being used in a variety of types of vandalism and antisocial behaviour afflicting communities, whether they are rural or urban.
As outlined, the Bill seeks to mandate the fitting of an immobiliser and forensic markings on all quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles sold in the UK. The Bill is relatively tight in scope, which is often the winning formula for a successful private Member’s Bill. However, it will also allow for the enactment of secondary legislation that could expand the Bill’s remit to cover other agricultural and construction equipment. Again, on Second Reading I spoke of the problem of theft from commercial vans—a point made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford and others. According to research carried out by Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles in 2021, 27% of van drivers had fallen victim to tool theft in the previous 12 months. The total cost of all lost tools and equipment is estimated to be about £15 million a year. Volkswagen estimates that the associated downtime for drivers who must replace those tools costs £550 a day per van.
In conclusion, we very much welcome the opportunity to support the Bill through its passage on to the statute book. We hope that it makes the difference that we would all like to see, and we very much hope that there is a further opportunity to consider and evaluate its impact with regard to what other types of kit it might be appropriate to extend these protections to.
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Let me start by expressing my very warm congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on the work that he has done in developing and bringing forward this Bill with a great deal of conscientiousness, perseverance and, most important of all, charm. That is a quality not universally present, I have to say—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] But it is certainly well represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. He has done a very good job of talking the Committee through the operative provisions of the Bill, so I do not propose to repeat what he has already said so eloquently, other than to make it clear that the Government very strongly support these measures, for the reasons that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have eloquently and powerfully set out. Clearly, agricultural communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom are affected by ATV theft, and the provisions in the Bill will help us to combat that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, the operative provisions of the Bill will be enacted via secondary legislation, so the principal thing that I would like to say is that work on preparing those regulations is happening at the moment. It is happening in parallel with the preparation of the Bill, so, as quickly as possible after commencement of the Bill, we will be able to bring forward the relevant statutory instruments to enact the provisions that we have been debating. That work is happening.
What I would mostly like to say, however, is that I have certainly heard the powerful opinions expressed on Second Reading, and again this morning in Committee, about a strong desire on both sides of the House to consider expanding the scope of the statutory instruments beyond just all-terrain vehicles to look at other agricultural equipment and also tradespeople’s tools. We have all had reports of often quite valuable tools being stolen from tradespeople’s vans. As hon. Members have said, that is not just a financial loss; it prevents tradespeople from working, sometimes for a number of days, which disrupts building projects and causes loss of earnings at a time when people obviously are struggling to make ends meet, so I am very powerfully seized of the need to look at that. I have asked Home Office officials to work on developing the statutory instruments to address it as well as doing the work on ATVs. That work is ongoing; they are doing the technical work to look at it at the moment, so I cannot make an absolute commitment that it will be done at the same time, but my starting position is that if we are going to bring forward statutory instruments under the Bill to deal with ATVs, why not do the other tools at the same time?
There may be some technical reason that I am not aware of why that is very difficult, but my starting position is that we should do both of them, or all of them, at the same time, later on this calendar year, so I will do whatever I can, as Minister, to try to make sure we do all of that. As I said, I am due to get some further advice on it, so there may be some technical elements that I am not aware of or some other arguments that get brought forward, but that is my intention, and it sounds like it has support on both sides of the House.
Kevin Brennan
It is extremely helpful that the Minister has put that on the record. However, will he confirm that if it proves that there are any technical obstacles to his being able to include that other equipment in the regulations, he will nevertheless stick to the timetable he just set and bring forward regulations on quad bikes and so on before Christmas?
Chris Philp
Yes. The intention is to do it as a minimum for ATVs. As I said, given how strong feelings are on both sides of the House, as expressed on Second Reading and in Committee this morning, I would like us to try to find a way to make it work. I know that Home Office officials are working on that at the moment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and I spoke to the police superintendent responsible for fighting crime in this area, he was also supportive of going further.
Grahame Morris
Tackling the antisocial behaviour of individuals using quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles needs enormous police resource, including specialist equipment and specially trained officers, because those involved ride them in a reckless fashion, endangering themselves and others. If, as was suggested, we can do an early intervention, that would save a great deal of police resource that could be redeployed elsewhere.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The murmurs of assent that rippled around the Committee Room as he spoke indicate that Members on both sides of the Committee agree, and so do I.
I do not want to detain the Committee any further. This is a good Bill. The clauses were eloquently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and it gives me great pleasure to add my support to that of other hon. Members.
Greg Smith
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee for their support. The last Committee I sat on was for the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which did not enjoy quite so much unanimity of belief and support. I am grateful to all Members and to the two principal parties for the cross-party support that the Bill has enjoyed.
Let me address the remarks made in the debate. I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim that we need to find a way to ensure that the Bill’s provisions can be applied in Northern Ireland, and indeed Scotland. Hopefully, the Scottish Government as well as the Executive in Northern Ireland—when it is back up and running—will look at the provisions and find a way of ensuring that they apply to the whole of our United Kingdom and not just to England and Wales.
I absolutely agree with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, as well as the many interventions on how the Bill’s scope must be extended as soon as is humanly possible. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister not only for his commitment on that but for having actively asked Home Office officials to start looking at exactly how it can be achieved. Just as the Bill will make a huge difference to farmers, landowners and those who rely on quad bikes, particularly for farming and land management, it would make a huge difference if the provisions could be extended to builders, plumbers, carpenters and all the other trades who lose so much money and time as well as often their businesses’ reputations when thieves rob them of the tools of their trade.
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. Once again, I thank not only all right hon. and hon. Members on the Committee for their support but the various bodies out there in the country including the NFU, NFU Mutual and all the manufacturers as well as the police and, in particular, Superintendent Andrew Huddleston, the Northumbria officer who is the national lead on rural crime, for everything that they have done to get the Bill to where it is. I look forward to taking it to its next stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bee-killing Pesticides
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the use of bee-killing pesticides in agriculture.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. It is good to see so many parliamentary petitions attached to this debate, showing the true breadth of concern about the health of these essential pollinators. I am grateful to all the petitioners, who share my passion for bees. I hope that the debate does their concerns justice.
Before we start, I declare an interest: my family keep bees on their farm in Cornwall, and I am a patron of Pollenize, a fantastic community interest company in Plymouth that champions pollinator conservation. I also thank Buglife, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts, Green Alliance and the all-party parliamentary groups on bees and pollinators and on the environment for their help in my preparation for the debate.
Although my remarks today will focus on bees, we should remember that moths, butterflies, wasps and beetles are also pollinators, but as I said, I will confine my remarks to bees. I bloody love bees. They might be small creatures, but a lot rests on them. Today, up to three quarters of crops globally are pollinated by bees. The decline in bee populations has led to concerns about food security as well as the impact on biodiversity and ecosystems, but just last Monday the Government issued yet another so-called emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB, which contains a bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, for the treatment of sugar beet seed for the remainder of this year. This is the third time that the Government have granted emergency permissions for that bee-killing pesticide to be used.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. The European Court of Justice, Europe’s highest court, ruled that the use of bee-killing pesticides was not acceptable, even under emergency exemptions to protect sugar beet crops, which he mentioned. France has this year decided not to grant the exemption, but the UK Government have. Does he share my concern that the Government may be allowing our environmental standards to slip?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention on a point that I will come to. We are in the middle of a climate and nature emergency; we need all our policies, not just some of them, to reflect that, and authorising the use of bee-killing pesticides is not consistent with the declaration that this House has agreed to.
In this debate, I want to do three things. First, I will argue that the decision to authorise bee-killing pesticides for 2023 was wrong and should be reversed. Bee-killing pesticides are environmental vandalism. Secondly, I want to back our British farmers, so I challenge the Government and industry to do more to help sugar beet farmers, some of whom face financial losses and real difficulties because of an aphid-spread disease, the beet yellows virus. Thirdly, I propose again that future authorisations of bee-killing pesticides be subject to a parliamentary vote, rather than being quietly snuck out by Ministers.
I do not believe that there has been an emergency three years in a row; this is a plan to allow bee-killing pesticides to be used, with authorisations given annually. I sense some déjà vu here, because this time last year, the Government authorised the use of bee-killing pesticides for 2022. I held a parliamentary debate on bee-killing pesticides in this very room a year ago and was told by the Minister at the time that the authorisation was “temporary” and “exceptional”, but here we are again. It is a new year, but the same bee-killing pesticides have been greenlighted by the Conservatives.
It is four years since this became the first Parliament in the world to declare a climate and nature emergency. I want all of us, regardless of party, to focus on nature recovery, rather than on having to prevent Ministers from issuing death warrants for bees and other pollinators. One third of the UK bee population has disappeared in the last decade, and since 1900 the UK has lost 13 out of 35 native bee species. Habitat loss, land-use changes and other human factors are partly to blame, but so is the widespread use of neonicotinoids in agriculture and across food production. We know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs authorisation of neonics will accelerate that decline.
Thiamethoxam, or TMX, has been found to reduce colony health by harming worker-bee locomotion and potentially altering the division of labour if bees move outside or remain outdoors. It can cause hyperactivity in bees and affect their ability to fly. It is not just killing bees; it is depriving bees of the ability to function. One teaspoon is powerful enough to kill 1.25 billion honey bees, according to Dave Goulson, a professor of biology at the University of Sussex, who is also an expert book writer on the subject of bees. I encourage colleagues to look him up in the Library. Indeed, the former Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), told the Commons in December 2021 that there is a
“growing weight of scientific evidence that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and other pollinators.”
Furthermore, the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), has said, “The evidence points in one direction—we must ban neonicotinoids”. It is rare that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do here, and I imagine most colleagues in the Chamber do as well. When we left the EU, the Government promised to follow the science.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
We should protect our wildlife wherever we possibly can, but I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen to the Minister on the science behind the derogation, given that East Anglia and my constituency of North Norfolk have a large and growing population farming sugar beet. We need to bring glyphosate into the argument. That is another product that we must look to ban, particularly because we know it has harmful effects for humans—it is carcinogenic—and is poor for our biodiversity. The EU is banning glyphosate later this year. What does the hon. Gentleman think about bringing the ban forward from 2025? I certainly want to hear the Minister’s response to that question. We must move to a far more natural solution than glyphosate, which is extremely harmful.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come to the science and the process for approval based on scientific decisions in a moment, so I hope he will hold his horses on that point. He makes a strong point on glyphosate. Last year, I held a roundtable with environmental charities, farming representatives and scientists, including representatives of Cancer Research UK, to consider the impact not only of neonicotinoids, but of glyphosate. There are real concerns here, and if we are to make progress in achieving a more nature-based form of agriculture relying on fewer chemicals and pesticides, we need to consider the impact of these chemicals not only on nature, but on human health.
The issue is not only food production in the UK. Now that we have signed trade deals with countries that use neonicotinoids, glyphosate and other chemicals on a greater, more industrial scale in their food production, and we allow that food to be imported to the UK, we are seeing those chemicals in the UK food chain, and we might see even more of them in future, even though we might be taking positive steps to address them. That is an important issue, and I am glad the hon. Gentleman raised it. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that point.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, as he does every year on this topic. I hope he does not have to do so next year. We are focused on agricultural use today, but there is an issue with the use of glyphosate in cities. Does he agree that we ought to create pollinator corridors in our cities and prevent the use of pesticides, so we do not damage the health of our pollinators, and that councils need to be supported to go down that route?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree. Bee corridors and pollinator corridors offer an incredible opportunity to green many of our urban environments, and provide habitats not only for bees, but for other insects. Insect health might not be the sexiest of topics, but it is essential if we are to reverse climate decline and biodiversity loss.
There are superb examples across the south-west—in Bristol and in Plymouth—of bee corridors. I encourage everyone to support their local council in establishing bee corridors, especially at the point in the year when bee corridors do not look their best and plants start to brown; that is precisely when the biodiversity boost is greatest. How can we explain that to residents?
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He has referred to the benefits of pollinator corridors, but in Torbay we have the wild flower garden, which used to be very formal planting right on the seafront. The wild flower garden was extremely popular with tourists and visitors.
Luke Pollard
It is a great loss to Government that the hon. Gentleman is no longer a Minister, but a great benefit to these debates that we have double the west country Members from Devon speaking on such matters. Wild flower meadows, however we brand them, are a really important part of restoring ecosystems. They demonstrate that the interventions needed to support biodiversity recovery are not always large or expensive. They can be in every single community where there is a patch of ground that can be planted with wild flowers, and are a good way of signalling intent, especially as regards the recovery of pollinators.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. Brighton also has lots of lovely bee-friendly verges and so forth. Are we not just asking the Government to implement their own approach? Yesterday in their environmental improvement plan, they said that they wanted to put nature friendliness at the heart of all their policies. How is that coherent with the decision taken a few days ago? If the Government want to be consistent, they need to look again at the decision on bee-killing pesticides.
Luke Pollard
That is exactly right. If we are to have a proper nature-based recovery, and if the Government are to achieve their ambitions as set out in not only the Environment Act 2021 but the associated piece of legislation that this House has passed, we need them to follow their own procedures, and I do not think that they have in relation to the authorisation. I will explain why.
When we left the European Union, the Government promised to follow the science on bee-killing pesticides. How is that going? On 6 September 2021, the right hon. and learned Member for Banbury, then a DEFRA Minister, told the Commons:
“Decisions on pesticide authorisation are based on expert assessment by the Health and Safety Executive.”
Another DEFRA Minister, Lord Goldsmith, gave the same commitment, word for word, in the Lords that month. That surely means that bee-killing pesticides will be used only when the science shows that it is safe to do so. Right? Wrong.
The Government’s own expert committee on pesticides concluded on 30 January this year, in a report that can be found on the Government’s website, that the requirements for an emergency authorisation of bee-killing pesticides had not been met. It stated:
“On the basis of the evidence presented, the Committee agreed it supports the Health and Safety Executive’s Chemical Regulation Division’s assessment that it is unable to support an emergency authorisation, as potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators outweigh the likely benefits.”
How can the decision have been made through expert assessment—on the science—as Ministers claim, if those very same experts say no to bee-killing pesticides? The decision to authorise bee-killing pesticide use is not supported by the science, the politics or the public, so why are Ministers allowing bee-killing pesticides to be used again this year?
If Ministers are serious about neonic use being temporary and exceptional, I want the Government to provide more support for sugar beet farmers, so that they can invest in other reasonable control measures, such as the greater use of integrated pest management. I back our British farmers, and I know my colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), will say something similar. They have had enormous upheaval over the past few years. The withdrawal from the European Union, the change in subsidy regimes, and the fact that it is now harder to export have hit our farmers hard, so we need to find support for them. While critiquing the Government’s authorisation of bee-killing pesticides, I want to lend my support to those beet farmers, who, I recognise, face financial hardship if there is an aphid-spread infection in their crops.
How is best practice on crop hygiene, establishment and monitoring being shared with beet farmers? What investment are the Government making in the development of pest-resistant varieties of sugar beet and other crops? Why did Ministers previously say that the use of bee-killing pesticides would be temporary as new crop varieties would be coming up? What steps is the Minister taking to encourage industry to pay its fair share of the cost of transitioning away from neonic use? Sugar is big business and it is a high-value crop. We have heard before of funds designed to help farmers affected by aphid crop loss, so why grant authorisation again now if there are resources available for the farmers who are suffering from it?
The public will find it hard to believe that this granulated money-making machine is unable to give the sugar beet farmers that it relies on a fairer deal, so as to help them with crop failures, and so that they can develop a robust system of integrated pest management. It is welcome, and perhaps slightly curious, that although DEFRA last week gave a green light to the use of bee-killing pesticides, it simultaneously announced a new subsidy for farmers—the sustainable farming incentive—to encourage them not to use bee-killing pesticides. There is an easier way of preventing the use of bee-killing pesticides: instead of paying farmers not to use them, we could ban them, as Ministers promised to do, as we should be doing, and as other nations are doing.
I think we have stumbled on a new political truth: as long as the Conservatives are in power, whatever the science and their approval process says, they will approve the use of bee-killing pesticides. I challenge the Minister to prove me wrong on that. I did so last year in this very Chamber, and here we are again; bee-killing pesticides have again been authorised for use. More bees will die, and I predict we will be here again in 2024 unless Ministers have a change of heart. Each and every year until we get rid of that political truth, more bees will die. This is not temporary or exceptional; it is now a firmly established annual authorisation of bee-killing pesticides. This is my challenge to Ministers: prove me wrong by not authorising them next year.
Ministers need to provide more evidence of the impacts to inform the science. The reports from the Health and Safety Executive and the Government’s own pesticides committee—the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides— highlight a number of science holes in the evidence that they require in order to understand the impact of this authorisation on bees. Will the Minister respond to that?
Will the Minister report how much of the sustainable farming incentive has been used to lower the use of neonicotinoids? Will he ensure that there is not only catchment area science for any use of neonicotinoids, but field-edge studies for every field they are used in? At the moment, the evidence relates to selected fields and catchment areas, which are often too large. Will he ensure that there are catchment and field-edge water studies for every field that neonics are used in? Will he ensure that the cost of science is billed directly to any farmer using Cruiser SB, so that the taxpayer does not lose out?
The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides said that it would be beneficial to have an assessment of the quantity of active substances deployed in the environment as part of the suite of information used to determine whether the benefits of insecticide use outweigh the environmental risks. Will the Minister agree to do that?
Margaret Ferrier
The economic value of pollination to UK crop production is approximately £500 million a year. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the use of these toxic pesticides is short-sighted, particularly as bee numbers rapidly decline?
Luke Pollard
The use of bee-killing pesticides is short-sighted. It is designed to be a quick fix to help farmers who are in a real pickle. I do not doubt the seriousness of the problem, but the longer bee-killing pesticides are authorised annually, the easier it will be to authorise them annually for evermore, and the easier it will be to extend their use to other crops, because the precedent has been set. That is why this House must be firm that bee-killing pesticides should not be used and should be banned.
I would also like the Minister to look at the datasets available for the monitoring of the use of Cruiser SB. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticides highlighted that it can see evidence and data only from selected months, not for the whole year. Will he commit to providing data for the whole year to the experts scrutinising this policy? Will he update the House on the development of alternative resistant varieties of crops before any future authorisations are made?
Will the Minister publish in written form whether the Conservative party has received any donations from sugar companies that want to use Cruiser SB? I do not believe the accusation sometimes levelled at Ministers that there is a link between this decision and donations, but the accusation is made in debate on the subject, and the matter would benefit from the full glare of public scrutiny.
I do not want bee-killing pesticides to be used. I do not think they carry public support or confidence, and I want the Minister to explain why he has overruled the scientific bodies that the Government previously relied on for the rigour and relevance of their evidence on the use of bee-killing pesticides. The gap between green rhetoric and green delivery is now a gaping chasm when it comes to bee health.
My final ask is for a parliamentary vote on the use of bee-killing pesticides. I believe the Government do not have the public support for bee-killing pesticides. The majority of beekeepers and farmers, and all MPs, want greater scrutiny of that decision. My proposal to the Minister is that future authorisations of bee-killing pesticides should be subject to a parliamentary vote, in which MPs should have the genuine opportunity to weigh up the pros and cons of using neonicotinoids. If the Government want to continue the use of neonicotinoids—I believe that Ministers have now set out an automatic annual approval process—we need to make it politically impossible for that to happen without Parliament approving it.
Last year, I warned Ministers that, just as decisions to approve bee-killing pesticides are annual, this debate will also be annual. This is now the annual bee debate; it might not always be called by me but, as long we have Ministers in power who believe that bee-killing pesticides have a place in agriculture, it must be part of the annual political calendar, and it must be a day of shame for Ministers who authorise bee-killing pesticides.
MPs from all parties have received correspondence from constituents, asking them to speak in this debate. Lots of colleagues in all parties wanted to speak but are unable to be here. The message about saving bees is cross-party, and it needs to be one that the Government hear loud and clear.
If we are to tackle the climate and ecological emergency, we need more than words—we need action. We need an annual moment of action: a vote to determine whether bee-killing pesticides can and should be used. If we do not have that, it will make securing a net zero, nature-positive future so much harder. Bee health is non-negotiable; our planet depends on it. We must ban the use of bee- killing pesticides.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on—once again—securing this important debate, having also secured last year’s Westminster Hall debate on neonicotinoids in response to the Government’s previous so-called emergency authorisation.
I am deeply sorry that we keep needing to have this debate, particularly when the Government’s rhetoric should mean that greenlighting highly toxic pesticides is unthinkable. Yesterday the Government published their environmental improvement plan, which aims to provide
“a comprehensive delivery plan for the Government’s approach to halting and then reversing the decline in nature.”
That goal is very welcome and should align domestic policy with a commitment in the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, agreed by almost 200 countries in December. However, it is in precisely that context that last week’s decision on neonics is so utterly incoherent and inconsistent.
Sadly, this is not an isolated case of Ministers failing to live up to their own greenwash. Just last month, the Office for Environmental Protection reported that not one of the 23 environmental targets examined was on track to be achieved, and 14 were clearly off-track. We also have the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill risks, under which we risk scrapping a staggering 1,700 environmental regulations overnight—vital laws that cover areas such as pesticides, food, nature, air and water quality, to name just a few.
Now we have the so-called emergency approval in England of this banned pesticide—a type of neonicotinoid —for the third year in a row. It is a poison so powerful that some have said that a single teaspoon is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. It has been said that neonics affect the central nervous system of insects and bees’ ability to forage and navigate. A recent study showed that just one exposure could affect a bee’s ability to reproduce in future years.
Nature’s decline is no more alarming than when it comes to insects. As we have heard, the UK has lost half its insects in the past 50 years alone. I say “lost” but I do not like that word, because we have not lost them; we have destroyed them—let us face up to what is going on here. More than 40% of the earth’s remaining 5 million insect species are now threatened with extinction. The loss of these vital pollinators is truly terrifying to comprehend. It raises the question of how on earth the Government can say in one breath that they are halting—let alone reversing—biodiversity loss, when they are also pursuing such wanton destruction.
Of course, it is particularly alarming that this approval comes, once again, against the advice of the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides, which maintains that the risk to bees and other pollinators did not warrant the authorisation. As we have heard, the committee said:
“the requirements for emergency authorisation have not been met”.
It could not be much clearer. The approval is also contrary to guidance, which is clear that emergency applications should not be granted more than once—the clue is in the name.
The Minister may attempt to argue that sugar beet does not flower, so there is no risk to bees, but that is plainly false. Neonics were banned for use on flowering crops in 2013, but were also banned for use on non-flowering crops such as sugar beet in 2018, when it became clear that their use was contaminating soils, streams and hedgerow wildflowers and, by extension, affecting bees. Flowering so-called “weeds” also grow in fields that attract bees, not just in the current year but in subsequent years, when neonicotinoids are still present in the soil.
I remind colleagues of the findings of the Environmental Audit Committee report on pollinators and pesticides from 10 years ago. I sat on that Committee and was involved in taking the evidence that went into the report. I particularly recall this recommendation:
“Defra policy on pesticides must be evidence-based. Where the available scientific evidence is either incomplete or contradictory, Defra must apply the precautionary principle.”
Actually, I would argue that the evidence here is not incomplete or contradictory. Even if it were, DEFRA should apply the precautionary principle, but I think we can all agree that that the precautionary principle has been chucked out of the window when it comes to this decision and many others. So I ask the Minister quite simply: what is the point of the environmental principles policy statement, which was published just yesterday, if environmental principles are not applied in practice? I urge him to look again at this decision.
Before we left the EU, Ministers waxed lyrical about a green Brexit. The Minister is no doubt aware—and we have heard this from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier)—that the European Court of Justice ruled on 19 January that emergency derogations for neonics are illegal, so the rest of Europe will not be using these bee-killing chemicals. Is that what the Government mean by the so-called opportunities that Brexit provides? Will he now reassure me that the existing restrictions on neonics and other harmful pesticides will be maintained as part of the Government’s review of retained EU law? They very clearly must be.
In conclusion, I want to probe the Minister on long-term solutions. As is patently clear, when we are the midst of a nature emergency, so-called emergency approvals of neonics every year are inappropriate and unsustainable, and they have to stop. We need an approach that safeguards both food production and biodiversity for the future. These things are not separate; they are intimately connected and dependent one on the other.
I welcome the inclusion of integrated pest management in the new sustainable farming incentive, with payments for insecticide-free farming. However, I am concerned that it could just end up being a tick-box exercise, where farmers complete an IPM assessment and produce a plan but are under no obligation to take practical action. Will the Minister commit to remedying that issue, too?
We need a much more concerted move towards IPM, where we use chemical pesticides only ever as a last resort, if at all, rather than continuing our current reliance on banned neonics. Will the Minister therefore commit to further support for IPM? Will he explain what alternatives are being trialled to prevent emergency authorisations in the future? And will the Government bring forward more investment in farmer-led research, practical advice and peer-to-peer learning?
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this really important debate and on his excellent speech.
As we know, last week the Government yet again approved an emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB, which contains a neonicotinoid, on this year’s sugar beet crop. That is despite the Health and Safety Executive saying that the risks posed to bees foraging on the pollen and nectar from flowering crops planted in fields of treated sugar beet posed “a potential concern”. Furthermore, the independent UK Expert Committee on Pesticides has said:
“In light of the risk assessment conducted, a reduction in survival of honey bees and impacts on homing flight ability (which also influences survival of foragers) could occur.”
The Government are ignoring the advice of their own experts, and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us why.
It was the same last year when the Government granted authorisation for Cruiser SB, and a number of constituents who have written to me with their concerns were keen to point that out. Wirral West residents who have been in contact with me have also highlighted that this latest move is completely at odds with the pesticide reduction targets the UK advocated less than two months ago at COP15, which aim to reduce by half the overall risk posed by pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by 2030. The Minister has even accepted that there is a degree of uncertainty as to the benefits of using Cruiser SB to address the identified danger to sugar beet production, and that there is a degree of uncertainty in relation to the risk to bees.
It is no surprise, then, that Friends of the Earth has described the decision as “incredibly brazen”. It has rightly pointed out that the
“health of us all and the planet depends on”
the survival of bees and other vital pollinators. Just last month, a scientific study estimated that the sharp decline in the populations of many pollinators is already causing about 500,000 early deaths a year by reducing the supply of healthy foods. That is extremely concerning. As the Pesticide Collaboration points out, even minor traces of toxic neonicotinoids “play havoc” with the ability of bees to forage, navigate and reproduce, which has “catastrophic consequences” for the survival of their colony or populations. Its statement continues:
“A recent study showed that even one exposure of a neonicotinoid insecticide had significant impacts on their ability to produce offspring in future years.”
Just one teaspoon is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. It is even more concerning, therefore, that even with that knowledge the Government have gone against the advice of their own experts. Will the Minister set out what alternatives were considered before the decision to approve the use of Cruiser SB?
I praise the fantastic work done by all those involved with Flourish at Ford Way community garden project in Upton, in Wirral West. They keep hives that produce delicious honey, and all their gardening is done in a bee-friendly way. I thoroughly enjoyed a recent visit, when I was fortunate enough to witness at first hand how the beekeepers work with the bees and maintain the hives, and I gained an insight into the overall process of how they produce the honey. Flourish has been working with a local Upton women’s group, which has been using Flourish’s polytunnels to grow plants and flowers that are then placed in the village centre in Upton; bees visit those flowers to collect nectar and pollen, which they use as food for themselves and their larvae. When they move from flower to flower, they transfer pollen, which helps plants to grow, breed and produce food, thus keeping the cycle going. That is a great example of two groups coming together in Wirral West in a responsible way to benefit the local community and our environment.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing the debate. We all agree that bees are vital for the ecosystem. Bees have been the symbol of our city, Manchester, for 150 years. We have beehives all around the city, including at our cathedral, Manchester Art Gallery, homes and lots of other places, and they play their part in encouraging pollination. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) agree that supporting bees and pollinators in urban areas is also important in providing locally sourced food?
Margaret Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. He is absolutely right that it is important to encourage urban bees, but he also reminds us of the historic role and ancient history of beekeeping, which I discussed with the beekeepers in my constituency. It is important that we keep that in mind.
Finally, the Government should listen to the advice of their own experts and think again about their decision to authorise the use of neonicotinoids, which are so harmful to bees. I support the ban.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this important debate—my first in Westminster Hall.
As Members on both sides of the Chamber have mentioned, it is well known that neonicotinoid pesticides can be very harmful to a wide range of insects and invertebrates, including, of course, our beloved bees. They are essential to the future of our planet, to the pollination of our crops and to our rich tapestry of biodiversity, yet in the UK, as we have heard, 13 bee species are extinct and one in 10 of Europe’s wild bee species are under threat.
The Government’s announcement of an exemption to the ban on neonicotinoids to treat sugar beet in England was ill-judged and wrong. I am concerned that the Government went against the advice of their own expert scientific advisers. Our understanding is that the use of neonicotinoids is mainly associated with sugar beet production in the east of England, but it is important to note that the chemicals can be washed into watercourses and can work their way into the food chain. As with most things in nature, there are always the ripple effects of consequences, chain reactions and things interlinked with one another. There is also a serious concern that the exemption for sugar beets will simply open the floodgate to the wider use of harmful pesticides.
Neonics can have consequences well beyond their site of application and, if used more widely, can put in danger vital efforts to recover threatened native species, including in my own constituency, where Chester Zoo is working hard with partners to create new habitats that encourage bees and other pollinators as part of its nature-recovery corridor in Cheshire. Similarly, the impact would be felt across the north-west region, where the zoo is assisting with the introduction of locally extinct species, such as the large heath butterfly.
I back our farmers, and I am concerned that sugar beet farmers are experiencing a difficult time. However, lifting the ban is not the answer. We must find a science-led way forward that protects our bees and safeguards our future biodiversity, but that also includes better support for the farming sector. In the middle of a climate and nature emergency, there should not be any ifs or buts when it comes to the health of bees. We must be prepared to make tough calls to address the ecological crisis and showcase environmental best practice, rather than allowing more bees and pollinators to be killed by neonics.
I lend my support to the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport for parliamentary approval for any future use of bee-killing pesticides. Will the Minister comment on the impact the exemptions to the ban have had since its introduction and on the expected impact in the next few years? More importantly, will he admit that any lifting of the ban is a huge mistake and that the use of such harmful pesticides should be banned for good, especially in the light of the environmental challenges we face?
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am pleased to participate in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for comprehensively setting out the issue before us—the use of bee-killing pesticides in our agriculture.
The issue matters very much to my constituents, and I know it matters to constituents across the UK, because we all receive large amounts of correspondence about it. The reason for that concern is that bees play a crucial part in our ecosystem; we must do all we can to protect them from the detrimental impacts of environmental alterations and climate change.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature list shows that as many as 24% of Europe’s bumble bee species are now threatened with extinction, despite being worth a staggering £690 million per year to the UK economy. Bees are vital to our agriculture. One out of every three mouthfuls of food we eat exists because of pollination. Bees pollinate an array of crops, including apples, peas, courgettes, pumpkins, tomatoes, strawberries and raspberries. If we lose bees and other pollinators, growing many types of food would be extremely challenging. Our diets would suffer tremendously. The variety of food available would diminish and the cost of certain products would surge. Many argue that pollination provides one of the clearest examples of how our disregard for the health of the environment threatens our very survival.
Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 species of bee, and a further 35 are considered to be under threat of extinction, not least because of toxic pesticides, which we are talking about today, and climate change. No species of bee is protected by law. The contribution of honey bees to nature and food products is significant. As we have heard from a number of Members, up to three quarters of crop species are pollinated by bees and other pollinators, so bees are the ultimate symbol of a healthy environment in terms of our climate, our food security and our natural world. Bees could not be a more important factor in those areas.
When we look at what is happening in Scotland and what is happening in England, this is again a tale of two Governments. The Scottish Government launched its “Pollinator Strategy for Scotland 2017-2027” to make Scotland a more pollinator-friendly and sustainable place by protecting indigenous bee and butterfly populations. The strategy sets out how to make Scotland a place where pollinators can thrive and how those objectives can be achieved. Importantly, it raises public awareness about the value of Scotland’s pollinating insects and the regulation of non-native species.
While that is going on, we have a UK Government who, as we have heard today, have no real sense of urgency about this important matter. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport pointed out that the UK Government have retained the pesticide, along with other neonicotinoids, banned in the EU in 2013, using the EU temporary emergency exemption. Measures in the EU to protect pollinators, including bees, are in place, but the UK opted out of them. I echo the point made by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who is no longer in his place, about the impact of glyphosate and the need to address that issue.
For the third year in a row, the Government have authorised the continued use of thiamethoxam—I hope I pronounced that properly. The European Court has ruled against its emergency use, because it is known to be lethal to bees, wasps and other pollinators. It poses a danger not just to wild bee colonies, but to humans, as it is linked to a wide range of health challenges.
It was not so long ago that the former Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), declared:
“We cannot afford to put our pollinator populations at risk”—
yet here we are. Members have reminded us that one teaspoon of pesticide is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. The sensible way forward, in the face of the facts that we have heard today, is surely a total ban on bee-killing pesticides.
Many people, including SNP Members, encouraged the UK Government to make the Environment Act 2021 stronger by following Scotland’s example in areas such as air pollution, outlawing harmful pesticides and independent oversight of environmental protection, but sadly, that was to no avail. The reality is that legal requirements set out in the Act to halt species decline by 2030 will be as written on water if the UK Government do not step up and protect England’s natural environment and preserve its biodiversity. This matters very much in Scotland, even though it is a matter for the UK Government, because bees do not recognise borders, so bees across the rest of the UK are potentially harmed by what is going on.
Patricia Gibson
I will just finish this point. It is important that the Government prioritise the environment and protect farmers in international deals, because improving trade is one thing, but our natural environment must not be jeopardised by poisonous chemicals that result in the death of invaluable pollinators. There must be no regression on environmental standards and protections. I urge the Minister to follow the direction and example of both the Scottish Government and the EU in banning pesticides and protecting pollinators. During the Brexit debate, many of us warned of a divergence in standards between the UK and the EU over time, leading to—as everybody feared—the lowering of standards in the UK over a range of areas. We were told that that would not happen, that it was nonsense and that the UK would be liberated to make even greater progress, but today we see our fears about protecting bees coming true.
Margaret Ferrier
As the hon. Member mentioned, we have some good initiatives in Scotland for bee protection, such as the Cambuslang apiary project in my constituency. Does she agree that the project does incredible conservation work for bee pollination and populations?
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. Local initiatives like that must be applauded and supported, but we need a lead from the UK Government on the level of pesticides and pesticide use, so that we can support the very important work that bees do on our behalf, which many of us probably take for granted.
That brings me beautifully to my next point because, although many of us might take the work that bees do for granted, we have to remember the impact that they have on our crop production. We do not want to find ourselves in future in the same position as some fruit farmers in China, where wild bees have been eradicated by excessive pesticide use and the lack of natural habitats. That has forced farmers to hand-pollinate their trees, carrying pots and paintbrushes to individually pollinate every flower. It is simply not possible to hand-pollinate every crop that we want, but it shows the kind of nightmare scenario that we could end up in, and the impact that that would have on the food that we eat and on our survival.
This issue becomes more pressing with every passing day, as our bee numbers continue to diminish. I hope, when the Minister gets to his feet, that he will agree that it is indeed time for his Government to get busy and start saving bees, and to ban noenicitinoid pesticides before it is too late. As he has heard today, his Government need to follow the signs and remember bees and the Government’s environment improvement plan. Let me end by saying: the Government need to get themselves into a hive of activity and save our bees.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I am grateful, as ever, to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for securing yet another debate on this important topic, and for drawing attention to the attached petitions. As ever, his introduction was full and thorough, and I will echo many of his points.
I commend other Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) hit the nail on the head in highlighting the contradiction between this decision and the Government’s wider aspirations. I very much enjoyed the account from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) on the work done by Flourish, as well as hearing about the urban bee corridors that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport mentioned. A lot is being done on that in many places, including in my city of Cambridge, where Cambridge City Council is doing important work on it.
I was very pleased to hear the first Westminster Hall contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon). I must tell her that this is not an entirely typical Westminster Hall debate, because we did not hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I am sure that he will not mind me saying that—but we normally do. My hon. Friend made important points about run-off, which must be taken seriously.
So here we are again, Minister—last week, he was a great advocate of following scientific advice, but this week, it is all different. As many here have pointed out, the Government’s decision to issue an emergency authorisation to allow for the use of Cruiser SB—which contains thiamethoxam, a type of neonicotinoid—on sugar beet goes against the advice from the Government’s expert committee on pesticides and the Health and Safety Executive.
While the UK Government turn against the science, it is ironic that that comes just days after the European Court of Justice ruled that authorising derogations for the use of banned neonicotinoids was prohibited, stopping further applications for emergency use. That means that we are now an outrider, with lower standards than our neighbours. That is not a place that we should be, and it is not a place that Labour would be, because, for us, pollinator health is not negotiable. I said that last year and the year before, and it was as true then as it is now.
People will look back and ask why on earth this Conservative Government were so slow to act on the damage that is being done. Never mind worthy targets, never mind environmental improvement plans—this decision has been taken here and now. The attack on nature continues for as long as the Conservatives remain in power.
This is a long-standing debate and, as colleagues have pointed out, the Government have ignored the advice of the panel for three years in a row—they have ignored the science and the advice of the expert committee for three years. We have heard the advice, but I will repeat it: the committee advised against authorising a derogation on Cruiser SB because
“potential adverse effects to honeybees and other pollinators outweigh the likely benefits.”
Last week, the Minister said that he believed in science and supported the work of experts, but now that advice is being ignored. I simply ask: why, Minister? I suspect that part of his answer may be the rules that go alongside the use of the Cruiser SB neonicotinoid-treated seeds. A period of time has been specified that must elapse before flowering crops can be planted in the same field. Herbicides must also be used to remove weeds in the field to reduce the exposure of pollinators to insecticides—I am afraid that that provision also adversely impacts pollinators through the reduction of available flowers, but we understand the goal to reduce overall potential risk.
It will probably be said that the threshold that will allow for its use has been increased this year, from 19% to 63%.We all hope that that threshold will not be reached—it was not the year before last. The truth is, however, that we genuinely do not know whether that will happen or not; it will depend on the weather.
But we do know for sure that neonicotinoids are extremely harmful to the environment. They affect the nervous system of bees and other insects, leading to their death. I cannot resist repeating what everyone else has said about the 1.25 billion honeybees that can potentially be killed by one teaspoon of the chemical. We all know how critical bees are for pollinating crops. As the brief provided by the all-party parliamentary group on the environment pointed out, wild bees are responsible for pollinating between 85% and 95% of the UK’s insect-pollinated crops. We also know that run-off into waterways and leaching into the soil and nearby wildflowers is a real threat, as the Bumblebee Conservation Trust highlighted in its brief on the impact not just on bumblebees, but on other animals and aquatic life.
We also understand the wider context, which is very difficult. Virus yellow is a cause of significant yield losses. The National Farmers Union reports that, for some, it is up to 50%. The most complex and serious is that spread by the peach potato aphid, and it is hard to control. In 2020, the sector lost 40% of the national sugar beet crop, bringing down the five-year average yield by 25%.
Frankly, the weather over the past few months has been really difficult. We all remember the searing heat from last summer—the drought—that hit particularly hard in key beet areas along the A14 and around Bury St Edmunds. And then, just before Christmas, there was a very harsh frost followed immediately by a big temperature rise, resulting in a rapid, rotting thaw. It has been really difficult, and that has been added to by a new pest, the beet moth, which seems to be attracted from Europe by the warmer temperatures here.
The overall result is that we are short of beet sugar this year, with beet having to be imported by the processor. That is tough on the growers, tough on the processor and adds more costs up the supply chain. With beet becoming a less attractive prospect to many growers, British Sugar already had to pay more to encourage people back into production. None of that is easy, and there are consequences and costs to any decision. I appreciate that, for farmers, it too often feels as though the tools that they need for the job are being systematically taken away. That is very difficult, because nature does not compromise.
We have to look at alternatives, as British Sugar and the NFU acknowledge in their helpful briefings. There are high hopes for varieties resistant to virus yellows and there is potential for the use of gene editing to secure that resistance. I hope that the Government follow our advice on the regulatory structures needed to make that happen. I am told that there is already a variety resistant to two virus yellow strains, but it is expensive and there is a yield penalty. I am also told that yield protection insurance is available, but again, that incurs more costs. Those are difficult decisions.
There are things that we can do, some of which have been outlined by other Members. We can develop non-chemical approaches, such as boosting beneficial insects, cover crops, better rotation and maintaining good farm hygiene. There is evidence that some farms have had success by adopting such measures. We should move much more quickly on adopting integrated pest-management systems. Ironically, as has been explained, that was part of the sustainable farming incentive package that the Government announced last week, and we welcome that. So I say to the Minister: be bold on that, listen to the scientists and get away from falling back on neonicotinoids, which we know do so much harm.
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this debate, and I welcome the hon. Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon) to her first Westminster Hall debate. I also thank all Members who have made a contribution today.
The decision to grant the emergency authorisation has not been taken lightly and is based on robust assessment of the environmental and economic risks and benefits. Emerging sugar beet seedlings and young plants are vulnerable to feeding by aphids. Those transmit several viruses, known collectively as virus yellows, which lead to reduced beet size, lower sugar content and higher impurities. Overall sugar beet yield can be reduced by up to 50% by the viruses.
We withdrew authorisation for use of pesticide products containing the three neonicotinoids on outdoor crops in 2018, in line with the EU decision. Since then, sugar beet growers have been adjusting to new conditions. In 2019 and in 2021, the virus threat was low and the crop was not significantly impacted. However, 2020 saw severe damage, with up to 24% of the national crop being lost. Imports were needed to enable British Sugar to honour its contracts.
The emergency authorisation has been issued with a strict threshold for use, so that Cruiser SB will be used only if there is a likely danger to the sugar beet crop. This year, the threshold has been set at a predicted virus incidence of 63% or above, as forecast by an independent model developed by Rothamsted Research. That increase reflects our improving understanding of the fit between the model used to predict virus incidence and real-world outcomes, and it means that the product is less likely to be used. The aim of the threshold is to ensure that Cruiser SB is used only if there is a likely danger to the sugar beet crop.
The forecast will be made on 1 March this year. It is only then that we will know for certain whether the seed treatment will be used this year. In 2021, the model predicted that the virus level would not meet the threshold, so the seed treatment was not used.
Samantha Dixon
On 1 March, will the decision be the Minister’s or will it rest with others, and if so, who?
Mark Spencer
The decision will not be made by Ministers; the decision will be set by a threshold. Rothamsted Research has set that threshold and that model, and it will take into account weather patterns and levels of aphids and virus within the environment. The decision will be made based on that model, so I will not be involved in that decision, nor will any other Minister.
Members will be aware of the strict conditions of use that have been set as requirements for emergency authorisation. If that threshold is met and if neonicotinoid- treated seeds are planted, conditions will be put in place to mitigate risk to the environment, including to pollinators. The conditions include the prohibition of any crop that flowers before harvest being planted in the same field within 32 months of a treated sugar beet crop and compliance with a stewardship scheme, which requires monitoring to be performed to determine the levels of neonicotinoids in the environment. Full details of the key conditions of use have been published on gov.uk.
Daniel Zeichner
Will the Minister tell us whether there has been any assessment of the success of the mitigation measures adopted in previous years?
Mark Spencer
We take into account all of that data when making these decisions. We take the best advice from the best scientists and make these decisions on their advice. My decision was informed by the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and by the views of the UK expert committee on pesticides and DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser on the scientific evidence. I also considered economic issues, informed by analysis from DEFRA economists.
Looking to the future, we do not wish to see the temporary use of neonicotinoids continue indefinitely. The development of alternative and sustainable approaches to protect sugar beet crops from these viruses is paramount. That includes the development of resistant plant varieties, measures to improve crop hygiene and husbandry, and alternative pesticides. British Sugar and the British Beet Research Organisation are undertaking a programme of work to develop these alternatives, which include yellows virus-specific integrated pest management techniques. The Government are closely monitoring the progress of that.
Caroline Lucas
The Minister will know that, since 1970, the UK has lost 50% or more of our insects. Whatever he is saying to us this morning, I do not think he is saying that risk is completely absent; he is balancing risks. Where does the precautionary principle come into his analysis and assessment, given that the risks that we face are so huge? Even if he thinks that the risk is small, none the less, if it happens and there is yet more of a collapse of our bee populations, we are in deep trouble.
Mark Spencer
That is one of the reasons why we have introduced the new environmental land management schemes, whose purpose is to change the way farmers grow crops and make them adopt those practices. We recognise how important bees are, and we want to work with farmers to improve the conditions for pollinators. We want to work with nature, rather than against it.
As hon. Members know, we continue our work on the agricultural transition, and we are repurposing the land-based subsidies we inherited from the EU. The hon. Lady makes the point that they did little for the environment and little for farmers. We will now have a new, ambitious system that rewards farmers and land managers for their role as environmental stewards, and that starts with the sustainable farming incentive.
Caroline Lucas
Will the Minister specifically address the precautionary principle? How did he apply it to the decision he made?
Mark Spencer
We have to balance all those factors and all the scientific advice, including the precautionary principle, in coming to this decision. It is not an easy decision to make. We have to consider lots of scientific advice on the risk to pollinators and to the sugar beet crop.
We have just published our indicative plan for the roll-out of the sustainable farming incentive standards, which includes the introduction of paid integrated pest management actions. That includes paying farmers to carry out an assessment and produce an integrated pest management plan; introduce natural methods of pest management, such as flower-rich grass margins or field strips, or companion cropping; and take steps to move towards insecticide-free farming. That will support farmers to minimise the use of pesticides and will incentivise the uptake of alternative ways to control pests.
Integrated pest management is at the heart of our approach to support farmers to practise sustainable pest management. We have already commissioned a package of research projects that will enable farmers to access the most effective IPM tools available, and ensure that we understand changing trends in pest threats across the UK.
As I have outlined, the decision to allow the limited and controlled use of neonicotinoids on a single crop has not been taken lightly and is based on robust scientific assessment. We will continue to work hard to support our farmers and protect and restore our vital pollinator populations.
Luke Pollard
It is great that so many Members contributed to this debate and shared concerns about the Government’s approval of Cruiser SB. I have to say I am a little disappointed that the Minister managed to avoid answering nearly every question posed to him. He did not say why he ignored the science in approving Cruiser SB. He did not say how he applied the precautionary principle to his decision. He did not answer any of the questions I posed to him about the science relating to field edge margins and catchment areas, and nor did he address the concerns about run-off raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Samantha Dixon).
I say gently and politely to the Minister that this problem and this scrutiny are not going away. Bee-killing pesticides are wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, the time is running out for the Government to do the right thing before the next Labour Government do the right thing and ban bee-killing pesticides.
I say to the Minister politely that I do not think he has made a very good case for the Government’s approval of bee-killing pesticides, but there is still a chance to put a letter in the House of Commons Library setting out why the decision was taken, why the science was ignored and, importantly, how the standards and principles set out in the legislation that his own Department passed in recent months apply to the decision. Why bee-killing pesticides have been authorised in the way they have been is incomprehensible, given the body of legislation, the documents published by DEFRA and the huge number of press releases issued by his Department talking about a nature-based recovery and nature-based solutions, which stand in stark contrast to the decision.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I think we have started an annual bee debate. I really hope that, this time next year, we will be able to talk about the other issues affecting pollinator health, such as the neonicotinoids in flea treatments for cats and dogs that pollute 99% of English rivers, rather than talking about a decision by Ministers to authorise yet again what seems like an annual and automatic approval for Cruiser SB in the face of Government advice that says they should not do that, public support for not doing that and political opposition to the decision. I really hope we will see better from the Government over the coming 12 months.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the use of bee-killing pesticides in agriculture.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Diagnosis
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis waiting times.
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, and an honour to open this debate to recognise the importance of early diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and to draw attention to the current severe delay in the diagnosis of it.
An early diagnosis of ADHD will have a significant impact on an individual’s life: on their development, self-confidence and self-awareness, and their physical and mental wellbeing. For someone with ADHD, a diagnosis can help them understand why they are struggling with life. It allows them to understand their impulsivity, hyperactivity, inattention and sensitivity to the simplest distractions, even to everyday noises.
Instead of having a life in which they feel lost and alone, they can find and understand themselves, and gain a feeling of belonging and control. It is believed that one in 20 adults in the UK has ADHD, according to ADHD Foundation, but only 120,000 have had a formal diagnosis. The charity says that that is because of a combination of poor understanding of the condition, stigma and delays in diagnosis.
Diagnosis is essential, especially when there is an identifiable link between ADHD and suicide: one in 10 boys and one in four girls who have ADHD attempt to take their own life. Early diagnosis can prevent those tragedies and offer an answer to those suffering from the condition.
Today’s debate has come about because of the tenacity of a constituent of mine, Tanya Bardsley. She has been open about the amount of pain ADHD has caused her, her difficulty getting the condition diagnosed and, in particular, the added difficulty for girls and women in being diagnosed. She allowed herself to be filmed last year, and shared that in an ITV documentary, “Me and ADHD”.
Today, Tanya is a very accomplished woman. She runs four businesses, a charity and a household, as well as being a mum and a wife. But it took her almost 40 years to understand her anxiety, depression and impulsivity. In fact, it took her to almost six weeks before her 40th birthday to get diagnosed. Tanya described her ADHD as like having
“17 TVs on in your head. You can’t focus and there’s lots of noise in your head. You feel like you’re being smothered, overwhelmed, like you’re drowning in life. You’re living with this inner restlessness, which is exhausting and relentless.”
So much was that the case that, even before Tanya was 15 years of age, she had tried to take her own life three times. From the age of 18, Tanya was given antidepressants for depression and anxiety. Tanya saw more than 20 doctors, who just kept changing her prescription, but the medication never worked. It was not until she eventually went to see a private psychiatrist specialising in anxiety that she was diagnosed with ADHD. Once Tanya got her diagnosis, she said,
“Finally, I know what’s wrong with me. After years of struggling and on loads of different medications, it now all just makes sense. To be honest with you, I have never felt better.”
Tanya’s diagnosis was very late and that is why she made it her mission, along with others, to ensure that ADHD is diagnosed much earlier in life, in early years of education.
ADHD was first mentioned in 1902, when a British paediatrician, Sir George Frederic Still, found that some children were affected but that they could not control their behaviour in the way that a typical child could. He also noted that it was not because they were not intelligent; it was because they could not control themselves. Over the past century, the understanding of ADHD has increased, as have diagnosis and treatments. It is defined as
“an ongoing pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or development.”
In 2000, three sub-types of ADHD were recognised and are now used by healthcare professionals: combined type ADHD; predominantly inattentive type ADHD; and predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type ADHD. Six or more symptoms of inattention need to be proved for children up to the age of 16, and five or more for adolescents aged 17 or over and adults. Symptoms of inattention have to have been present for at least six months and have to be inappropriate to the person’s development level—for example, often failing to pay close attention to detail; carelessness with homework, work or other activities; having trouble sustaining attention during tasks or play; often seeming not to listen when spoken to directly; often not following through on instructions; failing to finish chores or homework; and having trouble organising tasks and activities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing the matter forward. I deal with this in my office every week of my life, so I am aware of the issue.
In Northern Ireland, which I know is not the Minister’s responsibility, there is going to be a gap of £110 million in the budget. This is my point to the right hon. Lady: the first sacrifice is often special needs provision, the cutting of which cannot be acceptable because it presents a risk to children who simply need a little extra help at an early stage in life. The risk is that a different way of doing things will be overlooked and the children will be abandoned at the most vulnerable point in their education. The right hon. Lady has said, “Get the diagnosis early,” and I agree with her. Does she agree that the Minister needs to respond positively?
Esther McVey
I do indeed, and I believe the Minister will respond positively. As well as early diagnosis in respect of inattention, which the hon. Gentleman and I are saying is important, hyperactivity and impulsivity also need to be seen and recognised.
The criterion is six or more symptoms of hyperactivity or impulsivity for children up to the age of 16, and five or more for adolescents aged 17 or over and adults. Those symptoms have to have been present for at least six months to the extent that they are causing disruption and are inappropriate to the person’s development level. That means a person fidgets, taps hands or feet, squirms on a seat, often leaves a seat in situations in which remaining on the seat would have been expected, often runs or climbs in situations where that is not appropriate, is often unable to play or take part in leisure activities quietly, is often “on the go” and “driven by a motor”, and talks excessively.
In addition, the following conditions must be met: several inattention or hyperactive-impulse systems were present before the age of 12; several symptoms are present in two or more settings, whether that be the home, school or work, with friends or relatives, or during other activities; there is clear evidence that the symptoms interfere with, or reduce the quality of, social, school or work functioning; and the symptoms are not better explained by a different mental disorder.
Quite strict conditions must be met, and we know what the symptoms are. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there needs to be an early diagnosis. Indeed, the stipulation is that the symptoms have to have been present before the age of 12, so we need that early diagnosis. To enable early diagnosis for a child, there needs to be a clear pathway for referrals from the school or GP to the specialist, but that is not working swiftly enough, although it is essential. The number of people in the UK affected by ADHD is 2.6 million, according to the ADHD UK website. Of those, 708,000 are children and 1.9 million are adults. More than 117,000 individuals receive a prescription for ADHD medicine.
I note that in the papers only this week, concerns were expressed by some in the scientific and medical profession about overdiagnosis, as parents and individuals go online to self-diagnose, but I would say that self-diagnosis possibly came about because people have not been able to see a GP or a specialist and they have gone online. Yes, there could be overdiagnosis, but the bigger concerns are underdiagnosis of those who need a diagnosis, and securing rapid access to a professional to establish what they have and what treatment they need.
I note, too, that the journey for girls and the outward signs for them are very different from those for boys. As such, ADHD tends to be picked up in boys and not so much in girls. The symptoms for boys are more well known. Boys display a sort of naughtiness—a disruptive way of acting, being the class joker or trying to disrupt others. That gets them noticed. However, the symptoms for women and girls do not involve being naughty; rather, they seem more as though they are “away with the fairies” or distracted. Because their behaviour is non-disruptive, they do not get the attention they deserve and therefore remain untreated.
ADHD impacts the lives of those living with it very differently, and they all cope with it differently. However, its impact is significant. Adults with ADHD are five times more likely to try to take their own lives than those without it. That is a tragedy in and of itself, and why a diagnosis needs to be made. Given the impact of ADHD on people’s lives, Tanya and many others are calling for early diagnosis. Tanya was diagnosed when she went private, a luxury that most of my constituents cannot afford. The process usually involves a 60 to 90-minute consultation with a psychiatrist. There is not a scan or diagnostic test as such; people need to meet somebody who can look at their condition.
However, even if a referral is made by a professional, people risk being screened out. Thanks to ADHD UK, I have some local data on the screening out of referrals from the Cheshire area. The reason could be that, because screening is not part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, people are blocked from receiving an assessment. However, blocking people from an assessment, despite a qualified referral, does not make sense. As we know, it will stop people getting the care they need. In the last three years, 84% of girls put forward for assessment in one part of Cheshire were removed following a local health authority assessment, despite girls being known to be under-diagnosed and despite the higher suicide risks for young girls. To obtain that information, ADHD UK had to submit a freedom of information request to each integrated care board. That is how we found out.
The problem is significant, it is sizeable and it needs to be sorted out, so these are my questions for the Minister. First, will she meet me and my constituent Tanya Bardsley to discuss ADHD and what steps the Government can take to ensure earlier diagnosis? Secondly, will the Government start collecting national data, as is the case for autism, and introduce an ADHD wait list dashboard, as there also is for autism? I thank the Minister for her time today and ADHD UK for all its hard work in getting this data about Cheshire to me and, of course, to Tanya Bardsley.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate. I believe there are two more debates on this issue next week in this Chamber, so she is leading the way in securing this debate, as a starter for that further consideration.
This is a really important issue. We know that people with ADHD have positive traits, strengths and abilities, such as creativity, resilience and the ability to hyper-focus. My right hon. Friend referred to her constituent Tanya Bardsley, who has shown that people with ADHD can be extremely successful, but there are also challenges, as she clearly set out, in living with ADHD and in getting a diagnosis, which is often necessary for people to get the support they need. I am not going to pretend that there is not a problem with accessing assessments at the moment. Many of my constituents also come to see me about that, and many have to go private to get a diagnosis. I fully acknowledge that that is not acceptable.
NICE, which provides the evidence-based guidance, says that commissioners and providers should have due regard for the evidence base when designing and commissioning services. However, my right hon. Friend highlighted a number of key issues that hamper how patients and their families access services. NICE does not actually recommend a maximum waiting time for a diagnosis, so there is no benchmark or gold standard to measure services against. That means that services sometimes struggle to meet what we would consider an acceptable waiting time for assessment. NICE sets out considerations about who should make a diagnosis and the criteria for diagnosis, but the long waits are due to the fact that there is no benchmark for the maximum waiting time.
The second issue that my right hon. Friend highlighted is a national dataset for ADHD assessment waiting times. There is no national collection of data and I note that she said that charities have gone to each ICB for data. In a way, it is encouraging that that data is there, but we need to pull it together nationally so that we have oversight and, as she put it, a waiting list dashboard that we can see. That would be useful not only to see what is happening in terms of best practice but to identify any gaps in certain parts of the country that may have longer waiting times than others.
I am certainly happy to pledge to my right hon. Friend that I will look at that. We are doing so much work in this area at the moment. For decades, mental health services, including neurodiversity services, have been the Cinderella service in health, with physical health much more predominant. We are making the change now to achieve parity of esteem between the two services, but there is a lot of work to do to catch up, and having the data to be able to measure waiting times and standards is a key part of that.
As my right hon. Friend set out, diagnosing ADHD is challenging, because there is no definitive test for it. There are a number of indicators that could suggest an assessment is needed, but someone needs to be seen for that to happen. ADHD often exists in conjunction with other conditions, whose symptoms can overlap and mask those of ADHD. The NICE guidelines aim to improve the diagnosis of ADHD, as well as the quality of care and support that people with ADHD receive.
The NICE guidelines also recognise that ADHD is under-diagnosed in women and girls, and that the indicators are very different. In my work in mental health, we see the consequences of that in young women and girls being admitted to mental health in-patient facilities and having a higher rate of suicide. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct in what she says.
There are a number of ways in which we are trying to improve access to assessment and diagnosis. Many children and young people seek diagnosis through child and adolescent mental health services, but there are pressures on those services too. We are providing funding to increase access; in the last financial year, £79 million was allocated, which allowed 22,500 more children and young people to access mental health services. As my right hon. Friend eloquently said, it is vital that a person gets a diagnosis as early as possible in their life, so that they get support as soon as possible.
We know that children with ADHD and other neurodiverse conditions such as autism can thrive in and out of school if they get the support they need. We have a trial under way in Bradford looking at an early diagnosis tool to help teachers, parents and others to identify the needs of those with neurodiverse conditions. If successful, that could be expanded across the country. I will update Members as soon as we have the results of the pilot, because we are keen to see improvements in attendance, behaviour and educational outcomes in schools, as well as in the quality of life experienced by children and their parents. The tool is not intended to replace clinical diagnosis, but it should enable support to be made available earlier to children and their parents while they wait for an assessment and a diagnosis.
We also have the special educational needs and disabilities Green Paper, which sets out proposals to improve the outcomes of children and young people with SEND, including those with ADHD, and we will publish a full response to the Green Paper in an improvement plan imminently. Hopefully, my right hon. Friend will feel that that addresses some of the issues that she has raised today.
One of the best forms of practical support that I have seen is the mental health support teams that are now being placed in schools. There are currently 287, which support 4,700 schools, or around 26% of pupils. That figure will increase to 35% of pupils in April. The teams support teachers to identify children who may have ADHD, other neurodiverse conditions or mental health issues, and get them signposted and into the system much quicker. The service is making a real difference on the ground, and we are keen to expand it as quickly as possible. As my right hon. Friend said, children and young people with ADHD suffer higher rates of anxiety—nearly 50% higher than the general population—which is why we need to get that support in as quickly and easily as possible.
I acknowledge that we are not where we want to be with support for ADHD, whether on diagnosis, support or access to assessments. When we respond to the Green Paper, we will hopefully show that we are serious about changing that and making support more easily available. The Bradford pilot will hopefully improve access to services, but the key is getting the data. I commit today to look at the data on waiting times and at a dashboard, because we cannot plan services if we do not know how many people are waiting for an assessment and an ADHD diagnosis. I completely acknowledge that point.
I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend’s constituent Tanya Bardsley. She sounds like an amazing woman—experts by experience are very valuable indeed. I know that there is more to do to improve access to ADHD assessments, but I hope that I have reassured my right hon. Friend that we take the issue seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Violence Against Women and Girls: Sentencing
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they should not reference live cases during this debate. If Members wish to speak in the debate, they should bob in the usual manner. If there is a Division, I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes, but if we can get back sooner, we can start again earlier.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sentencing for violence against women and girls.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and a great honour to open this debate on a matter that colleagues and I feel passionately about. I speak as the co-chair of the all-party group on women’s health, and as a mum who feels passionately about ensuring that we create a country in which every little girl is safe to grow up without fear of violence against her. Effective sentencing is one of the tools we can use to deter perpetrators, and it also encourages victims of violence to come forward.
Sadly, violence against women and girls is still a reality across our whole planet. Before I turn to the UK and to Devon and Cornwall—my police area—I want to put on the record some truly horrifying statistics. A Safer Cornwall presentation to Cornwall councillors in December by the domestic abuse and sexual violence co-ordinator stated that globally, one in three women and girls experiences physical or sexual violence in their lifetime.
Violence against women and girls covers a range of unacceptable and deeply distressing crimes, including domestic violence and abuse, sexual violence, child sexual abuse, stalking, so-called honour-based violence including forced marriage and female genital mutilation, gang-related violence and human trafficking. Although men and boys also suffer from many of those forms of abuse, those crimes disproportionately affect women and girls.
One in three women will experience violence by a man they know, and women suffer an average of 35 assaults before they ring the police. The most dangerous time is when a woman is trying to leave an abusive partner. Abuse can often start or increase when a woman is pregnant, leading to trauma or worse for her and her unborn child.
Statistically, women go to 10 different agencies before they get any help. Where the mother is being abused, up to 70% of those fathers or stepfathers are also abusing their children. Less than 25% of domestic abuse is reported. Fifty per cent. of all rape is carried out by husbands or male partners, and two women are killed every week by a partner or an ex-partner. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is not here, for remembering each of those women killed and reading their names on International Women’s Day every year. That serves as a powerful and sobering reminder that women and girls still face violence, even in our neighbourhoods. That violence can affect women across all social and ethnic groups, and can leave the victim and her children with devastating scars, both physical and mental.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate. She is speaking passionately about these issues, which are close to my heart. I was a domestic violence lawyer for 23 years prior to entering politics, and I had to obtain many, many injunction orders to protect victims. Does she agree that domestic violence is abhorrent and inexcusable, as it crushes the victim’s self-confidence and self-esteem, wrecks families and ruins lives? During many incidents, children are watching, learning and being devastated.
Cherilyn Mackrory
My hon. Friend, who has a wealth of experience on these matters, is absolutely right. That is why this is such an important debate. Although the title is “Violence Against Women and Girls”, the violence affects all children who witness it or are subjected to it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. She is absolutely right that the violence is corrosive, because it leads to childhood trauma, and from that childhood trauma comes the next generation of violence. Does she agree that we need much better trauma-informed services across the board?
Cherilyn Mackrory
I agree, and later in my speech I come on to educating boys and girls on breaking the cycle of violence. The hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that we manage their trauma to get them to that point. In the last year, 34,408 violent offences were recorded in my police area of Devon and Cornwall, which is about 3,500 more crimes than in the year before the pandemic. That is consistent with national trends, which show that 2.1 million violent crimes were recorded by the police in England and Wales—up more than 20% on pre-pandemic levels. Around 2.4 million people in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse in 2022, and around one in five homicides was related to domestic abuse. There were 1,765 convictions in the year to June 2022, up a third from the year before. Convictions are up by 23%.
The language that we use in this place should ensure two things. First, victims of violent crime and abuse must be assured that the police, courts and society as a whole are on their side. That means stopping the dangerous language suggesting that this Government have somehow decriminalised rape. I am generally not the most political of my colleagues, and I like to work collaboratively across the House wherever I can, but when I hear those claims and similar accusations from Members at the Opposition Dispatch Box, as I have done several times in the last few months, my heart sinks. We need to encourage more women to come forward, and to have faith in the authorities. If I were to make a plea to the Opposition, it would be to cease using that language. Those claims embolden perpetrators, and I am certain that the Opposition do not intend that outcome when they say those things.
We also need to encourage and properly resource the good practice that has been shown to work around the country, so that arrests can be made quickly, and so that conviction and sentencing is based on clear evidence that is gathered swiftly, with as little further distress to victims as possible. If there is to be an effective deterrent for perpetrators, the outcome has to be that victims are encouraged and nurtured when they come forward, and that convictions are swift.
In June 2022, Devon and Cornwall police published its violence against women and girls delivery plan, which has been developed in consultation with stakeholders. It is focused on building trust and confidence, relentless perpetrator pursuit and creating safer spaces in public, online and at home. Operation Soteria Bluestone, an approach pioneered by Avon and Somerset police, our neighbouring force, is now being rolled out in our force area. It aims to bring together criminal justice agencies and academics in order to deliver a more victim-focused and responsive approach, based on six key pillars of action.
Ahead of the introduction of Soteria Bluestone, Devon and Cornwall police launched Operation Gemstone in Plymouth. The six-month pilot is based on the findings of Soteria Bluestone, and provides four specialist investigative teams focused on rape and serious sexual offences in the city. Specialist teams have received bespoke additional training, benefited from improved supervision, and had enhanced engagement with the Crown Prosecution Service and partners, including independent sexual violence advocates, to address domestic abuse perpetrators’ behaviours.
Devon and Cornwall secured £417,000 in funding from the Home Office for 2022-23 to support projects across the peninsula. These projects involve working with people who cause harm to address their offending behaviours and prevent future victimisation. The funding also enables community safety partnerships to deliver behaviour change programmes, which ensure that those who cause harm can access vital support for mental health issues, drug and alcohol addiction and so on. Often financial stress is a factor as well.
Our area has also recruited a new domestic abuse behaviour change strategic lead to deliver an 18-month project developing a new partnership strategy. That brings together partners to collaborate on improving the peninsula-wide approach to working with people who cause harm by domestic abuse, and to prevent sexual offending. We commission two services that work with sexual offence perpetrators.
The South West Community Chaplaincy also works with sex offenders who no longer pose a harm according to the probation service. The chaplaincy provides a mentoring service that helps practically as well as with the behavioural challenges of individuals, who are referred directly by Devon and Cornwall police.
Measures to increase physical safety in public spaces are important to combat the issue. That includes the £5 million safety of women at night fund, in addition to the safer streets fund, which focuses on the prevention of violence against women and girls in public spaces at night, including in the night-time economy. A new online tool, StreetSafe, provides women with a way to anonymously pinpoint areas where they have felt unsafe and to state why they felt unsafe there. It could be because of the lack of closed-circuit television or lighting, or because of the people they found around them. More than 15,000 reports have been submitted so far.
The Government have introduced a new national police lead on violence against women and girls; I suspect that the Minister will tell us more about that. The lead will be the point of contact for every police force, so that best practice is shared around the country. Following the end-to-end review of how the criminal justice system responds to rape, the Government announced an ambitious action plan to increase the number of rape cases that reach court without compromising defendants’ right to a fair trial. It includes plans for better data extraction technology that will, for example, reduce the time that victims spend without their phones; the aim is for the police to return devices within 24 hours. Too often, victims feel that they are being investigated and do not feel supported.
A new approach to investigations will be established that places greater emphasis on understanding the suspect’s behaviour, rather than placing undue focus on the victim’s credibility. More rape victims will not need to attend their trial; instead, a cross-examination video can be recorded earlier in the process, away from the courtroom. That is key, as it will mean that the victim’s ordeal—physically, at least—is now over, and she no longer has to dread a courtroom appearance with an alleged perpetrator.
Over £170 million has been invested in victim services that provide more specialist help, such as rape support centres. That includes £27 million of national investment over two years to recruit more independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic abuse advisers to ensure victims can access support. We need to ensure that the people offering that support are specialised and experienced, so that the victims get the right help; if they do not, it can take a lot longer for victims to recover emotionally from the trauma they have faced.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced measures to boost protections for survivors and clamp down on perpetrators. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 ended the automatic halfway release of prisoners sentenced for serious crimes. That includes rapists on standard sentences of four years or more. They will be required to spend longer in custody. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 also creates a legal definition of domestic abuse. It clarifies that abuse can be not only sexual or physical, but financial, verbal or emotional, and, critically, that it is about patterns of abuse over time. Children are recognised as victims, as they also witness the abuse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) said.
The definition of “controlling or coercive behaviour” has been extended to include abuse where perpetrators and victims no longer live together. We must remember that it was only in the 1990s that rape within marriage was made illegal. We are still on this journey, and we need to accelerate, because although we are doing a good job, the issue is so multifaceted that it will take a long time to get there.
The Government have introduced changes that will allow victims of domestic abuse more time to report incidents of assault or battery. Previously, prosecutions had to commence within six months of the offence. That requirement has changed to six months from the date the incident was reported, with a time limit of two years to bring a prosecution.
Sentencing must remain independent of the Government. However, this Government have ensured that the criminal justice system has the tools necessary to deal with offenders appropriately. The number of custodial sentences has been going up since 2018. The Government have increased the maximum penalties for stalking and harassment—we have a new offence of stalking—and we have ended the early release of violent and sexual offenders from prison. Sentencing is a vital part of the solution. We will seek to transform the whole of society’s response to prevent offending, support victims and pursue perpetrators, as well as strengthen the systems and processes needed to deliver our goals.
As part of their implementation of the violence against women and girls strategy, Devon and Cornwall police have launched their part of the national communications campaign, Enough. The second wave of the campaign started in October 2022. It focuses on a range of safe ways for a bystander to intervene if they witness violence against women and girls, helps to tackle barriers to intervening, and ensures prompt action. Also, across England and Wales, £55 million has been allocated to communities through the safer streets fund. Projects—some in Truro and Falmouth—include the education of night-time economy workers, extra closed-circuit television, and street lighting. All that helps us to change societal behaviours, so that no one thinks that violence is acceptable, people are given the confidence to go out at night, and victims have greater confidence to come forward.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Lady points out that it is important that women feel safe when they go out at night. An appalling thing that happens time and again—we are trying to do something about it in Parliament—is spiking. Will she join me in condemning spiking as one of the vilest forms of violence against women and girls?
Cherilyn Mackrory
The hon. Lady is again absolutely spot on. We have issues with that, particularly in Falmouth, where we have a big student population, as she does in Bath. It takes a lot of agencies to come together to get on top of spiking. She is absolutely right to ensure that it is part of this debate.
Those who commit certain offences with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, including rape, manslaughter and grievous bodily harm with intent, and who are sentenced to a standard determinate sentence of more than four years’ imprisonment are now required to serve two thirds of the sentence in prison before automatic release, instead of half. That is an improvement, but colleagues across the House will agree, having heard me say “four years”, that we should be going for a longer sentence when someone has, in effect, ruined a person’s life.
I support the appointment of a National Police Chiefs Council lead for violence against women and girls to drive a better policing response. It has been announced that we will add violence against women and girls to the strategic policing requirement, meaning that it will be set out as a national threat for forces to respond to alongside other threats such as terrorism, serious and organised crime, and child sexual abuse.
There are a lot of measures there, which are welcome, but a lot more needs to be done. Thirty-five per cent. of violent crimes are alcohol-related. We need to tackle that with more alcohol addiction programmes that target the behaviours that lead to violence, and pre-empt those behaviours at an earlier age. The education of boys—and girls, actually—at an appropriate age is a way to try to change inherited behaviours. We need to get better at that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady and others will have noticed a story in the press at the beginning of this week, I think, that said that four in 10 young boys watch pornographic material, which not only sexualises ladies, but shows violence towards them. That needs to be controlled, and we wish the Government to do that. Does she wish the Government to bring in legislation to ensure that access to such pornographic material is stopped?
Cherilyn Mackrory
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Minister might be able to clarify for us what part of the issue will be tackled in the Online Safety Bill, which covers some of it. I hope we also get clarification on what will be outstanding. I believe that the Bill is still in the House of Lords, and we are waiting for it to come back, but more work remains to be done. If it is not being done, perhaps we can ensure that it is done by the time the Bill is given Royal Assent.
I was just coming on to that subject. An Ofsted report found that nearly 90% of girls and nearly 50% of boys said that they or their peers were being sent explicit pictures or videos of things that they did not want to see “a lot or sometimes”. Children and young people said that sexual harassment occurs so frequently that it has become “commonplace”, and 92% of girls and 74% of boys said that sexist name-calling happens “a lot or sometimes” to them or their peers.
A survey of young people also found that 49% of boys and 33% of girls aged 13 to 14 thought that hitting would be okay in a relationship in at least one of 12 scenarios presented to them. As a society, we have lot of work to do to let people know that it is never acceptable to hit.
Finally, although I know Departments are working incredibly hard on this, there is some work to do to help with the court backlog induced by covid. We need to do a lot to help to reduce that; I know the Minister and his Department are working incredibly hard on it, and perhaps he will be able to comment and provide an update on where we are. There is probably more that we can do in the forthcoming Victims Bill, and I am sure the Minister will probably be able to tell us something—not everything —about how we will tackle a lot of these issues in the Bill as well.
Violence against women and girls is still a plague on our communities. Convictions and sentencing are increasing, but that is only a small part of a complicated picture. We all have a responsibility to help to end the violence, so that all little girls can grow up in a happier and safer world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is an absolute pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for leading the debate and setting the scene so well. She is correct that what we see happening today with violence against women is horrendous. Just last week, we had a debate secured by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Sir Gary Streeter) specifically on the subject of violence against women and girls in Plymouth. He put forward the example of a plan that they are introducing in Plymouth with the co-operation of the local council, police and other services as well.
By their very nature, these debates are never comfortable to be involved in, as we speak of horrendous things. I always bring in the Northern Ireland aspect and the horrendous figures in Northern Ireland on violent, sexual and verbal abuse. For that reason, I am here to engage with others on the state of our sentencing laws, what more we can do and, more importantly, how to protect victims from further trauma and heartache.
Murders in Northern Ireland are quite horrendous. In the year 2019-20, 21 women were killed; in 2020-21, 22 were killed; and in 2021-22, 24 were killed. Those figures underline just how bad things are in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely terrible to say this, but it is a fact: we have the worst murder rate for women in all the regions of the United Kingdom. The only place in Europe that beats those murder figures is Romania. We have a real issue to be addressed. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, by the way, but I am asking for tougher sentencing laws—that will be my request off the back of the debate.
Look at the figures and what they mean. A young lady, Natalie McNally, was murdered just before Christmas, and no-one has yet been held accountable for that horrendous murder. She was stabbed multiple times, and she and her unborn baby were both killed as a result. Such things are truly very worrying. For victims of any crime and their families, a just punishment can provide some sense of safety, especially when it comes to physical, verbal or sexual violence against women and young girls. I cannot even begin to imagine the impact that those crimes leave on someone; they will bear it all their days.
Recently, I read of a story back home where a man received only 140 hours of community service in court for physically abusing his wife on two occasions. He had not learned his lesson from the first time, and he did it again. They slapped his wrist—I mean, really? I would expect a custodial sentence. The victim of that crime stated that she felt
“let down at the light sentence he received”.
“Let down”—those are just two words that I would use to describe that sentence. Another two words would be “insulting” and “unjust”. It clearly does not make that person accountable for what he did.
In December past, the Police Service of Northern Ireland arrested 39 people in a specific and focused Northern Ireland operation targeting violence against women and girls. Over 20% of crimes reported to the PSNI have a domestic motivation, and they can be as often as one every 16 minutes; in the time we take for this debate, we could have 15 or thereabouts.
Mrs Helen Grant
We certainly have more laws now to protect victims than we did 50 years ago and we also have more organisations to support victims. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we also need to do much more in terms of prevention?
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree. To be fair, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned that. We need to focus on that, and the Minister might give an indication of what will be done. It is right to say there is more focus on it now. As I said last week, I am of a generation that means that respect for ladies was at the top of my upbringing as a young boy in Northern Ireland. Perhaps some of our generation had a bit more respect, or perhaps things were happening but we did not know about them. That could be the case—I do not know—but we need to look at bringing in strong prevention.
Allowing the police to investigate is one thing, but ensuring that a just and deserving sentence is given is the main factor in all of this. I am clearly asking for better sentencing. I do not want a slap on the wrist for a guy who thinks he can beat up his wife two times and it will not matter. He will do it a third time, and what has he learned? That is the question I am asking.
There is a direct correlation between repeat offending and prison sentences. The Department of Justice back home revealed that adults released from prison had a proven reoffending rate of 38.6%. I am all for rehabilitation in prison. I want to see people doing better and coming out with a changed attitude to life and to how they can contribute to society, rather than be negative towards it. But those figures are massive, and I have no doubt that a proportion of them feature violent crimes against women and girls. The figures in Northern Ireland already show that many people are facing custodial sentences for that reason.
Figures show that the same is the case for sexual assaults. Often, someone is convicted, serves a year or two in prison, is released and then goes on to ruin someone else’s life. I sometimes find it difficult to read about some of those cases in the papers. I see the headlines and start to read, but the horror of what has happened means that many times I cannot continue or conclude that story. I tend to agree that if harsher sentences were introduced at the start for violent occurrences towards women and girls, greater rehabilitation could take place and criminals could realise their place in society as a civilian and not as an abuser.
In 2021, UK Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, called for all domestic homicides to be reviewed. I totally agree. She stated that that is evidenced by falling criminal justice outcomes for crimes that disproportionately affect women and girls, particularly rape. An important point I want to put on record is that women in domestically abusive relationships are more likely to raise a weapon to defend themselves against an abusive partner, which tends to attract, by the nature of the law of this land, a higher sentence than the initial abuse inflicted by the man. Can that be? That a lady who defends and protects herself, under great trial and violence, gets a higher sentence than the guy who was beating and trying to kill her. There is something not right with that and I cannot understand it. That information was gathered by the Centre for Women’s Justice to ensure that courts recognise the necessity of sometimes using a weapon in retaliation when in fear for one’s life, to defend one’s life or those of one’s children.
I met this week with the local police chief in my constituency. That is not the responsibility of the Minister, but I want to use this example to give the Northern Ireland perspective. We discussed the slashed policing budget. One of my immediate concerns is the need to ringfence the officers and support available for victims of domestic violence and abuse. The first point of contact must be a safe place, with trained officers who can help to ensure that the case makes its way to prosecution, and we need to ensure that police officers can provide that first point of support at any time of day or night. I do not say this to give the Minister a big head, but he responds to our requests in a very positive way and I am sure that he will give us some reassurance, which is what we seek.
To conclude, it is important that we do all we can to shed light on the situation and support those whom the issue directly impacts. Blatant evidence and numerous first-hand accounts show that not enough is being done to ensure that criminals who commit violence against women and girls are sentenced accordingly. I want to see tougher sentences. I want to see those people chastised and in jail for the terrible crimes that they commit. Some of the figures are abhorrent. To tackle the issue, we must consider what impression the current sentences make, and clearly they are not doing much at the moment. I call on the Ministry of Justice and Home Department to consider the issue for review to ensure that women and girls get the assurance that they require and that criminals get the punishment they deserve.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) on securing this important debate. I am also pleased to see that the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), will respond.
Tackling violence against women and girls has been, and rightly continues to be, a key focus for the Government, and indeed for all of us across this House. There is a long heritage of legislation brought about by Conservatives in this area, which includes the Children Act 1989, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and my own small and very discreet Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022, also known as Sian’s law, which was greatly assisted by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
All that legislation contains steps and measures designed to protect people and underpin our growing toolbox for tackling violence against women and girls. Having sat on the Women and Equalities Committee and the Bill Committee for the landmark Domestic Abuse Act, and having regularly engaged with my local police, my local domestic abuse refuge—Family Help—and the night-time economy in Darlington, I am aware of the need for us to do more to protect people, so I welcome today’s debate.
I welcome the fact that Darlington has been successful in multiple bids for money from the safer streets fund. That has enabled Darlington Borough Council and Durham constabulary to take more action to help safeguard people in our night-time economy. Indeed, the hub at Number Forty, which is open from 9 pm to 3 am on Friday and Saturday nights, provides a safe space, and was again helped by funding from the safer streets fund. For those who have concerns about spiking, including a number of constituents, whom I am due to meet shortly, who have been victims of that offence, that is a hugely important and reassuring service. The tests that are available at Number Forty are also available through the police, and they have been funded through the safer streets fund. As with any offence, apprehending the perpetrator is key, and so too is the sentence handed down. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on sentencing for spiking offences.
I also praise the work of those in the CCTV control room in Darlington. Last May, there was an incident in which two men were spotted preying on an intoxicated woman. Camera operators from Darlington Borough Council became suspicious when they spotted the two men sitting with the woman; they continued to monitor the situation, and witnessed the men touching the woman inappropriately. The operators immediately rang for police assistance, and officers arrived at the location within minutes. I praise their diligence and swift action to protect that woman, which led to the conviction of the two perpetrators, who were given sentences of 22 months each.
Although capital spending on projects is essential, education is also essential to break cycles of abusive behaviour, which see children of families experiencing domestic abuse become perpetrators and victims in adulthood. Further investment in perpetrator programmes can also help to break those cycles, and the role of sentencing in acting as a deterrent is also crucial. We have done some great things, but it is clear we still need to do more. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly about what further plans the Government have for tougher sentencing for violence against women and girls.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) on securing this debate and leading it in such a comprehensive way. It is a complicated and difficult issue. It is as old as the ages, and this is the time when we should change it. I am pleased there is cross-party consensus that we need to do more and better, but hopefully we are getting on to the right path to tackle this insidious and awful situation that still continues.
According to Rape Crisis, five in six women who are raped do not report it. Charging and conviction rates are among the lowest ever recorded. In my local authority of Bath and North East Somerset, police have logged a record number of sexual offences. However, the justice system is failing women and girls in this country. It is a well-known national scandal that only 3% of rape cases have led to charges against the perpetrator. If we are to improve sentencing outcomes, we need to improve conviction rates.
Female victims of violence are put under a microscope. They are subjected to what Big Brother Watch describes as “digital strip searches”. Victims fear that they have no choice but to hand over their private data, including social media messages, call records, photos and even things that they have deleted. The Centre for Women’s Justice reported one woman fearing her case would be closed if she refused to provide that very invasive data. She was asked to provide medical and counselling notes over the two-year investigation. That is a disgraceful invasion of privacy, and victims should not be subjected to it. No victim of violence should be put under such scrutiny. The invasive process will only dissuade victims from pursuing their case through the criminal justice system.
The “Operation Soteria Bluestone Year One Report” quoted one officer who believed cases of rape and sexual offences were “pink and fluffy”. He avoided them in favour of burglary and robbery cases. The report also found that some serving officers do not think sexual offences should be a priority for policing. Those officers are more than just bad apples. They are part of a rotten culture of misogyny that undermines sentencing. The Operation Soteria Bluestone report argues that a microscopic focus on victims’ credibility creates
“conditions of virtual impunity for predatory men.”
Women’s Aid has warned that violent men are being handed lenient sentences that do not reflect the severity of their crimes, which we have already heard about. It is not fair to the women who deserve justice. We need a whole system change to shift this victim-blaming culture.
Fortunately, we are seeing some progress in creating that culture shift. I commend the work of Avon and Somerset police in that area. I recently visited the Operation Bluestone team in the police force to see the good work they are doing. By changing their investigative focus from the victim to the perpetrator, they have tripled charge rates and brought more cases to the Crown Prosecution Service. Avon and Somerset police are showing that it is possible with a dedicated, well-resourced team and the right leadership. Unfortunately, the team is constrained by the risk aversion of the wider criminal justice system, with charges only brought against a perpetrator when there is a guaranteed conviction. When I visited the police, I heard that they were focused on putting a very solid case forward to the Crown Prosecution Service, so that they got a conviction, but the CPS said, “Bring more cases to court, even if the chance might be 50:50, because if we have more cases coming to court, we have more cases that can possibly lead to a proper conviction.”
Cherilyn Mackrory
My concern—and I am happy to hear the hon. Lady’s side of this—is that if the evidence is not conclusive and a case gets put forward to the CPS, there is a potential for the victim to have to go through the trial only to not get a conviction. I can see both sides of the story.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. This is a good debate about how we best get justice. I totally understand the trauma that victims face if they have to go through repeated processes and there is not a firm conviction at the end. That can be very traumatising, but there seems to be evidence that we get to more perpetrators, and that is what we need to do. We must get the message out to violent men that we are going to go after them.
It is important that we follow exactly how this works. I understand that there are pilots of specialist courts for these types of crime, where victims are treated much more sensitively, with an understanding of the trauma they are facing. For that reason, these specialist courts are so important, and I hope the Minister will talk about how they work and how we can learn from good practice.
Avon and Somerset police is showing what is possible with a dedicated, well-resourced team and the right leadership. Unfortunately, as I said, the team is constrained by the risk aversion of the wider criminal justice system, which means that cases with substantial evidence often get overlooked, allowing perpetrators to escape justice. Another thing that I learned during my three hours with Avon and Somerset police was that if there is such a focus on the victim, it gives time to the perpetrator to eradicate all their evidence. That is not only unfair; it adds insult to injury in these cases.
The police—certainly Avon and Somerset police—have learned from that and are changing the culture. They are also incredibly data-focused. As I understand it, by going back through historical data, they can now identify repeat offences that previously could not be captured. Avon and Somerset police is doing a wonderful job, and I wish that everybody in this room had a police force that did so well.
One step forward would be to expand the pilot of specialist courts, which would help to clear case backlogs and ensure that victims’ experiences are respected. These changes are essential for women and girls to receive proper justice. I am following the progress of the Ministry of Justice pilot programme with interest, and I am really interested to hear from the Minister about it.
Women and girls need to know that violent and abusive perpetrators are being brought to justice. As it stands, women are not getting the justice they deserve. Sentencing is part of the problem, but to even get to that stage, women must be given the confidence that the system is not stacked against them.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for securing this incredibly important debate. It is so important that we in this place speak about how best to end violence against women and girls.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the shocking statistics on the murders of women in Northern Ireland and the need for tougher sentencing for perpetrators. The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) spoke about some of the things that are happening in his constituency to tackle violence against women and girls and acknowledged that more needs to be done. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about low charge rates and a system that often feels like it is failing women and girls. She also talked about the really good work that Avon and Somerset police is doing.
In 2021, the murders of Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa triggered an outpouring of public anger and a demand for change, but that change has been slow to happen. It is no exaggeration to say that we are living through an age in which violence against women and girls is at an epidemic level. The most recently published annual data shows that 177 women were murdered by men, 70,000 women reported being raped—although we expect the true figure to be much higher—and almost 2.5 million women were victims of domestic abuse. Far too often, women are not safe at home, at work and on our streets.
We see a continued downward spiral in charging, prosecution and convictions for domestic abuse. Rape convictions are at a record low: little more than one in 100 rapes result in a charge and summons. I hear what the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth says about the Opposition’s language, but I am afraid it is the inaction of her Government, not the words of Opposition Members, that is letting victims down. Much more needs to be done.
For crimes such as stalking and harassment, all too often offenders receive sentences that do not reflect the suffering and the impact on the victim’s life. Women are being let down and offenders are being let off. If the public are to have confidence in the criminal justice system, we need appropriate sentences to deter potential offenders and deal just punishment for serious crimes. That is why, back in 2021, Labour outlined what needed to be done in our “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls” Green Paper.
Sentencing for domestic homicide seems to treat women as a different class of victim. Men who kill their partners often receive a far lesser sentence than those who kill others, despite the fact that the homicide has often taken place in the context of years—sometimes decades—of abuse. Seventy-two per cent. of female victims die in their homes, yet the law sets out a 10-year disparity between the starting point for a murder in the home and that for murders in other settings. It is almost as if being in a relationship with the victim serves as mitigation for the offender.
The case of Poppy Devey Waterhouse highlights that. She was just 24 when she was murdered in December 2018 by her ex-boyfriend. The couple had split in October 2018, but continued to live in the same flat in separate rooms. Poppy was due to move into a new property, but three days before that her killer stabbed her to death with a knife from the kitchen, inflicting more than 100 injuries. Poppy’s killer received a sentence of just 16 years, but if he had taken the weapon to the scene of the crime—deemed an aggravating factor—he would have received a much longer sentence. As Poppy’s mother Julie Devey outlined, that sentence ignores the fact that Poppy’s killer had no need to bring the weapon to the scene: he had knowledge that knives were already in the house and could be used for the attack.
Julie has campaigned on this issue and believes that the sentencing guidelines are simply wrong. She says:
“The savagery and violence of the attacks seem to count for nothing in the eyes of the law and this is infuriating”.
She wants domestic murder tariffs to reflect the severity of the crime, rather than the location of the killing. That seems a wholly just change, and I have heard Government Members speak eloquently and persuasively about it. I hope to see that covered in the sentencing review.
Labour called for a review of sentencing for domestic homicides and domestic abuse almost two years ago. Shortly afterwards, the Government announced their own review. It was originally due for completion in December 2021, but the report was delivered to the Justice Secretary last June, and we are still waiting for the review’s findings. In that time, we have been through three Justice Secretaries, and I am concerned that in the chaos and carousel of changing Ministers, this important matter has got lost. I hope the new Minister, who I know takes ending violence against women and girls incredibly seriously, will push this up the agenda so we can finally see change.
I turn to one of the most heinous crimes: rape. There is no statutory minimum sentence for rape, only a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In 2022 alone, four rape convictions were referred to the Attorney General’s Office through the unduly lenient sentence scheme, with initial sentences ranging from two years and four months to six years and six months. One was for the rape of a child under 13; the sentence was increased from two years and four months to four years and four months. These truly appalling crimes are receiving truly lenient sentences. For too long the trauma inflicted on a victim by rape has not been fully recognised by the sentence, and this must end. That is why Labour would introduce a new statutory minimum sentence of seven years, which better reflects the seriousness of the crime.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the scourge of spiking, which is deeply concerning. Despite a surge in reports of spiking to the police in recent years, there have been no more than 66 prosecutions in any year since 2010, and there were only 512 prosecutions in total between 2010 and 2020. The conviction rate has plummeted, with just 0.56 convictions per prosecution in that period. Under pressure from Labour, the Government have agreed to conduct a review into spiking, which we welcome.
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to the hon. Member for continuing to raise the issue of spiking. It is key that we identify the perpetrators of this offence. It is no good people coming forward and reporting it without us being able to prosecute, convict and sentence those people carrying out this heinous crime.
Ellie Reeves
I absolutely agree. These terrible crimes need to be taken with the utmost seriousness by the police. They need to be properly investigated, with all the evidence gathered, and prosecuted so that we see criminals convicted. We also need to ensure that when criminals are convicted, they are given sentences that reflect the severity of the crime.
I welcome the review to find out how widespread spiking is and who is being targeted, but it does not explicitly cover sentencing. It must. We need to introduce tougher spiking laws to deter people from committing this awful crime, as well as seeking to introduce tougher sentences by referring the issue to the Sentencing Council for new guidance.
Peter Gibson
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. She calls for additional offences. Could she specify what offences are required over and above those already on the statute book that deal with the offence of administering a poison through either a drink or an injection?
Ellie Reeves
We seek tougher sentences that act as a deterrent. There are horrific stories of spiking both by injection and by a drink. The rise in spiking by injection is deeply concerning, but the very low level of prosecutions and the sentencing do not seem to reflect the scale of the problem. In our review, we would ask the Sentencing Council for new guidance on sentencing for these crimes.
Finally, some crimes are so abhorrent that Labour believes the offender should never come out of prison. Labour would ensure that any offender found guilty of the rape, abduction and murder of a stranger received a minimum custodial tariff of a whole life order, with the effect that they spend the rest of their life behind bars.
Toughening sentences alone will not fix the failures in the system that are letting women down. That is why Labour has outlined a much wider action plan. We would roll out a domestic violence register to prevent perpetrators from going town to town to find new victims. We would bring in specialist rape courts in every Crown court across the country to end the unacceptable court delays and to prevent victims from being retraumatised by the court process. We would introduce legal advocates for rape survivors to support them every step of the way, from reporting a rape at a police station right through to trial. That would drive up standards and prevent victims from pulling out of their cases because they feel the system is working against them. We would put Jade’s law on the statute book, suspending parental responsibility in cases where one parent murders another.
It can no longer be considered good enough for the Government to say that tackling violence against women and girls is a priority when their actions, I am afraid, sometimes say otherwise. Recent polling showed that seven in 10 women consider action to stop sexual harassment, rape and domestic abuse inadequate. Nine in 10 women said that imposing tougher sentences for these crimes would be an effective way of making the country safer for women and girls. We cannot afford for our laws and their enforcement to send a signal that violence against women and girls will be tolerated. That is why Labour in power will make sure that sentencing provides justice for victims, and with our wider action plan on violence against women and girls, we will finally make tackling this a priority.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson—let us see how far I get before the Division bell rings.
It is noteworthy that the tone of the debate has been extremely constructive and, in that context, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) for securing it. When there is other business in the main Chamber, there is always a risk regarding the quantity of Members present in this Chamber, but that has been made up for by the quality of the contributions from all Members.
Violence against women and girls is never acceptable. I note the dedication across the House to ensuring that women and girls feel safe in our communities and that offenders who commit these heinous crimes, which have such a devastating impact on the lives of victims and survivors, receive just sentences that reflect the nature of their abhorrent behaviour. Of course, I share that sentiment.
As happens perhaps more often than not, I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), on a number of points, but I gently disagree and take issue with her suggestion of inaction from this Government. She knows the Government’s strong record since 2010 in passing legislation to tackle a range of offences relating to violence against women and girls and in investing in the systems at police, CPS and court level to ensure that this is about not just a criminal-law framework but making sure that the system is responsive.
In that context, I pay tribute to the shadow Minister and her party. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) highlighted, for example, the Children Act 1989, I will mention the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 2021, the first iteration of which I helped to draft and introduce in 2019 with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). We also have legislation tackling modern slavery and upskirting and strengthening sentences against stalking and harassment. However, I pay tribute to the Opposition, because when they were in government they, too, made great strides forward in tackling these offences—the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 springs to mind. It is important to recognise the cross-party work on these issues, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), because between 2010 and 2015 her party played its full part in that.
Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for this Government and for the Prime Minister. I just paid tribute to the Opposition and, actually, it is important at this juncture to pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), for all the work that she did in this space both as Home Secretary and as Prime Minister. The Government are committed to addressing this complex issue from multiple angles, reflecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth set out, the breadth of offences that could be considered in the space of violence against women and girls, while seeking to keep victims at the heart of all that we do. We are taking an ambitious, holistic approach to the issue of violence against women and girls, seeking to prevent such crimes from occurring and to improve outcomes for victims when they do.
I must be clear, as Members would expect me to be, that sentencing decisions are rightly a matter for our independent judiciary in individual cases. The Government, however, have a role in ensuring that the sentencing framework is just, proportionate and fit for purpose. We regularly review and scrutinise the maximum penalties for criminal offences to ensure that the courts have sufficient powers and flexibility to address all types of criminal behaviour appropriately. Of course, we take account of the views of victims, stakeholders and the wider public to inform our decisions. As always, I am grateful to Members for setting out their perspectives in the debate, reflecting not only their parties’ positions but, I suspect, what they glean from regular contact with their constituents.
We have seen an increase in average custodial sentence lengths for a range of offences in this space. Since 2013— we often go from 2010—in the case of all sexual offences the average custodial sentence length has increased. The average length of a custodial sentence for the rape of a female aged 16 and over has increased. Average sentences for taking, possessing or distributing indecent images of children—that can shade into this space—have increased. For sexual activity with a family member under the age of 17 where the offender is over the age of 18, average sentences have increased, as they have in the case of voyeurism and the abuse of children through pornography and prostitution. So, over that period of time, we have seen an increase in the average sentences handed down by the courts for those crimes.
As I alluded to with my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, violence against women and girls does not relate to any single criminal offence but encapsulates a wide range of behaviours from domestic and so-called honour-based abuse to sexual offences and murder. Many offences that are typically associated with violence against women and girls already carry high maximum penalties, as I have alluded to, including life imprisonment. For example, in the year ending June 2022, the average custodial sentence for adults convicted of rape was more than 10.5 years.
When deciding which sentence to impose, the courts take into account all the circumstances surrounding an offence, including any mitigating and aggravating factors. Provisions in the sentencing code must also be taken into account, as well as sentencing guidance issued by the independent Sentencing Council. In 2018, the council introduced an overarching guideline on domestic abuse that ensures that when any offence is committed in the context of domestic abuse, the court must consider that when sentencing, which can lead to tougher sentences.
The shadow Minister was right to highlight the apparent disparities in sentencing between murders—often with a knife—in a domestic context versus a street or other context. I suspect that the increase in the tariff for those who bring a knife to the scene was designed to tackle street knife violence and knife crimes, but its impact has been apparent disparities in sentencing for homicide, which is essentially an equivalent crime. I will turn to that in a moment.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for what he is saying. In my contribution, I gave the example of a lady who, after multiple beatings and abuse, may reach for a knife to protect herself. The sentence for that lady doing something to protect herself would be higher than what the perpetrator would get for attacking her. Will the Government look at that?
Edward Argar
One should always be cautious about generalising a particular crime from particular circumstances. When there is a particular set of circumstances, as the hon. Gentleman set out, a judge will be able to consider the context—the aggravating factors and mitigating factors—in determining appropriate sentencing. I am therefore a little cautious about drawing a general point from the scenario he sets out, because judges do have at their disposal the ability to recognise context as either a mitigating factor or an aggravating factor. I have faith in our independent judiciary to consider that when sentencing.
Of course, all that is not to say that the law should not be reviewed and updated. To that end, the Government have commissioned a review of the sentencing of domestic homicides to ensure that the law deals properly with such cases. That review, as the shadow Minister highlighted, was undertaken independently by Clare Wade KC. I am currently considering the recommendations made in that context. She rightly said that they were delivered a little late, but there were understandable reasons for that and we are now taking our time to consider them.
The shadow Minister was both kind in her comments and asked for reassurance that I would consider them expeditiously. I think I have summarised her position correctly, and I will certainly do that. I am keen that we bring forward the review and our response as swiftly as possible. It is an important and complex area of law, and I want to ensure that we give due care to considering all the implications of any proposed changes, or, indeed, what is in the review, before we bring forward a response.
I am sure Members will agree that victims must be confident that dangerous and serious offenders will serve an appropriate period of time in prison. That is why the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which came into force last April, ensures that those convicted of some of the most serious sexual and violent crimes, such as rape, manslaughter and attempted murder, spend a longer proportion of their sentence in prison. This better protects the public and gives victims the confidence that justice is being served. If an offender is given a discretionary life sentence, they will serve longer in prison before becoming eligible to be considered for release by the Parole Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth made the point about the shift to two thirds of that sentence rather than a half, which she was right to highlight.
I must reiterate that the landscape of violence against women and girls is varied and complex. It is not sufficient merely to seek a solution through increased sentences alone—I do not think any Member who has spoken today would suggest that was the only solution—which is why the Government have already taken target measures to prevent and address these appalling behaviours and support women and girls who are victims of such crimes. That is absolutely vital. The hon. Member for Bath said we need to look at this with a whole-system approach. It is not just about sentences: it is about police, victim support services, the CPS, the court process, and then, upon conviction, sentences and protecting the public.
Last year, the Home Office published the cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy, and a complementary tackling domestic abuse plan. The strategy and plan aim to transform society’s response to prevent offences, support victims and better pursue perpetrators, as well as strengthen the systems and processes in place that are needed to deliver those goals.
As part of the implementation of the strategy, the Government allocated £125 million to communities across England and Wales through the safer streets fund, and invested another £5 million in the safety of women at night fund. That funding has supported the delivery of a range of initiatives that seek to improve the safety of women in public spaces, including preventive policing to identify vulnerable individuals and potential perpetrators, safe-space initiatives, taxi-marshal schemes to help to ensure that women travel home safely, and education awareness programmes in night-time economy venues and higher education establishments. I will come to that in a moment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth alluded to, Cornwall Council has been awarded £664,802 through the fourth round of the safer streets fund, to support the delivery of a range of interventions that aim to tackle violence against women and girls and antisocial behaviour. I pay tribute to her local council, her local police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, and her new chief constable, Will Kerr—who was sworn in last December—for the work they are doing on specialisation in tackling violence against women and girls.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington touched on the work being done by the safer streets fund in his constituency, and its success. If appropriate, I might have the opportunity to visit and meet him and the team at the hub at Number Forty to talk about their work locally.
Peter Gibson
The Minister is always welcome in Darlington. As it is the birthplace of the railways, all rails lead there.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and may well take him up on that. I hope to be able to visit him in Darlington. I pay tribute to him for his work on Sian’s law, and his dedication and determination. We all know what a challenge it is in this place to see a private Member’s Bill to fruition. I pay tribute to him for what that law will do to improve people’s lives and safety. His constituents should be proud of him for what he has achieved with it.
Interventions being funded include the delivery of training for night-time economy venues, including Stamp Out Spiking workshops, bystander training and awareness-raising initiatives for students. In that context, it is an appropriate moment to briefly touch on spiking, which was raised by a number of Members. This is where my memory may fail me, but it is my understanding is that it is covered under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, in the context of administering a poison. That Act carries with it a maximum period of imprisonment of five years for that offence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington alluded to, the challenge is catching the perpetrator, given the context of how such offences are often committed. There is the challenge of proving it and also, I suspect, an element of awareness-raising needed about the nature of the offence, so that there are more reports, enabling the police and others to better intervene.
Cherilyn Mackrory
The Minister is right that gathering evidence is absolutely key to getting a conviction for spiking. That is why, as part of—I think—the safer streets fund, kits are now available for night-time economy workers so that if somebody reports that they have been spiked, the testing can be done there and then, which will often help to lead to a conviction.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is right to highlight, for want of a better way of putting it, the innovation and thought going into finding ways to tackle what is a complex offence.
We have invested more than £230 million in implementing the domestic abuse plan, including more than £140 million spent on supporting victims and more than £81 million on tackling perpetrators. We have doubled funding for survivors of sexual violence and for the national domestic abuse helpline this financial year, and further increased funding for all the national helplines that it supports. In 2021-22, more than 81,000 people received support from Home Office-funded VAWG helplines.
As I have alluded to, we passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which introduced a range of measures, including —[Interruption.]
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division, so I have to suspend the sitting.
Edward Argar
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 introduced a range of measures, including a new wider statutory definition of domestic abuse, which recognises all forms of abuse beyond physical violence. It also created a new criminal offence of non-fatal strangulation, extended the offence of sharing private sexual photographs and films with the intent to cause distress—so-called revenge porn—and extended the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour to cover post separation. The majority of those measures are already in force.
Some hon. Members have alluded to the Online Safety Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament. There are some challenges with the scope of that Bill; parts of the Law Commission’s report into these offences will not fall within scope, which limits what can be done in this context. However my starting point, notwithstanding the complexity of the Law Commission’s report, is that where we can, where it is within scope and where it is possible—I think the DCMS Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), said this on Report—we should implement at least some of its recommendations in a way that does not inadvertently have negative impacts. It is a complex package, and large parts need to be taken as a whole, but where we can take individual measures and use this legislative vehicle—we all know the challenges of finding a legislative vehicle for a whole package—I am keen that we do that so that we make at least some progress even if it is not 100%.
In the rape review action plan, published in 2021, the Government looked at how the entire criminal justice system responds to rape. We recognised that in too many instances, it simply has not been good enough. I take a particular interest in the rape review action plan, not just because it is a key part of my ministerial portfolio but because when I last covered this portfolio in 2018-19—I was Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle was at the Home Office and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) was Solicitor General—at the direction of the then Prime Minister, we looked at commissioning exactly that. I pay tribute to Emily Hunt for her work on that.
Our ambition was to more than double the number of adult rape cases being referred, charged and reaching court by the end of this Parliament, and we are making steady progress on our ambitions set out in the rape review action plan. The latest data show that the number of cases referred, charged and reaching courts has increased. In April to June 2022, there were 901 adult rape police referrals—more than double the 2019 quarterly average—and suspects charged by the CPS were up by two thirds on the 2019 quarterly average. In July to September 2022—a slightly different period of time—there were 467 adult rape Crown court receipts which, again, is more than double the 2019 quarterly average.
I will touch on two aspects of the comments of the hon. Member for Bath. I will pick up her points about Operation Soteria and Avon and Somerset police in a moment, because I had the privilege of visiting them recently. I would just be a little cautious. She referred to how we guarantee more convictions. The only reason I am a bit cautious is that we cannot guarantee convictions. We can guarantee charges, and I think that is what she meant—bringing more cases to court. I do not think it is the case that the CPS will pursue a case only when there is a guaranteed conviction, because it cannot guarantee that in any case. However, it has to meet the two tests for Crown prosecutors—the evidential test and the public interest test—in order to bring a prosecution. Due to the nature of these offences, those tests can be challenging.
Wera Hobhouse
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. I am glad that he corrected the record, because I was obviously going a bit free range. It is absolutely true that these institutions are independent. We cannot guarantee anything, but it is about increasing conviction numbers, and that is what we are here to talk about.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I suspected I knew what she meant, but I wanted to be clear for the record. To ensure that victims are adequately supported, the Ministry of Justice is also quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services, which includes funding to increase the number of independent sexual violence advisers, ISVAs, and independent domestic violence advisers, IDVAs, by 300, to more than 1,000 by 2024-25.
Edward Argar
I will just finish my point and then, of course, I will give way. In that context, we are recommissioning the rape and sexual abuse support fund to March 2025. In December 2022, we launched a new 24/7 support line for victims of rape and sexual abuse, meaning every victim now has the option of accessing free, confidential support, wherever and whenever they need it.
Jim Shannon
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to extra support officers; I think he referred to about 1,000. Whenever there are delays in rape cases, for those people traumatised by the physical action against them and who may be fearful, I want to seek assurance that, when it comes to those extra staff, direct contact is made with those with a case pending, to ensure that physically and verbally—the two aspects met in relation to their cases—they do not feel let down by the service due to the delays. That is where I am seeking help.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman almost reads my mind. I was about to turn to a number of key elements that I believe have to form part of the response. Legislation forms a part, but it is very easy to say, “We must change the law.” This is not just about altering law; it is about a whole system response. A key element, as the hon. Gentleman highlights, is the support available in a timely manner, to ensure people get the physical and emotional support they need, and the support through the criminal justice process, to understand what is happening and their rights, and to know they have someone they can trust who is there to talk to. He is absolutely right to highlight that.
Alongside the law and the support that needs to be in place, we need to look at how the different parts of the system work together, particularly the CPS and the police, as the hon. Member for Bath mentioned. She touched on Operation Soteria, which seeks to do that with the police and the CPS. I had the privilege of meeting the hon. Lady’s force recently. I was in Avon and Somerset and met the fantastic Chief Constable Sarah Crew, to hear about its stats.
Avon and Somerset was the first of the forces to embark on the Operation Soteria programme. There are now 19 forces at different stages. It is an academic deep dive designed to look at how to better improve outcomes at each stage of the system and to create a national operating model that other forces can adopt. Among the pillars of that work is close partnership working between the police and the CPS, so that both elements of that system understand what the other is doing, and what is required to have the best chance of a successful charge and court case, while understanding the impact on the victim and trying to minimise the intrusion.
In that context, I looked at the work being done around forensics and how to move to that target of 24-hour turnaround for a victim’s phone when data is needed from it, and to ensure that what is taken is proportionate and is done, as it has to be, with the victim’s consent and full understanding. It is up to them and they are in control of that process. The hon. Lady also touched on the importance of data in understanding the analytics and what forces can do in that space.
Crucially, the programme looks at the importance of specialist officers investigating the crime, and supporting them emotionally with the work they do, which is incredibly stressful. Lastly, the key element the hon. Lady touched on is the focus on the perpetrator’s behaviour, rather than what has often been seen by victims in the past as an over-focus on their behaviour. Operation Soteria has huge potential in this space, but as hon. Members know, it is not the only element. It is a part of the solution, but no one thing alone will solve this problem.
Finally, several hon. Members touched on education, and attitudinal and cultural change. We have seen similar debates in this House in the context of the police in the light of the Carrick case, but more broadly it is about educating men and boys, and changing attitudes. This is perhaps more in the context of the Online Safety Bill, but yesterday I watched the incredibly powerful documentary “Asking for It?” by Emily Atack, in which she talks about her experiences. Of course, no woman is asking for it, but she bravely talks about the online abuse that she receives and the attitudes that it demonstrates. I pay tribute to her for her powerful and moving documentary, which shone a light on exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth has been talking about: the need for an attitudinal shift among not just men and boys, but society as a whole.
To conclude, in May last year we published our landmark draft Victims Bill, alongside a wider package of measures to improve victims’ experiences in the criminal justice system. The Bill signals what victims can and should expect from that system by enshrining the overarching principles of the victims code in primary legislation. We carefully considered the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report and responded to it on 19 January, agreeing with a number of its recommendations to further strengthen the Bill. I look forward to the Bill being brought before the House for debate, and hopefully passage, as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I hope I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth that the Government recognise and share her view about the importance of this issue. We are carrying forward our ambitious plans to tackle violence against women and girls. I have heard the points that have been raised and I will reflect upon them carefully. I look forward to updating the House in due course; I suspect we will have further debates.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I thank all colleagues for their detailed and thoughtful contributions to what is an important debate for many people around the country. Some people perhaps suffer in silence without coming forward. I want them to feel empowered to come forward, because the agencies and the people who are supposed to be looking after them are there, and the processes are in place if they need to get a conviction in their case. It is important to send out the message loud and clear from this place that the Government are taking action, and the police, Crown Prosecution Service and the courts are working as quickly and effectively as they can to ensure that justice is done in all these cases.
It was difficult for me to write a speech without mentioning specific cases, but I purposefully wanted to do that. I know that all MPs present will have heard cases in their own constituencies because that is how prevalent violence against women and girls is in our country. If we speak with one voice in this place, we will do the most important thing, which was the Minister’s final point. We will change society’s attitude towards violence against women and girls from childhood onwards, so for future generations it will no longer be the scourge that it still is today. I know that we can do that on a cross-party and collaborative basis. I thank the Minister and I look forward to hearing from him on future developments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered sentencing for violence against women and girls.
EU Funding: Northern Ireland
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
In a moment, I will call Claire Hanna to move the motion. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the hon. Lady to wind up at the end.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered replacement of funding from EU programmes in Northern Ireland.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss this issue and, I hope, get clarity for a number of third sector partners and other groups in Northern Ireland and, potentially, areas of opportunity for them. It feels like a very long time ago, but during the EU referendum campaign there were assurances that Northern Ireland would not lose out, doing well, as we did, out of the EU funds, which were based on need. We know that the phrase “take back control” resonated with many people, but it appears to mean taking back control from some of the funds that have traditionally underpinned progress in Northern Ireland and from local decision makers, and handing it directly to London, without any sense of a strategy that local groups can try to support.
In March last year, in the early stages of the community renewal fund, I had a Westminster Hall debate, in which various eyebrow-raising allocations from that scheme were addressed. I am afraid that several of the reservations that people had about process, strategy, co-ordination and transparency have been borne out. It is worth saying that these concerns are not held just by groups that are applying for funding or by my party. The Northern Ireland Executive, as was, adopted the position that the best delivery mechanism for the shared prosperity fund would be via existing structures. Invest Northern Ireland, our economy arm, was very clear that it believed that the funding would be best delivered in conjunction with the programme for government. And the think-tank Pivotal and other respected commentators and business voices made the same point. People are up for change. They understand that it is a reality, and they roll with the punches. But it has to feel transparent, and there has to be a sense of fairness and coherence and that there is more to these allocations than just the whim of Ministers in London.
As I said, Northern Ireland was a net beneficiary in the EU. That is not a secret and is not anything to be ashamed of. Those allocations were made on the basis of need and, in many cases, were a counterweight to the obvious challenges that Northern Ireland faced and to decades of capital underinvestment. That is not just a historical issue: in 2021, the average capital spend per head in Northern Ireland was £1,325, compared with a UK average of £1,407. Of course, all that has contributed to a failure to attract quality investment and foreign direct investment, and decent jobs. That is reflected in our rates of economically inactive people, which are substantially higher than those in other regions.
The founder of our party, John Hume, said many times that the best peace process is a job: the best way to enable people to have hope in their futures and see beyond the things that have divided us in our region is to have meaningful employment—a reason to stay, to get up in the morning and to work together. Those were the opportunities that we saw in European participation, and that is why we continue to work so hard to protect our access to political and economic structures. Funds beyond the block grant, the EU funding as was and the promised successor funds, have been billed and are needed as additional, and they should be an opportunity to realise some of those ambitions, to remove barriers to employment and, in particular at the moment, to allow people to take advantage of the opportunities that the current very tight labour market offers. Unfortunately, that is not what we are getting.
Time is obviously short, so I want to focus on the loss of the European social fund and the European regional development fund and on the replacement, the SPF, and to touch on the levelling-up fund. It is worth clarifying that, as well as those assurances back in 2016, during the referendum campaign, the Conservative party manifesto in 2019 committed to replacing the ESF in its entirety. Northern Ireland got an average of £65 million a year from the ESF and ERDF in the period from 2014 to 2020, with Northern Ireland Departments having the power to manage that in line with UK strategy. That allowed them to align projects that they funded with regional and local strategies, ensuring complementarity and targeted outcomes.
The scenario now is that the UK Government and Northern Ireland Departments are essentially two players on the same pitch, in the same space, delivering the same sorts of projects. That has a built-in inefficiency and means that the results are less than the sum of the parts. That overlapping inevitably applies to monitoring, too. How are we supposed to measure the impact of different interventions in areas like skills if the scheme is only one part of an equation in which all the other Departments are trying to do similar things? It seems that it will be impossible to disaggregate that. The governance is sub-par and the quantum is less, too.
By comparison with the ESF and the ERDF averages, the allocation for the shared prosperity fund in Northern Ireland is £127 million over three years, so we are losing on average £23 million per year from that scheme. That has created this massive gap for funded groups, many of whom just cannot hold on. It is not like in the civil service; people have to be put on protected notice or face closure. Again, there is nothing co-ordinated about any of this. It is not even the survival of the fittest—that the strongest and best organisations will continue—because it is largely the luck of the draw on where organisations are in their funding cycle. Again, this is one more downside of the abandonment of devolution. Engaged and responsive local Ministers could monitor the situation and be flexible and creative with in-year allocation, match funding and bridge funding. They could, in short, protect us from the deficit created by Brexit and this devolution override.
I want to touch on how all this affects specific groups. The NOW Group is a highly regarded project that works across Belfast and further afield, supporting people who are economically inactive because of a disability get into employment. It has 17 years of ESF funding and runs high-profile facilities. If anyone has been in the café in Belfast City Hall, they will have seen NOW Group workers. They help hundreds of people with disabilities into all sorts of sectors, including leading corporates and the knowledge sector. It is a safe bet that any credible funder will keep backing a project like this, but the assurances are just not there. Reserves cannot last forever and, of course, smaller organisations will not have such reserves. In that project, 52 people are at risk of being put on notice and another 800 people with disabilities will be left with no service.
Mencap in south Belfast and far beyond has run ESF projects on social inclusion for decades and was well on track to exceed the target set by ESF of supporting 13,000 people by 2023. It is concerned by how limited the scope of SPF is compared to what they were able to do under ESF. The East Belfast Mission described well what is at stake:
“Our programmes have a long track record of being more successful than government initiatives”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing the debate forward. I work with the East Belfast Mission regularly in my office, so I understand its work and its success rate from the people it helps in my constituency. The mission tells me, as I told the hon. Lady, that without this funding stream it will not be able to continue to have the success stories it has and that that will hurt individuals and families. Like the hon. Lady, I look to the Minister for some assurance that the funding it has received over the past few years can be continued. With that, we can help more of our people over the long term.
Claire Hanna
The mission itself captured that. It talks about its staff being based in local communities with lived experience that helps them understand the specific difficulties people face. It says:
“Many of the people we work with have faced societal and generational barriers to employment, through illness, trauma or other issues. Our projects help break the cycle and raise up our host communities.”
It says that if it loses the fund, it will not be able to provide certainty and will
“lose irreplaceable experience which has been built up over decades.”
This is not just a Belfast issue by any stretch of the imagination. Dozens of projects across Northern Ireland, particularly those supporting younger people, women and minorities, are at risk. First Steps Women’s Centre is a vital part of the community sector in Mid Ulster, working to integrate new and minority ethnic communities, providing crèche facilities to support women back into work and signposting people to other partners who can help them with the multitude of issues they may face.
I want to specifically ask the Minister how the Department ensures that the projects it is funding are aligned with Northern Ireland’s democratically agreed priorities—agreed by the Executive with all five parties—absent a formal role for those Departments. How do the Government propose that groups, such as those I have described, that are facing this essentially bureaucratic gap are supposed to address it? If the gap is not going to be addressed, what are the people who use those services supposed to do instead?
I want to address the widespread concerns about the levelling-up fund. It is a mighty slogan—who does not want to see things levelled up?—but unfortunately, like a lot of slogans of the last few years, it struggles a bit when it comes into contact with implementation. People perceive it as pitting communities against one another, with distant Ministers picking winners seemingly at random. Again, the initiative started badly for us. The initial allocations fell short of the promised 3% of the UK pot. That target was laid out in the strategy document, which seemed to acknowledge the traditional capital shortfall in Northern Ireland but has failed to address it. The fund was initially conceived as a scheme for England with a Barnett consequential, but it has evolved to be more centralised than was promised.
The same paper highlighted the issues that there would be given the fact that local governance structures in Northern Ireland are different from those in Britain, but it has failed to develop a more collaborative approach to mitigate those issues. The same overlap and duplication issues with the SPF pertain here, despite requests from me and others to consider the north-south dimension and co-ordination on this issue. That misses real opportunity to maximise value by co-ordinating with the Irish Government, who have, for example, a £400 million capital fund in the Shared Island unit.
Lessons from the first round of levelling up, which were very well telegraphed, do not appear to have been taken on board for round two. Although the projects that got the nod last week are no doubt good news for the relevant communities, nobody has any clue about what the winning ingredients in those bids were, or how others might have similar success in future applications. We are advised that the Northern Ireland bids were assessed against three of the four criteria set out in the prospectus, namely strategic fit to the economic case and deliverability.
The winning bids are in the public domain, but the other applicants are not. In the interests of transparency, reassurance and learning for future schemes, will the Minister therefore share details of the original Northern Ireland shortlist of projects and their ranking, as presented after the assessors’ moderation meeting? Will she also advise what, if any, additional considerations informed the Minister’s decision? Can she clarify whether the funding decisions were taken by the Minister alone? It has been suggested by some applicants—I have struggled to confirm this—that the gateway pass mark that was used in England, Scotland and Wales was 75%, and that that was dropped, after applications were submitted, to 57%. I hope that the Minister can confirm whether that is the case.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In my constituency of Strangford, an application was put in for the Whitespots park, an environmental scheme at Conlig. It is shovel ready—the boys could start it tomorrow —but we have missed out on two occasions. She is expressing her concerns over what is happening in her constituency; I echo those and support her in what she says.
Claire Hanna
That again illustrates the confusion that people have about what was selected. Will the Minister confirm whether any criteria additional to those specified were applied? Were they applied consistently to all projects? Will the transparent list that she will publish include any changes in ranking that occurred as a result of new criteria?
Again—for future learning—it was announced that there will be a round three of levelling-up funding. An enormous amount of work goes into the applications, including, as people will know, many thousands of pounds on proposals and engaging the strategy board. Will the Department therefore develop a reserve list from round two applications? That could prevent some groups from having to run up the same professional fees and pouring in the same time, particularly when they are being left in the dark about the criteria. Further, can the Minister clarify what consultation was held with the Northern Ireland Departments and other funding bodies to address the overlap in applications under levelling up and other schemes? Finally, does the Minister think that the spread of applications in Northern Ireland is appropriate?
A lot of these issues are very technical, but they are vital to achieving the things that we all want to achieve for Northern Ireland and for progress. They are also vital to people having some faith in this progress—that they have not had their eye wiped, essentially, by funds being promised, removed and not adequately replaced. That is not the case at the moment. People see this as a net loss from what we enjoyed before Brexit, and that should concern the Department.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
We have until four minutes past 5, but it is not essential to take up all the time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson. I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for securing this important debate, and for the constructive way in which she has engaged with the Department and I on the UK shared prosperity fund. I know that she is and has long been a committed champion for the many voluntary groups, businesses and communities in her constituency that have previously benefited from, if not relied heavily on, EU funding. She has been a keen advocate to ensure that that support continues under the UK shared prosperity fund.
The hon. Member mentioned the NOW Group, and I am pleased that she did. As she knows, the NOW Group has been in receipt of ESF funding, and has also recently accessed the community renewal fund as well. We have worked with Maeve Monaghan, the CEO of the NOW Group, to help to design the UK shared prosperity fund planning as part of that partnership group. Hopefully her feedback there has definitely been helpful, and she feels that it has been taken on board as we have designed the programme.
In my response, I hope I will be able to provide some clarity on the next steps regarding the roll-out of the UKSPF in Northern Ireland; the steps we have taken so far to engage charities and community groups currently in receipt of Government support; and the progress we are making in our ambition to level up communities in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom. I will make reference to the levelling-up fund and address as many of the questions she raised as I can. I am not sure my hand was working fast enough to write them all down, but if I have missed any I will follow up in writing following the debate.
As hon. Members will know, we published the prospectus for the UK shared prosperity fund back in April last year. It sets out how the fund and its £2.6 billion of funding will work on the ground. Effectively, it will replace the European regional development fund and the European social fund with a simpler, smoother and less bureaucratic approach to supporting communities right across the UK. We all know that bureaucracy is something that community groups have raised with us, so as a Government we have very much taken that on board.
In that sense, it is fair to say that the UKSPF is a central pillar of the Government’s levelling-up agenda and our ambition to bring transformative investment to places that have gone overlooked by successive Administrations for too long. We want to use the funding to support people in skills, helping the unemployed move into high-skilled, high-wage jobs—I know that is something specifically mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast South in her speech. We also want to use the funding to help the growth of local business and invest in communities and places to help to build pride in place. We know that having pride in the place that someone lives and has grown up in is a crucial part of the wider levelling-up agenda.
For Northern Ireland, that means £126.8 million of new funding for local investment and local priorities up to March 2025. Crucially, that fulfils the promise we made that the UKSPF would match the funding allocated to Northern Ireland through EU structural funds.
I know we have set out how the approach will work in some detail already, both in the prospectus and previous spending rounds, but I will quickly recap it for everyone here. The UK shared prosperity fund is set to ramp up over the coming years, so that total domestic UK-wide funding of the ERDF, ESF and UKSPF will at least match receipts from EU structural funds. It will reach £1.5 billion per year across the UK in 2024-25, when Northern Ireland will receive £74 million. It is important to note that before that date, when ERDF and ESF funding is still being delivered—albeit in smaller amounts—the UK shared prosperity fund tapers in for Northern Ireland and in England, Scotland and Wales too.
I need to put on the record that the Government fully recognise the need for the funding to be properly tailored to the projects and organisations that add real economic and social value in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast South mentioned some of the projects in her own constituency, and I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for talking about how one of those organisations, the NOW Group, has helped his own constituents. We all know that a good, local charitable organisation can do wonders for our communities, and that is specifically why we are so keen to support them through this funding.
To ensure that we tailored the funding appropriately, we ran a comprehensive programme of workshops and engagement with Northern Ireland partners last year. That included businesses, voluntary and community groups and councils, so that we could collect the widest possible views on the priorities for the fund and how it could best work in concert with other opportunities in Northern Ireland. We also established a partnership group comprised of all the organisations I just mentioned, along with the higher education sector and the Northern Ireland Office, to advise us on how the fund could be best utilised. We have built further on that engagement since then.
Throughout the process, we have offered the Northern Ireland Departments the opportunity to formally participate in shaping the fund, but, sadly, that has not proven possible.
Claire Hanna
Does the Minister know why that has not proven possible? It is because under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is essentially the constitution of Northern Ireland, the Department is not equality-screened—unlike the Northern Ireland Office and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It is not able to legally operate and to run equality impact assessments, which are the law in Northern Ireland. That problem was telegraphed, but the Department has not taken adequate steps to address it. That is why those Departments have not been able to be involved.
Dehenna Davison
I will follow up in writing on that point. Having spoken to Sue Gray, one of our super officials, who has been outstanding in her engagement, I know how closely officials have been working with the Northern Ireland Finance, Economy and Communities Departments, maintaining regular contact as our plan has developed. That engagement continues.
Where have we got to? Drawing on insights from the partnership group, and from wider engagement, we published an investment plan just before Christmas last year. That sets out how Northern Ireland’s allocation will be spent and the impact we expect it to have. It supports the leading needs and opportunities in Northern Ireland, addressing high levels of economic inactivity, promoting entrepreneurship and innovation and strengthening pride in place. I am pleased to say that the plan has been given the seal of approval by our partners on the ground and is now being implemented.
Our first competition, for £42 million, which is roughly a third of the total UK SPF allocation, is focused on helping more economically inactive people into work. Many MPs, Assembly Members and other stakeholders have rightly made the case for prioritising this funding and the voluntary and community organisations that deliver it. I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast South welcomes this provision and the benefits it will bring not just to the organisations that receive it and the individuals they will help, but to Northern Ireland’s wider economy.
We are also working with councils in Northern Ireland to bring forward early communities and place projects, as well as a joined-up service for entrepreneurs seeking to start a business and create jobs. Pending further discussion with the Northern Ireland civil service, we may also commission Northern Ireland Executive Departments, or their arm’s length bodies, in the design and delivery of the fund. I am sure hon. Members will join me in encouraging their fullest involvement.
Part of this work is about ensuring that we mitigate issues for organisations as the European programmes we have discussed draw to a close. That issue has been raised with me by organisations not just in Northern Ireland but all around the UK; it is something that our Department and Ministers in other Departments have been incredibly focused on. With that in mind, we have been able to reprofile the SPF by moving funding from 2022-23 to 2023-24, so that it betters reflects funding needs. I know that this is an issue that my predecessors were asked to consider by many partners in Northern Ireland, and I am pleased we have been able make real progress in this area. It demonstrates something crucial, which is that SPF is not a fixed fund; it can and should flex to meet the evolving needs of the people of Northern Ireland—and it has been designed to do so.
It goes without saying that we will continue to engage with partners, including the Northern Ireland Departments and hon. Members on both sides of this House, on the design and operation of the fund, so that it delivers for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland and throughout the Union.
If we take a step back from the UK SPF to talk about other funding, which the hon. Member for Belfast South did with regards to the levelling-up fund, Members will know that Northern Ireland Departments have always provided funding alongside the European regional development fund and the European social fund. While we recognise the challenging budget circumstances Northern Ireland faces, the funding provided by UK SPF is only ever part of the answer. It is right that the Northern Ireland Departments continue to invest in provision that they have previously supported; that is something I think all of us would encourage.
The Government also want to play their part, making sure we are contributing towards building a brighter Northern Ireland. That is why, alongside the UK shared prosperity fund, we have used a wide range of other funds to spur growth, regeneration and investment. Those include: the community renewal fund, which backs 30 locally led, innovative projects to the value of £12 million, and the community ownership fund, which has so far supported six local communities in Northern Ireland to take ownership of assets at risk of loss, with a spend of £1.3 million. There are other important schemes and investments, such as £617 million for city and growth deals covering every part of Northern Ireland, and our new deal for Northern Ireland providing £400 million to help boost economic growth, invest in infrastructure and increase competitiveness. We are also investing £730 million into the Peace Plus programme, ensuring a total budget of almost £1 billion—the biggest peace programme to date. Through that package of investment, we will achieve significant, visible and tangible improvements to the places where people work and live.
Jim Shannon
The Minister mentioned £400 million. I do not expect an answer today—it might not be possible—but how much of the new deal money has been used or set aside?
Dehenna Davison
I do not have an answer to hand, but I will commit to follow that up and provide that information.
I will touch on the levelling-up fund, because we do not have much time left. Questions were raised about the shortlist, rankings and considerations. Much of the information around the considerations has been set out in the technical note that has been published. That will provide some information, and I am happy to provide a link.
The hon. Member for Belfast South asked about consistent application. Ministers were keen to ensure there was consistent application of the decision-making framework to ensure that they were not cherry-picking the winners. It was designed to reflect the scores and value of the projects that were selected. She also asked whether the decision was made by me alone, as a Minister. She knows that the fund is a joint fund across multiple Departments, ergo that was not the case. Various Departments are involved in the decision-making process.
The hon. Lady asked about round 3 of the levelling-up fund. We have indeed committed to a round 3, but I am not yet able to provide more details about that fund, because the conversations are ongoing and decisions are yet to be made. However, as soon as we have made the decisions and announced how round 3 will work, I will share that information with her.
I want to conclude by saying a huge thank you to the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I hope this is the start of more constructive engagement between us as we both fight for what is best for the people of Northern Ireland.
Claire Hanna
I have been kept right on the Standing Orders, but I thought I would get back in. I appreciate the Minister’s approach and her enthusiasm. As I said, I do not doubt that the projects and other things that are being funded are laudable, but they are not additional to what we had. They are less than what we had, which was less again than what we needed. They are not equality-screened in Northern Ireland’s traditional way, so people do not have confidence in that regard. Ultimately, the fundamental question is: who decides, and on what basis? Frankly, I am none the wiser after this discussion, and that is what is concerning people.
Even if the shortlisting is not published, we all know the 10 projects that got the results. However, there are concerns that the published criteria were not applied in a very direct way overall, as the Minister will be aware. I know these things are not always straightforward, but the metrics are clear—they are in the public domain. I am sure most Members have poked around in the Bloomberg data about different constituencies and how they are performing relative to 2019 and relative to one another, and that will show that, in most cases, Northern Ireland constituencies continue to fall behind, including those that did not receive any levelling-up funding, while constituencies that were ahead are staying ahead. I am none the wiser, and I hope we can have a follow-up meeting, but it is not just a case of me being satisfied about transparency; it is also about those who have applied and invested hours and thousands of pounds in producing good applications. We are no more confident that detached Ministers’ have not decided.
Dehenna Davison
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I should have said that, as part of my package on the levelling-up fund, full written feedback will be provided to all applicants, which I hope will provide some guidance on where bids perhaps fell short. There is also the option of follow-up meetings with officials from my Department to go through that in more detail, which I hope will satisfy some of the concerns around the scoring.
I will quickly wrap up now. Again, I thank the hon. Lady for her commitment to helping to improve the prosperity of not only her constituents but the whole of Northern Ireland. As the Minister for Levelling Up, I am committed to that. If all parts of the UK are not firing on all cylinders, the UK as a whole is suffering. Ultimately, we need to make sure that every region and every community is levelled up and can benefit from the maximum opportunities and value of that community for the sake of our entire nation.
Question put and agreed to.
Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Rights
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
The debate can technically run until 6.04 pm.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights for creative workers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am delighted to have secured a debate on such an important and dynamic topic.
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence seemingly knows no bounds. Each week, a new AI tool is launched that drives further change across business, science, the arts and everyday life. When I applied for the debate, no one had heard of ChatGPT, but now it is writing speeches for the Chancellor. AI can undoubtedly bring significant advancements across a variety of fields, from aiding medical diagnoses to predicting environmental disasters. AI is transformative. It goes further and faster than humanly possible. Quite rightly, it has been identified as one of the UK’s key growth industries, and it is vital that Government policy supports digital innovation to position the UK as a world leader in this field.
But just as AI brings many benefits, it also carries significant risk. AI is rapidly permeating the creative sector, creating visual art, prose, music and film at a pace and cost that humans are unable to match. For creatives, the risk of AI-generated material flooding the market gives rise to significant regulatory and ethical challenges, but these can be overcome, or at least mitigated, with well thought out and considered policy that balances the legitimate concerns of creatives with the need to foster digital innovation. I am therefore pleased to bring this debate to Parliament to discuss those challenges on the record and to give a voice to the millions of creative workers across the UK whose careers will be impacted by AI.
We have all seen how quickly AI can redefine industry norms. We must start exploring how we balance our digital and creative future. What is the outlook for our musicians, journalists, visual artists, publishers and performers in an increasingly computer-powered world? With the help of the Chamber Engagement Team, I conducted a survey of over 200 creative workers to hear how AI was impacting their work. Many said that their work, which they own the copyright for, had been used without their consent by AI companies. One respondent, Richard, noted that, in recent weeks, almost 600 of his copyrighted images had been scraped off the internet to train AI platforms, for which he has not received a single penny. Another survey respondent, Henry, said:
“Why should an AI company be able to blatantly copy and capture the ‘essence’ of how I compose music and monetise it, for free?”
This bypassing of copyright has resulted in creatives feeling that AI is undermining their skills and devaluing the creative process, as well as having a detrimental impact on their income.
The respondents to my survey are not alone. A significant volume of active legal battles regarding AI and intellectual property is currently going through the courts. Intellectual property rights and copyright laws are fundamental to the success of the UK’s world-leading creative industries. They not only protect the integrity of original work, but provide a revenue stream to ensure that creatives can make a living from their work. Copyright therefore has both an economic and a moral importance for creatives. But rather than looking to ensure current protections are upheld and enforced, last June, the Intellectual Property Office published proposals for an all-out exception to copyright for text and data mining in order to promote AI, with no opt-out for rights holders.
Under these proposals, companies across the world would be able to use UK creatives’ material to produce clean, new material that they could sell and even obtain copyright for without having to gain permission from the creator or pay for a licence. This would see a huge transfer of value from individual creatives to tech companies and strip creatives of the opportunity to refuse or grant permission for the use of their work by AI companies, placing thousands of jobs within the creative sector under threat.
These proposals to dramatically widen the text and data mining exception have been met with staunch resistance from the creative community, which has emphasised not only their economic harm but the damage that the erosion of intellectual property rights will do to industry as a whole by stunting future creativity. UK Music has referred to the text and data mining exception as “music laundering”. Equity, the trade union, has said that the proposal
“could be a huge assault on the property rights of performers.”
The Publishers Content Forum has said that the proposals would disincentivise further investment in high quality data. The Design and Artists Copyright Society, which represents visual artists, has warned that
“this change will have far-reaching detrimental consequences”.
It has urged the Government to
“look again at how the policy objectives”
of supporting AI-driven technologies
“can be better met without undermining creators’ rights.”
After hearing evidence from some of those groups and many others, the Lords Communications and Digital Committee found that the IPO’s text and data mining proposals were “misguided” and advised that they be dropped “immediately”. I was therefore encouraged yesterday to hear the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), tell the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that she was “pretty confident” that the text and data mining exception would not be going ahead as proposed last summer.
As the Intellectual Property Office falls within the remit of the Minister responding to the debate, I am hopeful that he will confirm that the Government will not proceed with the all-out exception to copyright. That news would be welcomed across the creative sector, but a number of questions remain to be answered. Why were the proposals ever signed off? Who asked for them? What issue were they trying to solve? On what basis was it deemed necessary to adopt such a broadbrush approach? What evidence is there that the copyright exception will benefit the UK economy in general and the promotion of AI specifically?
If the proposals are indeed not proceeding as originally intended, how will the Government ensure that stakeholders are thoroughly consulted on alternative proposals to avoid a repeat of last summer? How will Parliament be consulted to ensure that the correct balance between promoting our creative sector and developing AI can be achieved? Both sectors are strategically important to the UK.
Many of the creative workers who responded to my survey expressed a clear desire for robust enforcement of current copyright protections, with any form of open access text and data mining arrangement offered on an opt-in basis for creatives. One respondent, Ian, said:
“If musicians and composers wish to sell their rights to software companies to train their systems then that is their right, but the default should be that it is illegal to use any music without permission, and it must be enforced robustly.”
There does not seem to be a shortage of free data online. Google has this week revealed a new AI tool that is able to generate music from a short textual description using only work that is not protected by copyright. Other survey respondents advocated stricter rules relating to copyright infringement and tougher legislation to improve copyright protection of individuals and companies.
What is the solution? How do we balance the legitimate concerns of rights holders with the need to foster an environment that stimulates innovation in AI? The answer cannot simply be plucked out of thin air. It needs to be worked out in detail after careful discussion between Government, officials and stakeholders from across the full breadth of the creative sector.
The creative industry, like all sectors, will have to adapt to accommodate AI, but the industry is capable of and already making progress with that. Creatives have largely accepted that AI-generated content will have its place in the market, and they are already using AI to enhance their work by driving efficiencies and extending their reach to new markets. It also gives rise to a number of new licensing opportunities to generate value for creatives. However, a solid regulatory framework is essential to protect their rights and ensure that they can take part in value creation and retain control over their work.
My team and I have spoken to a number of bodies across the creative sector, whom I thank for sharing their insights. It is clear that the passion that drives our creative industries is still well and truly alive. That is not to say that the creative industries will not face challenges from technological advancements. AI can operate faster and more efficiently than humans, but it will never be able to draw on the lived experience of humans.
The arts bind us together as a society. They create a collective identity and a shared cultural experience. The connection drawn between reader and author, listener and songwriter, and artist and viewer cannot be replaced by a robot. The value, beauty and joy of the arts is that they reflect the human experience. How sterile and lonely our lives would be if human life were only to be captured on servers and in pixels. How deprived we would be if algorithms served us up only what they thought we wanted to hear and see and we no longer had the opportunity to encounter something completely different.
We must also remember that creators are individuals who often dedicate their lives to their craft. History teaches us that as manual workers are replaced by machines, skills atrophy as demand for them falls. People work hard to develop a skill because they hope to earn a living from it. If the economy no longer demands skills in the creative sector, they will start to decline.
Amy, a composer who responded to my survey, said:
“We train for many years, often at our own expense, to develop and hone our skills in order to share our music. Yet with every week that goes by, we see our music being devalued at every turn. We should be embracing musicians, composers and artists, not trampling over them with the click of a button.”
If creative industries no longer present a viable career option, we risk deterring future entrants to the sector and depriving future generations of creative skills. Another survey respondent, Oliver, noted:
“AI threatens having a creative industry that continues to breed and create new ideas.”
We must embrace, rather than resist, AI developments. Unleashing innovation in AI is central to economic growth, but that objective cannot be pursued at the expense of creatives. We cannot let AI replace the human creators who have built our world-leading creative industry, nor can AI content be produced off the backs of hard-working creatives without their consent. I urge the Minister to confirm that the Government will not proceed with the text and data mining exception proposed last summer, and I would welcome his assurance that all relevant stakeholders will be properly consulted in the development of alternative proposals to balance the needs of our creative and digital economy.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I do not wish to speak for a long time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on her excellent opening speech. She made some powerful and important points.
Last year, I was briefly the Minister for tech and the digital economy, and this issue came within my remit. It sits between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister’s Department, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I was surprised then, and I am surprised now, by the result of the Government’s consultation. The recommendation that was made is the most extreme of the options considered. It is unsurprising when we read the responses that, on the whole, rights holders complained that the general exemption was a bad thing, and researchers and developers who wanted to do it thought it was a good thing. However, the Government’s response seems to completely dismiss the concerns raised by rights holders and entirely favour the people who wish to exploit this data for their own benefit.
It is quite clear that people are seeking to extract value from data that other people have created in order to create products and tools from which they themselves will benefit commercially. There are already lawsuits in the music industry between musicians who claim someone else has listened to and copied their work and sought to benefit from it commercially. For example, someone could take the back catalogue of every track ever written by the Beatles to learn the techniques and methods. From that, they could create new music composed in the same style, as if the group was at its peak of writing and recording today. They would do so without the consent of the rights holders of that content, and they would make money out of it for themselves.
We can easily see how that kind of passing off could occur at scale, without any licence or exemption, or any benefit for the original creators. We should be concerned about the impact that will have on the creative economy. Many experts believe we are already very close to the day when AI will be capable of creating a new No. 1 download track or even a hit movie.
Sarah Olney
The example of the Beatles is an excellent one that we can all relate to. However, the Beatles have already generated a great deal of wealth from that back catalogue. Does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be a greater threat to new and emerging artists, who perhaps have not yet achieved the reach of the Beatles, that their copyright could be breached and their music replicated before they have even had a chance to establish themselves as an artist and as the correct owner of that work?
Damian Collins
The hon. Lady is completely right. It has an impact on new artists in two ways. First, they are competing against AI-generated generic music from legendary artists. Secondly, the technology could be used to spot new and emerging artists who may be gaining in reputation and popularity, to quickly copy their style and techniques by analysing the data and text from their works, and creating new works from that. It opens the door to the machines really taking control of the creative process, to the detriment of original artists.
The important point of principle is that when people have created works, they should have the say on how those works are exploited. It is detrimental for another organisation that sees value in that work to take it, mine it, create something from it and claim it as its own. It would be rather like saying, when radio launched, “Well, we don’t really think that we should pay artists any money for playing their music on the radio because the radio creates a new audience for their work; more people are likely to buy records as a consequence, and charging for music would inhibit the growth of radio and radio stations, which have a huge benefit to the country.”
As technology has developed, we have decided to recognise that, with technological advances, we must reward the creators as well. Their work is exploited through those technologies to entertain and engage people, and it has a value too. If we deny them access to that value, we will restrict their work and the future work that will come from it.
I think that it is very important that there is at least an opt-in or an opt-out. The Intellectual Property Office cites other jurisdictions in the world where exemptions exist. In its preamble, it cites the EU as one of them, but what it does not say is that there are pretty fundamental differences between the way that it works in the EU and the proposals for the UK. The IPO has also taken the most extreme option of having very general exemptions.
It is very important to think about the remit of AI, because we can already see how important AI will be to shaping people’s experiences of content. Probably the best live example of AI at work today is in the way that people play video games—the way that they are designed around the user as they play them—or the way that content is recommended to people on social media platforms. That is AI-driven recommendation tools learning from the things that people like and engage with—how long they look at things and what they listen to—and pushing new content at them based on that.
When we think about metaverse and virtual-reality experiences, that will all be based on machine learning and data mining to create new experiences for people. If people doing that mining can benefit from the creativity of others to create those experiences and create those new images, and can do so without any recourse or compensation to the original creators, then that is a big power shift in the creative economy, away from creators to people who drive systems—away from the artist to the data broker and data miner.
As we see the central role that AI will play in shaping people’s experiences in the future, it would be a big mistake, at this point, to completely cut out the creatives and see their data and content exploited by somebody else without any compensation at all. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. This is an urgent issue that requires a new think.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for setting the scene so well, and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for contributing so well. When I listen to them, I am very aware that their knowledge of this subject is much greater than mine. However, I wanted, as I always do, to try to give a Northern Ireland perspective on it, because of its importance to creative workers and the creative sector.
The lockdowns were incredibly hard for so many businesses, but the creative arts were the forgotten business. I am pleased and proud to have been a member of Ards Borough Council for some 26 years prior to coming here. We had a massive focus on the creative arts. We promoted them greatly and got much out of them, as did our communities. During the covid crisis, for some three years, our musicians, actors, playwrights and theatre workers were unable to go to work, and the only way of keeping things going was to put those things online for people to enjoy and get a taster of.
Prior to the lockdowns, it was estimated that the creative industries—which are not quite the same as, but strongly overlap, the culture and heritage sectors—made up around 5% of businesses in Northern Ireland, employed around 25,000 people and accounted for 2.7% of Northern Ireland’s total gross value added, contributing some £1,088 million. That is no longer the case, as the lockdowns have decimated the sector. The hon. Member for Richmond Park put forward the case for the sector and the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe reiterated its importance, as will others who speak. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister will say.
Thankfully, the lockdowns have ended, yet the threat to the creative industry has not lessened. Indeed, the proposals have escalated the threat. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park has put it so well:
“These proposals would be damaging to creative workers, such as in the music and publishing industries, as AI companies would be able to use their works without permission or payment. This would lead to a huge transfer of value from the creative industries to AI companies and also potentially damage the competitiveness of our world-leading creative industries”
That is the thrust of the issue. I am sure that the Minister will, as always, give an excellent response; perhaps he can solve the concerns and worries that the hon. Member for Richmond Park and others have. I look forward to that. I am given to understand that the Government and the Minister are taking this matter seriously. I know that there was a ministerial response to a question from the hon. Member for Richmond Park in December last year, yet it is right and proper for the importance of the issue to be underlined once more in Westminster Hall today.
For any computer system to be able to shred through data and text and circumnavigate the proper methodology is tantamount—I will use a Northern Ireland example, and we all know the product—to allowing someone to walk into the Tayto factory and steal the ingredients for the world’s best crisps, which of course Taytos are, and then say, “Well, they shouldn’t have put the ingredients on the outside of the packet!” I am being a wee bit facetious, but I am trying to illustrate the point in a way that all can relate to. The information is there, yet for someone to be able to walk in and take the specific ingredients without paying is not acceptable, and never can be.
I will conclude, because I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) wants to speak. I am on record as being supportive of our creative industry, and this protection must be in place. I know that the Minister has been listening carefully; he always responds to the questions that we pose, and I am pleased to see him in his place. I know that he will ensure that the Government enhance protection for the only source of income that many creative workers have. A world without art is a world without light, and the Government must ensure that the light continues to shine brightly from the shores of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am mindful of the need for the wind-ups to take place, so I will try to be brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on introducing the debate and rightly stressing that there is a balance to be struck. AI will bring huge benefits to our society and to the cultural sector—indeed, the sector has been using it for many years—but it needs to have rules. We cannot have an ideological move towards tearing up rules with a deregulation agenda. Every industry needs regulations, whether they are electricity regulations or financial regulations. They benefit not only consumers and, obviously, the workforce, but companies, which get a degree of certainty about the areas in which they operate.
Colleagues have looked at some of the technical aspects and some of the specific effects on the industry. I want to put the issue in a slightly broader context. The music industry, which has rightly drawn attention to a number of the difficulties here, is one of the wider cultural industries in this country. It forms an enormously powerful ecosystem that is important not just in and of itself, and not just because of its economic benefits, but because of its wider societal benefits. It is one of the things—it is certainly not our weather—that makes the UK an attractive place to visit and work, not necessarily just in the cultural industries, but particularly in industries with more mobile international talent. Where are those people going to work? Would they rather work in Frankfurt or in London, Manchester or Edinburgh? These are very important considerations for the UK more widely.
This is not just about the technical side; the creatives are the key. Why did Disney recently change its chief executive? Because it felt that it was getting out of touch with its creative talent. Rupert Murdoch, a practitioner of realpolitik if ever there was one, famously said that “content is king”. By bringing those things together, we form a creative ecosystem that feeds on itself. That is why so many film companies are coming to the UK— because they are able to call on such a wide range of talent. It would be extremely unwise of us to create a deregulated sector, causing those considering where they should locate to ask, “Is my content safe there? Are there other jurisdictions where it would be better protected?” Those are the sorts of issues that we need to be discussing and focusing on.
We should also recognise that, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park said, it is not just those at the top. Key to the Planning (Agent of Change) Bill, which I introduced, was that nobody started by playing the O2; they started off in small venues and they built up. But people need to be able to sustain themselves. They need to be able to get an income so that they can move from playing part-time in the pub at the weekend to become semi-professional musicians, failing sometimes but then coming back. Not everyone makes it, and others decide it is not for them, but there are those who come through, which is why we had support from so many major stars for that campaign.
I urge the Minister to see that this is important not just for audiences or performers, but for the country. We see adverts at airports about “GREAT” Britain. One of the things that makes us great is our creative sector, across the board. We should be very careful about undermining what has been, for several centuries, one of its fundamental protections: the ability to protect one’s creative content, in order to benefit financially but also to have control over how it is used and to prevent it from being misused.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. I call John Nicolson, who has five minutes.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing the debate.
As I was preparing for the debate, I was thinking about the pace at which artificial intelligence is advancing. All of us, I am sure, have seen news reports these last few weeks of free-to-use artificial intelligence sites being able to muster, at inhuman speeds, reams of error-free text or digital images in response to a simple command from a user. Vain social media users—some of them politicians, perhaps—were asking bots to touch up their profile photos. Students had been asking AIs to write their university essays. So I thought, “Why not?” I asked an AI to write me a speech about the impact of AI on the creative industries.
I discovered that I could tell the AI what tone I wanted for the speech. I was offered a choice of “poet” or “philosopher”. I went for philosopher. The AI got into its stride. “In the past,” it wrote,
“creative tasks, such as writing, editing, and design, were completed by humans, often with the help of specialised software and tools.”
“Humans.” “In the past.” It is almost chilling, Mr Robertson.
My automated pal continued. It was on a creative roll and it wanted to talk about creation. I quote:
“One of the most significant impacts of AI on the creative industry is the potential to automate”
—a split infinitive, you will notice—
“many of the creative tasks that were previously done by humans.”
Back to me again. I am not sure about other hon. Members, but I think creativity without the creative process—without the humans—just seems so soulless. On the upside—this must be music to the ears of some free-market zealots—my AI speechwriter continued:
“This automation of creative tasks can drastically reduce the cost of labour and increase production rates. Not only can AI automate creative tasks,”
it concluded,
“but it can also provide valuable insights and analysis that can help inform the creative process. AI-driven algorithms can analyse large amounts of data and provide insights into customer behaviour, audience trends, and market needs.”
So it seems it is not just creative jobs at risk; AI has already automated tech lobbyists.
Speakers have already focused on the impact of copyright, whether on established geniuses or on musicians who aspire to great careers. Could it be that AI in this context is just a euphemism for automated plagiarism? By its nature and design, AI is derivative. The algorithms driving the AI, and many others, are used to trawl the web, sucking up music, words and images that it reimagines or conflates according to preset guidelines. That all happens in a matter of seconds with little or no regard for copyright and the moral rights of the original creators.
What do we risk losing when we take the human out of humanities, if we fail to safeguard the art and livelihoods or our creators, or if we sacrifice spontaneity for speed? What would become of the poetry of Jackie Kay, the paintings of Alison Watt or the music of Julie Fowlis? Would their art ever have been imagined by the electronic soul of an AI non-being? I think we all know the answer to that.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this vital debate on the potential impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights for creative workers. I thank all the Members who took part and observe that although each Member who spoke before the Front-Bench speeches was from a different political party, they were united in condemning the proposals, and for very good reasons.
From the Brontë sisters to the Beatles, from Jane Austen to Arlo Parks, from David Bowie to Sam Fender, we are and have always been a country of creators. More than 3.2 million people in the UK are employed in creative sectors, and Government figures estimate that our creative industries contributed £115 billion to our economy before the pandemic. It is a great pity, then, that the Government’s creativity seems to be limited to finding excuses for their misbehaviour and their lack of active engagement in our great industries. To the Conservatives, it appears that regulation is a dirty word, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) pointed out, the right regulation can support and enhance our great industries. The digital may present a new technological frontier, but our creative industries and the AI sector do not need to be in conflict with each another. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) emphasised, AI can support and has huge potential for the creative industries, but creators need the ability to enforce their rights over their work.
The IPO’s proposals include the introduction of a new copyright exception in order to promote AI, as we heard. That would remove the need for a licence and cut the opportunity for performers or creators to be remunerated for their work and talent. The House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee’s report on the future of the creative industries called that proposal “misguided” and asked the Government to halt the proposals. Not only would they undermine the basic principles on which our creative industries are based, but they could enable international businesses to scrape content created by others and users for commercial gain without payment to the original creators here in the UK. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, it could very much undermine our competitiveness in this key area. Last week, the singer, Rick Astley, filed a lawsuit against another musician for the impersonation of the classic hit, “Never Gonna Give You Up”. We are talking about a charter for the automation and industrialisation of such impersonations. I fail to understand why the income of our artists, musicians and creators is being risked in that way.
As part of Labour’s industrial strategy, we will shape and regulate AI technologies for the public good, increasing productivity, delivering better public services and improving the quality of life for all. That is how we grow our AI sector, not by throwing creators and artists under a bus. The UK is already well positioned to benefit from the transformation that AI can bring, but we need to look ahead to future risk, such as the potential for opaque AI systems to diverge from our intended objectives.
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the next Adele or the next Stormzy does not have their work stolen and sold by an algorithm? For what reason has the IPO—for which he is responsible—not held discussions with the music industry, and will it now do so following this debate? What discussions has he had with the Minister responsible for the creative industries to assess the impact of the proposals? Finally, did the IPO make an estimate of how much the proposed exception will contribute to the economy, whether in AI sectoral growth or in creative industries’ loss? If the Minister is going to say that it will not go ahead, which I would welcome, he still has to explain why he allowed our important creative industries to languish in such doubt and uncertainty, and to promise that in future he will take a more active role to ensure that technological change supports our great industries.
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to have the chance to put the record straight in answer to the sensible points and questions made in the debate.
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Had the debate not been scheduled, I would have hoped for someone to secure such a debate in order to give me a chance to explain the situation. I also thank all colleagues from across the House, from all parties, who have spoken this afternoon. I think we have covered most of the points.
It is a particular pleasure for me not only to be back in this role as the Minister responsible for AI, the Office for AI and the Intellectual Property Office, as part of my wider role as Minister for science, research, technology and innovation, but as someone who years ago ran a very basic AI drug discovery business. I mean, it was very basic: it was an algorithm with an elastic band connected to it compared with the technologies of today. It deployed basic early AI to look in the pharmacopoeia of “failed medicines” to find those that are actually dream medicines for certain segments of the population, trying to reprofile them.
I have therefore seen for myself how AI, properly deployed in an ethical framework, can be a huge driver for not only drug discovery, but better medicine and public services. I am also from a family with a lot of interest in the creative industries—my wife is a musician, artist and writer, my brother works in film and I have published a book—so I am very aware of the balance that has to be struck and that colleagues across the House have spoken about this afternoon.
I think it is fair to say, as a number of colleagues have, that AI is coming at us as a transformational technology at a pace that we have not had to deal with before in Government. The pace, the halving of technology cycles, and the speed at which it is maturing and reinventing itself are creating some big and interesting challenges for established industries, new industries that are taking shape and creators across all the different spheres of the creative industries. We need to get the balance right.
In case the Division bell goes or we have some other interruption, let me make it clear that when I returned to office, the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), and I met promptly to look at the issue. We have written around to make it clear to other Ministers that the proposals were not correct, that we have met with a huge response, which should have been picked up in the pre-consultation before the proposals were announced, and that we are looking to stop them.
We will have a rather deeper conversation with the all-party group, whom I met yesterday, and with experts in both Houses and in the industry—creators, platforms, publishers, broadcasters and digital intermediaries—to ensure that we do not rush precipitately into a knee-jerk move that is wrong. We must try to anticipate the challenges that are coming and to get a regulatory framework in the UK that can keep pace with the pace of the technology and the issues it raises.
I reassure the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who secured the debate and asked a specific question about this, that we will not be proceeding with the proposals. I will go on to answer the question that I know the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) is going to ask me, which is, “How did this happen and what are the lessons from it?”
John Spellar
I thank the Minister for that welcome announcement—I presume it was an announcement? I understand that this has to go through a number of stages of inter-departmental consultation, but could he give any idea of when a definitive policy will be produced?
George Freeman
Theses have been written on whether it was an announcement with a capital “A” or a small “a”. I do not think I could be clearer that the two Ministers concerned agree that the proposals submitted, approved and published did not meet with the expected support. I hasten to say that they were published after I left Government, and it was a period of some turmoil. One of the lessons from this is to try not to legislate in periods of political turmoil.
The key bit of the right hon. Member’s question is: when will we see proposals? My strong instinct is that we should draw breath, take a chance to go through all the feedback from the last few months, and then, in rather more deep consultation with all the various interests, see if there are proposals that might command the support that is needed.
John Spellar
I am sorry to be pedantic. The Minister refers to discussions between him and the Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), which is enormously welcome. As he is speaking from the Dispatch Box, is that now Government policy?
George Freeman
The right hon. Member is well aware, as a veteran of these things, that for something to be a formal announcement on policy, a Government write-round has to go through the various Committees. That process is under way. Until that is done, I cannot formally confirm that it is collective responsibility Government policy, but the two Ministers concerned say that the proposals have not met with the support that was expected. [Interruption.] He has just said that that is good enough for him. I hope that it will be good enough for all those listening.
As colleagues have highlighted, the real issue is how we get the balance right. That is why AI is considered by the National Science and Technology Council, our senior Cabinet Committee, which is chaired by the Prime Minister and looks at the big issues that science and technology raise. I sit on that, and it is there to grapple with the big geopolitical and ethical issues that some of these technologies are raising. That is why we are working this year on both a creative industry strategy, led by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and an AI regulatory strategy, which will set out our approach to regulating AI.
As the global AI revolution accelerates, we need to be aware that we are working in a global environment, and to set a regulatory framework that does not drive AI creators and investors out. We are a leading AI nation. We have an opportunity to set the regulatory framework in a way that reflects the values that this country is respected for all around the world. I think the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) knows me well enough to know that I do not believe that there is a huge dividend from scrapping all the regulations that were put on the statute book during our membership of the European Union. There is, however, a very strong case for clearing up our regulatory statute book; there is an awful lot of dead wood and daft regulations. It can be very unclear.
I have led the charge in my party for saying that a lot of the Brexit regulatory opportunities are to set the frameworks in new and fast-emerging areas, whether it is AI, autonomous vehicles, nutraceuticals or satellites. The creation of regulatory frameworks that command the confidence of both consumers and investors helps to position this country as a global testbed for innovation, drives international markets, attracts investment and establishes the UK’s leadership in standards.
As Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, I am passionate about our leaning into that sort of leadership, as well as getting rid of some of the dafter regulations, such as the one that says that coffee machines have to turn off after 30 minutes. I do not know which Committee passed that, or nodded it through one day a few years ago. The truth is that our regulatory framework is incredibly complex for regulators, innovators and investors to navigate.
Chi Onwurah
I think the Minister will find that rather than our leading the way on AI regulation, both the US and the European Union have already made strides in AI regulation that it would be good for us to respond to. I wonder whether he inadvertently made an announcement with regard to the National Science and Technology Council, which he said the Prime Minister has chaired. Previous Prime Ministers have chaired it, but it was my understand that the new version was not going to be chaired by the Prime Minister. Is it chaired by the Prime Minister?
George Freeman
Unless an announcement has been made in the last few weeks that I have missed, yes. He has the right to depute the chairmanship of a particular meeting, but the point is it that it is the senior Committee of Cabinet dealing with science, technology and innovation. I am delighted that the Prime Minister reinstated it very early on—as soon as he took office.
The argument of the Intellectual Property Office last summer, presented to Ministers in good faith, was that if we look at what is going on around the world, there are other jurisdictions that have moved quickly to put in place similar text and data mining exemptions—in the EU, the US, Japan and Singapore. They are structured differently, but all are wider than the current UK exemptions. I do not want anyone to think that we were going out on a massive limb; we were making a move that was in the spirit of that made by other countries. There is an irony here, in that we were an active player in helping to shape some of those EU regulations. The challenge and opportunity for us, now that we are out of the EU, is to take the ambitions that we were pushing when we were in the EU and reach them more quickly and agilely—possibly even more digitally—in a new regulatory framework outside.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend is right that there are exemptions in other jurisdictions, but none is as wide as the ones that we have set. The most comparable jurisdiction is Singapore. While Singapore has many great qualities, it is not a net exporter of music, nor does it have a creative economy on the same scale as ours. We have been discussing the Intellectual Property Office’s response to a consultation, in which it recommended introducing these measures. Am I right to take from what the Minister said that the Government are now minded not to introduce these measures, and so that for the time being, the status quo prevails until such other proposals may be considered?
George Freeman
That is exactly right. I will come to some of the lessons from that in a moment, but I am happy to confirm that.
In the consultation carried out by the Intellectual Property Office, a number of consultees made the case that UK copyright law was too restrictive, and was impeding investment in AI. The point was made about text and data mining exemptions in other countries, but I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe. He has a distinguished record in these affairs as a former Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and through his career. The regulations must be proportionate and reflect the economy that we are regulating. We have an incredibly strong digital creative industry and non-digital creative industry, and we must ensure that that is appropriate.
We heard rights holders arguing that no change should be made in the UK, and we also heard not just the big AI and tech firms but researchers in the life sciences and social sciences making the case that many of them were increasingly finding problems, not with negotiating with the obvious rights holders when it was clear who they were, such as universities, but with material available on the internet. They were finding it difficult to find the person to get permission from them, and that was holding back research, especially when working with multiple rights holders. While I am happy to concede that the proposals perhaps were not correctly, fully or properly drafted, there are some issues that are still worth pursuing. The Intellectual Property Office was asking the right questions, but it is more complex than the original proposals suggested. That is why we have committed to continuing that consultation.
Yesterday, I was with the all-party parliamentary group. I have instructed the Intellectual Property Office to share its analysis of the consultation findings, so that we can sit down together and go through what the issues are that we still need to deal with, and can get the balance right. As was said by a number of colleagues from across the House, when I say “get the balance right”, there is clearly a difference between those small and sometimes voiceless creatives—whether analogue or digital, but particularly if they are not in the digital creative economy—because some may want to completely opt out and say, “I just never want to see my image turned into an avatar, ever.” People need the ability to just opt out. People also need the ability to license, to be on the front foot, and to negotiate terms, which happens.
What the Intellectual Property Office picked up on from both sides is that there is a middle ground: there are those without a strong organisational platform through which they can set out the terms on which they are prepared to have their material accessed, and there are digital creators using intermediary AI technologies to create digitally, which is a legitimate activity, and who are struggling to find that interface and make it work. It is in that space that we particularly need to look to get the balance right between our creative, digital and AI sectors. Many in those sectors are small, extraordinarily dynamic and entrepreneurial.
In Coventry, I recently met a fantastic, almost underground coding community of teenagers doing amazing things. We need to be careful to ensure that the creative industry can flourish, and that the rights of the creators, who may or may not want their material to be used, are not trampled over. If they do want their material to be used, that takes us to a second issue: fair remuneration. I have stood here and discussed this with the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) before. There are issues about rights and about remuneration. How should we ensure that small creators are properly remunerated? There are issues that we need to deal with. As a number of colleagues have said, this is about the balance between rights, responsibilities and remuneration in the world of digitalisation of content and creativity.
There are two big lessons from last summer. One is that data is important. I have started a conversation with the Intellectual Property Office to ask if we could not do more to ensure that we have better datasets on exactly what the situation is with new, emerging revenue streams, new providers and new creators. The industry is moving very fast, and when it comes to which bits of the market are working well and which are not, there is a slight lack of data on which to base policy. Creating market conditions in which everyone can have confidence is the real challenge for the Government and for me as Minister.
I tentatively suggest that there may be another lesson, which is that we should harness the power of digital technologies and digitalisation when doing consultations. I am not quite suggesting that we should have run the AI-ometer over the consultation responses, but given the number of analogue Government processes, harnessing smart intelligence systems may provide us with a good way of identifying better clusters of feedback in consultations, and help to democratise the process of consultation. It is a slightly left-field point, but I am trying to signal that as we think about these industries, we have to ensure that we are not just talking to the same people, but driving new methods of consultation to keep up with the pace of the industry.
I have probably detained you, Mr Robertson, and other Members long enough. I hope it is clear that we have listened and heard, and we are absolutely committed to making sure that we get this right. Although the Government need to be on the front foot in anticipating the regulatory framework and getting it right, the proposals have clearly elicited a response that we did not hear when they were being drafted. We have taken the responses seriously. The Minister responsible for this area—my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster —and I have made it clear that we do not want to proceed with the original proposals. We will engage seriously, cross-party and with the industry, through the IPO, to ensure that we can, when needed, frame proposals that will command the support required.
Sarah Olney
Thank you for your excellent chairing of the debate, Mr Robertson, which it is a pleasure to wind up. I am delighted to hear that the Minister has committed, as far as he is able, to withdrawing the current proposals, and that he will consult widely with all parts of our creative industry before putting forward any further proposals. I am sure everyone in this room looks forward to hearing what those are.
This debate has, perhaps, been a reflection of why our creative sector is such a stronghold of the British economy. We have been debating this cutting-edge technology in the ancient surroundings of Westminster Hall. That really points out the context and the source of so much of the uniqueness in British creativity, across all parts of the UK.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for bringing his expertise and experience in this area, which really contributed excellently to the debate. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) for his contribution. I found it rather chilling, actually, that the phrase that sprung out at me was “software and other tools”—presumably those other tools are paintbrushes and musical instruments. It highlights that we cannot allow our human input and skills to be swallowed up by AI and, as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire said, the very derivative nature of what we will be served up as a result.
I thank not only all Members who participated in the debate, but all the industry sector groups who spoke to me and my team about the issues they are experiencing, and particularly the artists, musicians and performers who responded to the survey. It has been incredibly useful to really understand this issue. I am particularly grateful to Megan Harding, in my office, who brought all this together and helped me with the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights for creative workers.
Written Statements
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Register of Overseas Entities
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Corporate Responsibility, my noble Friend Lord Callanan, has today made the following statement:
The register of overseas entities is a vital new information tool for our law enforcement agencies and is part of the Government’s comprehensive and ongoing programme to tackle and prevent economic crime and illicit finance.
The Government legislated for it within weeks of the invasion of Ukraine and, with the assistance of Parliament, expedited the regulations needed to launch the register, which opened on 1 August 2022.
Yesterday marked the end of the six-month period for overseas companies and other legal entities in scope to register. By 5 pm yesterday, about 19,665 overseas entities were successfully registered and there were approximately 5,054 pending registrations that were submitted before the deadline. As such, the UK now has a valuable new database for law enforcement and others to access.
Throughout this period Companies House has been working closely with the three UK land registries to ensure that overseas entities are aware of and comply with the new requirements. Companies House sent 57,000 notice letters to all entities in scope in August, including duplicate letters to those that had multiple contact addresses recorded at the land registries. In October 2022, HM Land Registry issued a notice letter to the entities registered in England and Wales to alert them that a restriction notice had been placed on their land. In early January 2023, Companies House issued further reminders to those that had not yet registered.
Companies House has endeavoured to ensure that it has the best possible information about those that have not yet complied, matching registrations against data from the land registries. While some entities may have changed their name, not updated the land registry records or may no longer exist, Companies House continues to research and to work with company registries in those jurisdictions with the highest number of in-scope entities to determine the status of all unregistered entities.
An estimated 7,000 overseas entities have not yet complied with the provisions of the register. From today, those entities will find that they cannot freely lease, charge or dispose of their land. This is a significant and effective sanction for non-compliance. Data about unregistered entities may also provide valuable information for law enforcement.
Companies House is now assessing and preparing cases for additional enforcement action. These cases will be prioritised using an intelligence-led approach and Companies House will work with those entities making a genuine attempt to comply. Warning letters will shortly be issued to all unregistered overseas entities. Those wilfully failing to comply may find themselves subject to financial penalties or criminal prosecution.
The Government are also announcing that, through an investment of up to £20 million of allocated spending on economic crime, new anti-money laundering intelligence teams will be created to tackle the misuse of UK companies, corporate entities and property. Intelligence analysts and data scientists will be recruited over the coming months. They will play a key role in supporting the prevention, detection and disruption of money laundering, terrorist financing and kleptocracy through identifying, analysing and disseminating intelligence about high-level threat actors and enablers of those activities, to a wide variety of law enforcement and regulatory agencies. There will be a strong focus on networks controlled from overseas, for example those operating from former Soviet states. The new functions will be based within Companies House and the Insolvency Service, and will work closely with the National Economic Crime Centre and their private sector partners. The teams will use and support the existing powers of both agencies and new powers being introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill.
[HCWS538]
Transfer of NHS Digital into NHS England
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Will Quince)
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) has made the following written statement:
Today, NHS Digital legally becomes part of NHS England, to create a single, central authority responsible for all elements of digital technology, data and transformation for the NHS.
Laura Wade-Gery was commissioned by the Government to lead an independent review of how we can ensure digital technology and the effective use of data is at the heart of transforming the NHS.
Her report “Putting data, digital and tech at the heart of transforming the NHS”, published in November 2021, recommended merging the functions of NHS Digital into NHS England, to provide a single statutory body for data, digital and technology to provide the right leadership and support to integrated care systems.
NHS Digital, since its creation as the Health and Social Care Information Centre, has been a powerful force for change in the NHS and guardian of its key data IT and data systems. These will be transferring to NHS England, together with its expert staff.
All the protections of people’s data which existed in NHS Digital will apply in NHS England. Rigorous internal controls will continue to ensure that data is used and shared safely, securely and appropriately to deliver high-quality care, understand and protect the health of the population, effectively plan and improve services, and research and develop innovative treatments, vaccines and diagnostics.
This is an important step in bringing together in a single place, the essential systems and programmes to digitally transform the NHS, and to harness the full potential of data. This will enable health and social care services to use digital and data more effectively to deliver improved patient outcomes and address the key challenges we face.
[HCWS539]
Grand Committee
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Financial Services and Markets Bill
Wednesday 1st February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 View all Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (30 Jan 2023)
The Earl of Kinnoull
“(4B) The FCA must monitor and measure to what extent it has advanced the competitiveness and growth objective in various ways, including but not limited to—(a) the PRA’s responsiveness to entities that are regulated or seeking to become so,(b) its consistency of approach to entities that are regulated or seeking to become so, and(c) the proportionality of its approach to the regulation of entities that are regulated or seeking to become so.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide some measurable ways in which the competitiveness and growth objective can be monitored and subjected to scrutiny.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 45 in my name, I will speak also to Amendment 63. I apologise for being unable to contribute at Second Reading; the opening speeches were at the same time as a major evidence session for the European Affairs Committee. However, I sat through much of the debate and have my well-thumbed copy of Hansard here. I declare my relevant interests, as set out the register, as a shareholder of Hiscox Ltd and Schroders plc and a director of Alpha Insurance Analysts.
In my commercial career, I was a director, chief executive or chair of regulated financial services businesses in eight different major jurisdictions. I dealt with the regulators in those jurisdictions and regulators in other EU jurisdictions because of the passporting regimes, and with regulators in places where we decided not to set things up.
However, this amendment has nothing to do with that. Its genesis was in the report of the European Affairs Committee from June last year, The UK-EU Relationship in Financial Services. That report was a major piece of work; we took evidence from a galaxy of stars, including two of the four deputy governors of the Bank of England. The report was settled in the usual House of Lords way, on a unanimous basis.
Paragraph 145 of our report begins a section titled “A competitiveness objective”. In considering this, the committee was trying to form a better view on four real issues: first, the wisdom or otherwise of a competitiveness objective; secondly, what it actually meant; thirdly, how a regulator might implement such a thing; fourthly, how Parliament might scrutinise it. We will come to the fourth issue when we discuss later amendments, particularly those to Clause 36.
We put the problem of the competitiveness objective to our galaxy of star witnesses, including both of the deputy governors of the Bank of England. It was quite difficult for us to form a view on the wisdom of it because, throughout our evidence generally, there were considerable differences among all the witnesses as to what a competitiveness objective amounted to. That difference in the set of views, which were honestly held, was quite difficult for us to reconcile. While the committee generally felt that it was a good idea, it was a bit like how I took the mood of the Second Reading debate to be. There was an interesting set of differences in what it meant; if you do not know what it really means, it is jolly difficult to implement it consistently across a regulator. How will you do that not only between regulators but within a regulator when the FCA has several thousand employees? We were a bit dubious about that. In terms of scrutiny, if it is all unclear above you, scrutinising it is jolly difficult.
The committee tried to assist in this. We wrote various descriptive paragraphs; in paragraph 151, the first of our two conclusive paragraphs on this—not on actual scrutiny—we said:
“The Committee notes that, as a result of the Future Regulatory Framework Review, the Government is considering introducing an additional, secondary ‘competitiveness’ objective for the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. However, it is equally important for the UK’s overall economic competitiveness for the Government and regulators to work together to develop a broader regulatory culture that is responsive, consistent, and proportionate”—
I emphasise those words.
Noble Lords will have noted that the words “responsiveness”, “consistency” and “proportionality” appear in Amendments 45 and 63. These amendments are designed to give effect to what we as a committee wanted to do, which was to give some directional help to regulators as to how they would be able to implement a competitiveness thing and to have measurable things before them. I must say that I have played the refrain of “responsiveness, consistency and proportionality” to various market associations since the report and I have heard nothing but a feeling that that is at least a start in finding a way of being able to help to define this elusive thing of the competitiveness objective.
It is worth quoting our second paragraph of conclusions:
“We ask the Government, in its response to this report, to explain in further detail how a secondary ‘competitiveness’ objective would be applied by the regulators in practice and how success will be measured.”
The Government’s response to our report was, in general, a very good one. I worked out that I have been in receipt —either as a committee chair or member—of well over 50 government responses, and I can promise noble Lords that this one was pretty good. On this particular bit, however, it was very weak. The response on this area had a quite a lot of paragraphs, but most simply repeated the question. The operative sentence is:
“The regulators will be responsible for operationalising their new objectives.”
I must say that my spellcheck is not modern enough for “operationalising”, so I am not quite sure what that means. But I am sure that the Government are washing their hands of that, which I feel is a mistake.
I submit that the European Affairs Committee’s view on this—remembering, of course, that the committee is cross-party and this was, as usual, an entirely unanimous report—is that there are three benefits to having clarity in this area. First, as a client—either an existing client or a prospective new client who wants to come in to be regulated in the United Kingdom—it provides some clarity. It is jolly good, let me say, if you are thinking of moving capital or business to a jurisdiction, to feel that the regulator will be responsive and consistent and will take a proportionate view of things. Those are all things that are directly relevant to any decision to set up in that jurisdiction or to maintain yourself in that jurisdiction.
Secondly, it is good for the regulators, because they will then know what they are meant to be doing. As I said, we asked regulators about that in our evidence sessions and we heard different answers as to what the thing meant. Thirdly, it is good for scrutineers. We, as scrutineers—I have jumped over the fence now; I am a solid scrutineer and do not do any business at all—will be able to ask the right questions and to have metrics given to us to see whether the regulators are doing a good job. That, I would submit, is a win-win-win scenario.
These two amendments build faithfully on the work of a major committee of this House and should, I feel, properly be part of this Bill. I beg to move Amendment 45.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat what the noble Earl has said, but I thank him for the depth of his proposal and the work that he has done in tabling these amendments.
I remind the Committee that I have chaired two quoted companies. I have been chairman of one friendly society and seen through both Houses the Mutuals’ Deferred Shares Act, so I think that I have some heritage, in particular in the mutual movement, which I think is really important to our society and our economy. I take a deep interest in that mutual movement and, indeed, I know that my noble friend on the Front Bench and the Government are particularly concerned about helping the mutual movement move forward. This group of amendments is there to help that.
For me, these two amendments are central to the Bill. I have said this before and will say it again: growth in financial services is dependent on, and an extension of, what is happening in the financial world. There are some really exciting new developments happening, but they need help and occasionally a little persuasion. The FCA has a major challenge on its hands. I welcome that, as I am sure it does, but there is an understandable danger that having an increased spectrum of activities is new to the FCA. It should be reminded to look around the corner, do a little investigation and find out what is happening underneath and therefore what is coming forward. I am sure it will do that, but it needs prompting and these amendments do that.
I say finally to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the mutual movement, both the friendly societies and the credit unions, is looking for new ways to raise capital. That is fundamental to both those mutuals. I therefore hope the Government will look at the noble Earl’s amendment with an open mind and accept it.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in day 3 of Committee. In doing so, I declare my financial services interests as set out in the register. I will speak to Amendments 66, 115, 116, 196 and 222 in my name. Before doing so, I give more than a nod to the amendment in this area that has already been so eloquently and eruditely set out.
Amendment 66 is on reporting on competitiveness, which is essential. As drafted, Clause 26 in effect enables the regulators to mark their own homework—“in its opinion”. Does the Minister agree that it would be far better for accountability to government and Parliament for there to be a criterion for measurement of adherence to the competitiveness objective? Amendment 66 sets this out. I would be grateful for her thoughts on each of the paragraphs proposed in Amendment 66.
Amendments 115 and 116 look at reporting the regulators’ activities in making authorisations for new and existing firms. There are many elements set out in these amendments and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on all of them because we are really talking about the time and cost to firms and prospective firms. We need a lot more transparency and clarity, and Amendments 115 and 116 are focused in that direction.
Amendment 196 looks to reporting on determinations. Significant concerns have been raised on this issue across the industry. I point the Minister to the joint report of the City of London Corporation and HMT on the state of the sector. Does she agree with its conclusions on declining levels of responsiveness and the need for the regulator to up its game in this respect?
Similarly, when this Bill was in Public Bill Committee in the Commons, we heard of it taking nine months for an overseas CEO to receive authorisation and that it has been 15 years since a new insurance firm was established in the UK—a sector in which we have such heritage and past success. That evidence to the Public Bill Committee is a clear indication that heritage and past success are no guarantee of future performance. The regulator has played a key role in that being the current state of affairs.
I think we need to revisit the timelines for determinations and have a greater level of specificity and streamlining. A number of concerns have been expressed about the appropriateness of questions that people have found themselves on the end of. Rather than just seeing the 90-day statutory time set out, would it not be better to revisit this whole process and see how we could have a far more effective and efficient means of determination related to the type of determination that was being sought?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, there are many good suggestions in this group of amendments. Indeed, they are all good and they are all very supportable. It is particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, because with the amendment on the determination of authorisations he has put his finger on a specific problem that interferes with the day-to-day running of businesses, or those hoping to run new businesses, and is at the heart of competitiveness. So without addressing those kinds of issues, we will not get anywhere. This lies behind similar amendments in my name, in a later group, relating to efficiency.
I hope that, given the number of amendments, and no doubt contributions, from noble Lords from all sides, the Government and the regulators will acknowledge the need and the parliamentary appetite for further accountability through formal reporting and, as I point out in my Amendment 121, for independent performance metrics. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for signing that amendment. Of course, it is a probing amendment directed at the FCA. To be thorough, there would need to be another one replicating it for the PRA, but I had tabled enough amendments already. I am conscious also that the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has proposed a more fully developed model, with an amendment in a later group creating an office for financial regulatory accountability. I have signed that amendment.
My amendment suggests that the FCA report its performance against a set of statistics developed and periodically updated by the National Audit Office, in consultation with consumer representatives, through which the FCA’s achievements and progress may be objectively evaluated. The idea for the amendment developed out of discussions that we had in your Lordships’ Industry and Regulators Committee when we were looking at competitiveness in financial services, particularly in the insurance sector, as well as the wider discussion about competitiveness.
The issue with reports by the regulators is that, even within a given topic, they are setting their own exam questions and then grading themselves on how well they have passed. There is a constant need to get different specifics and granularities as new issues arise, and that is not necessarily being done—for example, reporting on authorisations, as I have mentioned. The committee had some discussions with the NAO, finding it very helpful and astute, and there are always lots of interesting things in its report that at times already challenge what the regulators have said about themselves and how they have spent their resources. It sheds light on things that—shall we say?—have certainly been exaggerated by the regulators in the past.
It is clear from the number of amendments in this group and elsewhere that to address problems comprehensively within the structure of FSMA is quite difficult and convoluted, needing many amendments that make it ever more difficult and convoluted. That is one reason to have an external body that can look over everything and cut through some of the obfuscation and difficulty one has in trying to put something comprehensive into FSMA and needing about eight amendments to do it. My fundamental question is: does the Minister recognise that need for an independent body of substance that can update what is reviewed and measured around regulatory performance and is free from the regulators’ own glossing, and if not, why not?
I need touch only briefly on my other two amendments in this group, Amendments 157 and 158. They simply suggest that when respondents to consultations do not wish to be named—that is perfectly reasonable—there should nevertheless be an indication of the nature of the respondents so that we can see how many have come from industry and how many from elsewhere. That is done sometimes; it is done routinely in some departments but in others it is never done. It is just good governance because, without revealing the identity of individuals or companies, you can nevertheless see what the universe of respondents truly looks like.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendments 83 and 84 in this group and I have added my name to Amendments 66, 115 and 116 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I did not add my name to some of the other amendments in this group but I think a pattern of considerable agreement is emerging from all parts of this Committee as to the things that we need to address. Perhaps we have not quite honed in on how to find the one solution to that, but the purpose of Committee is to explore these things.
My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s Amendment 66 aims at much the same target as Amendments 45 and 63 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I support what both said in introducing their amendments. I understand what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is seeking to achieve but it is not enough just to tell the FCA or the PRA to monitor and measure what they are doing in certain areas. We need to go further, and into regular and focused reporting, which is why I particularly wanted to support my noble friend Lord Holmes’s Amendment 66. Of course, the two issues are not mutually exclusive, and I can see the start of a way forward to an amendment on Report that encapsulates many of the issues arising in respect of the competitiveness and growth objectives.
I am particularly concerned that the regulators will pay lip service to the new objective: we will get pages of elegant words in their annual reports but whether they will amount to anything useful in terms of information is something of a moot point. I also believe that relatively few people actually read the annual reports of the regulators, much as not many people read the annual reports of listed companies. If noble Lords are in any doubt about the capacity of the PRA to write a lot of words without saying much of substance, they need only look at the PRA’s discussion document on how it will respond to this new competitiveness and growth objective. It runs to 70 pages but there is virtually no meat in there at all. We need hard data in a regular report which will get attention in Parliament and elsewhere, which is the other main theme that will emerge from our Committee: how we can start to build a proper system of accountability. However, reporting by the regulators is an important building block in there.
My Amendments 83 and 84 also concern the competitiveness and growth objective, but this time in the context of consultation on new rules. These amendments amend new Sections 138I and 138J of FSMA, as inserted by Clause 29, so that the PRA and the FCA have to include an explanation of the impact of how the competitiveness and growth objective has affected whatever new rules are brought forward. Whenever new rules are proposed, there is an important opportunity to consider their potential impacts on competitiveness and growth. As we know, regulators do not need many excuses to create new rules, but every time they respond to real or perceived risks with another addition to the rule book, they will end up imposing costs, and costs are ultimately borne by consumers. They can also have the effect of slowing down or hampering innovation, so it is important that, at the point before new rules are introduced, we have the opportunity to review the impact of those rules on competitiveness and growth in the UK. I like ex poste reporting, but I also like ex ante analysis and, if necessary, action to change rules before they have an adverse impact.
I have also added my name to my noble friend Lord Holmes’s Amendments 115 and 116 because they would give hard data on how speedy the regulators are in handling new approvals, which is an important area. Amendment 116, which would require information on various kinds of regulatory decisions made by the FCA, could usefully be extended to the PRA because it, too, seems to drag its feet on those areas.
Anybody who has worked in a bank will have a story about how long it took to get directors and key executives approved. Last week the Financial Times reported that a digital asset technology company was forced to register in Switzerland because the FCA was too slow to deal with its UK authorisation application. We really must have regulators in the financial services sector that work efficiently and effectively if the UK is to remain a successful financial centre. We need the kind of reports covered in these amendments to form part of a suite of information on which Parliament can start to hold these regulators to account more effectively.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is right in his Amendment 45 to bring the Committee’s attention to the need to ensure that the regulators take seriously the new objectives which may be given to them under the Bill. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill strengthens rather than weakens the regulators. My worry is that, if it is not made explicit, the regulators may not give enough importance to the new competitiveness and growth objective. Rightly or wrongly, the regulators are considered by much of the industry to be set on ensuring the stability of the graveyard and the protection of the investor against any possible risks. I entirely support the FCA’s new strategy to become more assertive and agile in detecting and taking action against scammers, but I wonder how, in practice, it can measure its advancement of the new objective in terms of consistency and proportionality and how it will balance that against its strategy to halve by 2025 the number of consumers who invest in higher-risk products.
The noble Earl’s amendment would also place a duty on the FCA to measure the PRA’s responsiveness to regulated entities. Does this not indicate clearly the additional complexity—especially for dual-regulated firms—that the well-intentioned but misguided decision to split the FSA into two regulators has caused? What proportion of the FCA’s time and costs will be spent on monitoring the PRA, and vice versa? Will my noble friend commit that, in the medium term, the Government will conduct a review of the effects on regulatory standards and the City’s competitiveness that have resulted from having two principal financial regulators?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I take serious note of the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, because they reflect my fear that the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the first amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, could easily be interpreted as pressure to raise the international competitiveness objective and the growth objective very close, if not equal to the financial stability objective. Frankly, that should be a major concern to us all. I do not want to put the regulators on the back foot when they prioritise financial stability.
In many ways, that is how it was in the 1980s and the 1990s, and we saw how the industry responded to that set of priorities and arrangements. The industry was blithe about risk as long as it generated short-term profit. In discussing the new international competitiveness and economic growth objectives, I have heard from many in the industry that they want them not only to be given greater weight but even to be primary objectives and to stand entirely equal with financial stability. That is such dangerous territory.
At Second Reading, I quoted Paul Tucker, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, who lived through all that turmoil of 2007-08 and after, who urged Parliament not to give the regulators—particularly the PRA—an international competitiveness objective, praying in aid former governors of the Bank of England, who knew the very soul of the industry and knew that that would be dangerous and unadvisable. Those were not his exact words—his were more excoriating.
Risk in the financial sector is asymmetric, as we saw in 2007. The profits of risky behaviour go to the leading figures in the industry, and they typically keep those proceeds, despite the failure of the sector and the organisation and, in many cases, despite the fact that if you were to go back and unpick it, one could say that such proceeds were based on false profits.
The taxpayer then had to come in and rescue the sector with £137 billion in 2007-09. Much of that has been recouped, but what has not, even to this day—and which we and the country live with—is the damage to the wider economy. We had more than a decade of austerity, and it is a price we are still paying to this day. At our peril do we put ourselves in a position where there is increased likelihood of a repeat of that cycle.
I remember from his memoirs that Alistair Darling was shocked that banking chiefs uniformly showed no gratitude for the massive rescue package that kept their businesses afloat after the 2007-08 crisis. I sat on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, but have yet to find one to take any significant responsibility, not only for their institution but for the broader sector.
On competitiveness, let me quote from the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, because this was central to its findings of why the industry had become so out of control and behaved as it did:
“There is nothing inherently optimal about an international level playing field in regulation. There may be significant benefits to the UK as a financial centre from demonstrating that it can establish and adhere to standards significantly above the … minimum. A stable legal and regulatory environment, supporting a more secure financial system, is likely to attract new business.”
That was the consequence of nearly two years of taking evidence.
I turn to other amendments. Those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, in this group focus the need for mutual and co-operative financial services. I wholly support that. I very much support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the establishment of regional banks. Local services focused on geography or a specific group are often treated as an afterthought or a Cinderella part of the sector today in the UK, but they can be the best way to deliver opportunity to ordinary people, including those presently excluded, and to help small businesses, especially in difficult times. We shall return to some of these issues in later amendments that we will discuss today.
I also support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, which, in essence, are on efficiency. They seem to mesh very well with the amendments of my noble friend Lady Bowles, which are about transparency and mechanisms to evaluate the performance of regulators.
I return to my additional theme: I introduced a discussion on financial stability, almost out of shock that we now have such an intense focus on enhancing international competitiveness and economic growth—as if, somehow, financial stability were not the absolutely fundamental delivery that we expect from our regulators. Without that, frankly, everything else is worth nothing.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I would just like to ask her a question about her very interesting speech. This also allows me to say that, in Amendment 45, the first “PRA” should read “FCA”—a good spot by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. But I do not quite understand how financial stability is threatened by a regulator being responsive, consistent and proportional. Could the noble Baroness explain that again?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
The noble Earl may find that this is already a requirement of the regulator, but this is not about that. If the amendment were taken in the way that I suspect the noble Earl reads it, I might feel reasonably comfortable with it. However, as we listened to the discussion, we saw where this was going. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, captured that: the industry is looking at these kinds of amendments as a mechanism by which it can find leverage to enhance the status of the international competitiveness and economic growth objectives. If we could find a balance, in asking for the kind of language that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is after, but making sure that that does not become weaponised and potentially raises those objectives to an equal status to financial stability, I would feel much more comforted.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we are on day three of six. I cannot possibly envisage the seventh day, so I will make short speeches. Our amendments in this group are 118 and 119. Amendment 118 would give the FCA a duty to report on mutual and co-operative business models, covering how it considers the specific needs of credit unions, building societies, mutual banks, co-operative banks, regional banks, mutual insurers and co-operative insurers. Amendment 119 would do the same for the PRA.
Following Second Reading, I read the Minister’s letter on this topic with interest and was pleased with her assurances on the matter. However, a letter has little substance; virtually nobody knows about it, to start with. Therefore, as a minimum, I hope the Minister will repeat the assurances in that letter about mutuals, et cetera, and get them on the record in Hansard.
I hope the Minister will assure me that the department takes a keen interest in the growth of the mutual and co-operative sector. The UK has a smaller industry than some international economies, particularly in Europe. I would be interested to know what the direction of travel is in government on this. If we are committed to consumer choice and a diverse, dynamic financial services mix, a strong mutuals and co-operatives sector is surely an important part of it.
There are many amendments in this group and, in general, I like the direction they take. I hope the Government will look at the thrust of these amendments and, as the debate on the Bill develops, try to come back with proposals that take the best of them.
I am very interested in the introduction of the word “proportionality”. My career has been in aviation, in railways, in nuclear and, indeed, even in the military. Proportionality, done well, is undoubtedly the optimal way of introducing and managing regulation. Of course, it is a dynamic concept. As things change, if you really do believe in proportionality, your interpretation of proportionality has to change with the changing facts.
The problem with this is that it needs very able and mature regulators. That is why so much of safety regulation and, in a sense, financial regulation is prescriptive. One knows how to interpret prescriptive regulation: you do what it says and, when you cannot agree, you go to a court. I hope that we persist with proportionality, but I feel that we will need a very special regulator to do it. If that can be achieved, it will give a dynamism to the regulation in this Bill.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments to improve and tighten arrangements to monitor, scrutinise, measure, consult on and report on the competitiveness and growth objective. As matters stand, I fear that the Bill’s provisions here are without clear and precise external measures against which the regulators’ success can be assessed and scrutinised.
Yet, as noble Lords across the Committee have pointed out, we are giving the regulators greater powers in the new regime than under the old and, with the Treasury, are responsible for the legacy of retained EU law for deciding which rules will be kept, which are adapted and which are modified, and how they will be applied. The operation of the new system will be critical to the sector’s competitiveness and growth and how the regulator objective works will be central to that operation. If it is to be anything other than a vague aspiration under the heading of Chapter 3 in Part 1 of “Accountability of regulators”, all who want or need to know must know what, in practice, is being done to achieve it and how well it is being done against clear criteria.
These amendments for reporting on the numbers and metrics of market entrants, rules simplified, new regulations, performance measures or the time taken to process the various stages of authorisations will make things more transparent and give an outline of how, and how well, the new objective is working. I think particularly of Amendments 66, 115, 116, 121 and 196, although that is not to say that I do not welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and other noble Lords for strengthening the mutual sector.
These amendments would serve another, vital purpose: they would help the regulators to focus on outcomes—tangible measures in assessing and defining the regulator objective of competitiveness and growth. This is particularly important, given that regulators will now be on a steep learning curve, having, for the most part, trained in an EU approach to rule-making, influenced by the precautionary principle in devising rules to cover every potential situation in a system based on process. They will now have to change course to the UK approach—the outcomes-based approach—which is indeed facilitated under UK law, which accommodates innovation and develops case law in the courts.
These amendments indicate a range of outcomes on which success can be measured. If such specific measures are included in this Bill, the regulators will be helped to make the change and to adapt from the EU law approach to one designed for UK markets in a way that builds on the UK’s own approach—an approach that, in practice, over many centuries, has facilitated and encouraged international competitiveness and growth.
I therefore support these amendments and urge the Minister to accept the strong case made by noble Lords.
Lord Remnant (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Prudential and chairman of Coutts.
I apologise to the Committee that I was unable to attend the first two days of this debate, but I spoke at Second Reading. I said then that I was very much in favour of the additional reporting requirements introduced to the Bill at that stage but hoped that they could be strengthened further. Many of these amendments do just that. I will not repeat the eloquent arguments of those noble Lords advancing them—indeed, there seems to be a large amount of consensus in this Committee—but I would like to emphasise my support in two areas.
First, on Amendments 45 and 63, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Naseby, and Amendment 66, in the names of my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lady Noakes, Lord Trenchard and Lord Naseby, I regard as of paramount note the introduction of the secondary objective for our regulators to promote the sector’s international competitiveness to support long-term growth. As this is a new objective, it is critical that the regulators should account to Parliament for their performance against this objective and against a clear set of reporting and performance metrics, measurements which are indeed measurable, verifiable and independently set.
Secondly, I especially support Amendments 115 and 116, in the names of my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Noakes. I have direct experience, both personally and at firms with which I am involved, of how long it can take for seemingly eminently well-qualified individuals to gain authorisation. For the avoidance of doubt, I exclude myself from that category. Businesses have choices about where they place capital and people. The burden and cost of regulatory supervision really can damage London’s ability to attract talent and capital. I do not for one moment suggest that there should be any diminution in the rigour with which applications should be assessed, merely that in pursuance of their competitiveness objective, our regulators should give enhanced emphasis to the speedier clearance of the applications before them. These amendments should help them do just that.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention. I declare my interests as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander in Madrid. I have a lot of sympathy with some of the amendments in this group, especially those in the name of my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
I will take a quick step back. The Bill needs to be improved in three key ways. First, we need to improve the reporting by the regulators. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, we need to make sure that the regulators are not marking their own homework, which is why it is important that we create a form of independent analysis. Thirdly, we need to improve parliamentary accountability. The amendments clearly address the first point on reporting. I will not repeat the number of points made very eloquently by the noble Earl and others, especially my noble friend Lady Noakes. However, I strongly believe that, as has been said, this will help regulators define their actions and, in so doing, help address confidence in the regulators that they are meeting those objectives.
I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—I was about to call her my noble friend; she is a good friend—and she is absolutely right. We absolutely have to get right the balance between competitiveness and stability here. I do not think anyone here is arguing for a race to the bottom; that would be a disaster for our financial services sector. A strong financial services sector is based on robust, proportionate and simple regulation, so I completely heed that concern. However, I look at some of the amendments, especially some of the metrics being quoted here, and the data that they would provide would be exceptionally valuable to us as Parliament when we come to assess the performance of our regulators in a critical sector for our economy, and we can then judge them on those actions. I look at the consultation that the PRA set out, which states that it will include its performance in meeting this new objective but it does not say how. It is important that we send a signal, and at least have a very thorough debate as to what that might be.
I end on this point: does the Minister seriously think that the current reports we get from our regulators are satisfactory and adequate, especially in the light of the new powers and the new objective that the Bill confers on them and the concern that I think many on both sides of the Committee have about what that means for their powers and their accountability? That is a simple question.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh & Co, the insurance broker. I too support Amendments 66, 115 and 196 in the names of my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond, Lord Naseby, Lord Trenchard and Lady Noakes. Since Second Reading the Bermuda authority has reported that it saw the highest number of new insurance-broking companies registered in more than a decade as 84 new companies were set up in 2022, but not one has been set up in the UK for 15 years. This is the reality of international competition that the UK is facing as it competes with jurisdictions around the world for investment, capital and jobs, but we note that we depend on high standards of regulation. It seems that a number of key changes are needed to address this to improve the accountability of UK regulators, making them more consistent in their approach and more responsive in ultimately ensuring that they act more proportionately, as mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
Amendment 66 requires that the FCA and the PRA each publish an annual report setting out how they have facilitated international competitiveness and growth against a range of data and analysis requirements. Clause 26 currently allows regulators to decide for themselves how they believe they have met the requirements of their new competitiveness, as already mentioned. For example, the clause states that the FCA can decide “in its opinion” how to report on the objective and therefore decide solely for itself how it has met the objective’s requirements. The objective must therefore have alongside it a clear reporting criterion so that the Government and Parliament can properly hold the regulators to account. It is unclear whether the regulators will consider metrics specific to international competitiveness, not simply domestic competition. The criteria set out in the amendment can be measured and targets created to ensure that the regulators are operating effectively.
The Bermuda Monetary Authority takes a different approach and has different classes of insurers and reinsurers, together with authorisation criteria and KPIs that match the level of risk that the entity poses to the system. This allows it to undertake an authorisation of an international reinsurer with clients that are solely other insurance companies in less than one week—can you imagine?—thereby freeing resources to focus on entities serving individual retail customers.
Clause 37 gives Ministers a power over the regulators’ reporting requirements by providing them with a mechanism through which to direct information to be published. The danger is that this clause becomes more of a backstop measure, rather than something embedded in our new regulatory framework. While the clause is welcome in demonstrating the Government’s recognition of issues around needing to improve regulatory culture, it asks more questions than it necessarily answers. It is unclear how the Government will decide the criteria for requesting a report and whether they will seek input from industry and Parliament or the new bodies that the Bill creates, such as the cost-benefit analysis panels, in understanding where there is a demand for information. It is unclear whether, as part of its report, the regulator will undertake comparative analysis of its performance against the UK’s competitor jurisdictions as well as analysis of product and service innovations taking place in key markets. This is how Parliament will best understand whether the UK is performing well globally.
What we need are mechanisms in the Bill that help ensure that accountability becomes part of the day-to-day operation of the regulators, not something used ad hoc. That is the only way that we will get culture change and deliver the kind of culture change that we in Parliament and industry want, as addressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral at Second Reading. That is why measures set out in these amendments are so important. I hope we can look at further changes along these lines.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, there is a large number of amendments to cover in this debate, so I aim to be succinct. While these amendments cover a range of issues, they all relate to reporting requirements on the regulators to enable effective scrutiny and oversight of their work.
First, on Amendments 45 and 63, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and Amendment 66, in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes, the Government agree that it is vital to have appropriate public metrics to ensure that the operationally independent regulators can be held to account for all aspects of their performance, including against their new growth and competitiveness objectives. FSMA establishes multiple channels for this, including annual reports. The regulators also voluntarily publish a range of data—for example, on operating service metrics. Specifically, Clause 26 will require the FCA and the PRA to report on their performance against the new growth and competitiveness objective, as part of their annual reports. That sets out for my noble friend Lord Bridges the existing reporting done by the regulators—but the Government recognised the need to go further in requiring the regulators to publish information, which is why we added Clause 37. It provides an additional mechanism for the Treasury to require the regulators to publish information, including performance data, on a more regular basis, where the Treasury considers it necessary to support scrutiny of performance.
The broad approach is that FSMA requires the regulators to report on how they have discharged their functions and that the decisions on publishing operational metrics are appropriate for the operationally independent regulators to determine, working with government, where appropriate. It is impossible to predict how the power in Clause 37 requiring regulators to publish information on a more regular basis may be used, but I reassure noble Lords that the Treasury will work with stakeholders, industry, consumers and Parliament to understand the evidence base for whether it is in the public interest to exercise this power and the kinds of situations in which it would be desirable to do so. That power also includes a number of safeguards to ensure that it is exercised appropriately.
However, locking specific, detailed metrics into primary legislation would result in a static framework unable to adapt and respond to wider changes, and impose fixed requirements which may not be possible or appropriate for the regulators to report on. Clause 37 provides a more flexible—and therefore future-proofed—mechanism for ensuring appropriate scrutiny. Similarly, Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, seeks to impose a requirement to report against metrics determined by the National Audit Office, along with consumer representative bodies. Again, embedding this in primary legislation would not be the most effective approach. The NAO is already able to examine and report on the value for money of spending by public bodies, including the FCA and the PRA, and it reports its findings to Parliament. The Government consider that the setting of specific reporting requirements for these bodies goes beyond the scope of the NAO’s remit.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
May I interrupt the Minister? The whole point of my amendment—whether it be the NAO or otherwise—was specifically to address the fact that the criteria might need to be changed, so it would not be a fixed list but would develop depending on circumstances. Perhaps the Minister does not think that the NAO is the body, but the question I posed was about this in general. There is a difference between it being an independent body and it being the Government. Given all the other powers that the Government have to direct the regulators, it could look like a conflict of interest if it is not done with a greater degree of independence. The fact that the Minister said that Clause 37 needs to be used with discretion seemed to recognise that that potential tension and conflict might be wrong. Would it not be better to have an independent body involved?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for teeing me up to answer the question that she posed at the end of her remarks. I understand her point about trying to have a more flexible framework of criteria and the NAO being one idea for an independent organisation that can do that. She will know that the Government considered this as part of the future regulatory framework review and found that there are substantial practical costs and resourcing obstacles to overcome in making such a body operationally effective. Such a body would also duplicate existing accountability structures and potentially undermine the regulators’ operational independence.
In considering that question, the Government concluded that the existing avenues for stakeholders to provide input, feedback and challenge through public consultation are appropriate, supported by strengthening the statutory panels, independent challenge and cost-benefit analysis.
In addition, the Treasury and Parliament will continue to assess the work of the regulators in their oversight role, strengthened by a number of the measures in the Bill. That position was supported by the TSC report The Future Framework for Regulation of Financial Services, which said:
“The creation of a new … body … would not remove the responsibility of this Committee to hold”
the FCA and the PRA
“to account, and it would also add a further body to”
the regime that Parliament would need to scrutinise. The Government therefore concluded that the Treasury, as the department responsible for financial services policy, is best placed to assess whether, as a backstop, further reporting is required by the regulators and to direct them to publish this if necessary and appropriate.
I fully appreciate that the Committee will want to continue to explore this question in discussing these amendments and further amendments as we reach them, but I think it is helpful to set out that the Government considered this question as part of their consultation and work in the development of the Bill. Careful thought has been given to it. We have been open to making improvements: indeed, I believe Clause 37 was an improvement made when the Bill was in the House of Commons, so we are open to further thoughts, having already given this quite a lot of consideration.
Turning to Amendments 83 and 84, I hope I can reassure my noble friend Lady Noakes that Sections 138I and 138J of FSMA already require the FCA and the PRA to provide an explanation of how their draft rules advance their objectives as part of their public consultations. The Government’s policy intention is that this requirement extends to the new secondary objectives. However, I thank my noble friend for raising this issue. We will consider whether the legislation could be made clearer on this point before Report.
I move to Amendments 113 and 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The Government recognise that the Bill represents significant reform, and it will be important to provide an assessment of its effects on the system. However, we think it would be inappropriate to task the regulator with this assessment. In line with Cabinet Office guidance, within three to five years of Royal Assent, the Government will submit a memorandum to the Treasury Select Committee with a preliminary assessment of the impact of the Act in practice, to allow the committee to decide whether it wishes to conduct further post-legislative scrutiny.
Turning to Amendments 115, 116 and 196, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes, I am aware that the speed and effectiveness with which the regulators process applications for authorisation and other regulatory approvals remains an area of concern for both Parliament and industry, and the Committee has reflected that to me again today. I welcome the report published by TheCityUK last week about this important issue and, just as importantly, the constructive way in which the regulators have engaged with that feedback from the sector.
The Government share these concerns. In December, the Economic Secretary wrote to the CEOs of the PRA and the FCA setting out the importance of ensuring that the UK has world-leading levels of regulatory operational effectiveness. In their replies, both CEOs committed to publishing more detailed performance data on authorisation processes on a quarterly basis going forward. The FCA, in particular, has an extensive programme of activity under way to improve the timeliness of its approvals. It recruited almost 100 new authorisation staff in the last financial year, streamlined its decision-making processes and is digitising its application forms to make the process smoother for firms. The power in Clause 37, which I mentioned earlier, for the Treasury to require additional reporting from the regulators could be used to hold the regulators to account on the important issue of authorisations raised by these amendments, but, as I say, there is a commitment by the regulators to publish more detailed quarterly information on this matter. However, the Government will continue to engage in discussions with the regulators on continuing to improve operational efficiency.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
On a point of clarification, my noble friend talks about mutual societies, which are very important. Mutual firms have many characteristics that are similar to those of so-called Islamic banks—banks that are sharia-compliant. Do her comments also refer to that slowly growing part of the economy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
They refer to organisations that were formed under the legislation to which I referred. We are taking forward work to look at amending the Building Societies Act, the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act and the Friendly Societies Act. The definition of who I am talking about is driven by those Acts.
Amendments 157 and 158 are on transparency over who has responded to the regulators’ consultations. While promoting transparency is important, confidentiality must be respected. If a respondent has not consented to the publication of their name, they may be deterred from responding by the knowledge that a category description will be published, which risks making them identifiable. This is particularly the case in areas where only a small number of firms are affected. It could therefore reduce the number and scope of responses, which would weaken the effectiveness of the consultation process as a way for the regulators to receive challenge and feedback on their proposals. This would be contrary to the Government’s aims and, I believe, to the intentions of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
This brings me to the conclusion of my remarks—
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, would she care to spare a few words on Amendment 222?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe I have just addressed Amendment 222. We are supportive of the establishment of regional mutual banks in the United Kingdom, but they are currently still establishing themselves and are not yet trading. So it is a little too early for us to report on the current regime and any possible limitations of it for regional mutual banks.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Does the Minister intend to make any response on the concept of proportionality?
Baroness Penn (Con)
As the noble Lord himself noted, proportionality is already within the regulators’ objectives and operating principles. It is a concept that the Government support in how the regulators undertake their business. I believe that it is provided for within the current framework.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will withdraw his amendment and that other noble Lords will not move theirs.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I thank the Minister. It has been a fascinating hour and 20 minutes on reporting requirements. The common themes, I think, have been clarity and independence. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and his very good way of expressing the problems with the Bill. Coming from the insurance industry, I was of course very worried by what the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, had to say about the number of insurers being set up in Bermuda versus the number being set up here. Bermuda overtook the UK in 2004 in size of market; we remain number two but we are going backwards, and this needs to be addressed.
I feel that many of the amendments in this group need to be discussed with the Minister. I hope I will see her nod her head. My amendments derive from a big committee of this House which thought a long time and took a lot of evidence on this. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, have a lot of merit in them as well. When we sit down, we will certainly hear the warnings issued by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in our ears, but I hope that she agrees to discuss those well before Report so that we attain some additional clarity and some independence for the data that comes to whatever it is that will scrutinise all this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lilley
“(4B) When discharging its general functions in the way mentioned in subsection (1) the FCA must, so far as reasonably possible, act in a way which, as a secondary objective, advances the predictability and consistency objective (see section 1EC).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and Lord Lilley's other amendments to Clause 24 require the FCA and PRA to maintain high standards of clarity, predictability and certainty in exercising their general functions and applying their rules and guidance.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I rise to address the amendments in this group standing in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Moylan, who is currently speaking on the Online Safety Bill, and Lord Trenchard.
The Bill gives the regulators the responsibility for replacing retained EU law and regulations with more user-friendly common-law rules. That greatly enhances their already considerable power to make as well as to apply regulations. That has led to demands from across your Lordships’ House to increase the accountability of the regulators to Parliament, which I support. However, parliamentary scrutiny is inevitably broad-brush and largely ex post facto so it cannot alone provide effective accountability. Legal accountability is also needed—above all to ensure predictability and consistency in the way that regulators develop and apply their rules.
The amendments standing in my name and those of my noble friends attempt to achieve that. I am not a lawyer, so I am grateful to those distinguished legal practitioners who have drafted these proposals and whose glove puppet I am. The overall aim is to ensure that regulators act predictably and consistently: first, by giving them that explicit objective; and, secondly, by enabling more case law to develop on the meaning of the regulators’ rules through the application of legal reasoning to disputes between financial institutions and SMEs, consumers and others.
We have sought to achieve that aim subject to two constraints: first, the revised system should not generate unnecessary litigation or legal costs; and, secondly, SMEs and consumers should retain all their existing rights. That is most relevant to the amendments in a subsequent group, which mainly concern the Financial Ombudsman Service. Today’s set of amendments deals with the higher-level regulators: the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority.
Amendments 54 and 64 would set predictability and consistency objectives for the FCA and PRA, respectively. Amendments 46 and 57 would require them to act in accordance with those objectives. Amendment 82 would require them, when making rules, to ensure that they meet the objectives of predictability and consistency. Amendment 85 would then oblige them to use a common-law approach in interpreting regulatory rules. This is the usual and powerful way that we achieve predictability and consistency in other legal contexts.
Regulators have increasingly taken to laying down general principles; inevitably, the detailed implications of such principles may not be predictable. Amendment 85 would therefore allow regulators to continue to make rules with such a high level of generality, but they would be able to enforce such rules only if either the rule itself or the guidance issued by the regulator made the implications of such general rules clear. Otherwise, general principles may be used to interpret and apply more concrete rules laid down by the regulators.
I hope that the objectives of predictability and consistency are self-evidently desirable, but let me briefly deal with issues that arise from making them a statutory objective. First, concerns have been raised about adding additional objectives in other contexts, such as the growth, competitiveness and net-zero objectives. However, those objectives greatly widen the responsibilities of the regulators and add to their burdens. The predictability and consistency objectives would not expand the regulators’ responsibilities; they merely spell out the way in which those responsibilities should be exercised. Nor would they conflict with other objectives; indeed, predictability and consistency contribute to competitiveness, growth and stability.
The second question that these objectives raise is: why are these objectives so important? Clearly, predictability and consistency are an end in themselves and make life easier for business in the financial markets. That is a feature of our markets that has attracted businesses from across the globe, and reinforcing it will restore and enhance that attractiveness. I recall that, post big bang, London has been able to boast more American banks operating here than in New York and more European banks than in any European centre. But there are further benefits to the economy: the more predictable and consistent the regulatory environment, the less the burden of compliance. Compliance costs have been the fastest increasing cost faced by most firms in recent years. That, in turn, will remove the dampening effect that unpredictable regulation has on enterprise and innovation.
I mentioned at Second Reading that the seminal conclusion of studies of the economics of regulation was that, in the absence of accountability, regulators regulate in the interests of regulators. A number of financial institutions that have contacted me in support of these amendments—and I am glad to say that they do seem to have considerable support in the City—have reinforced that point. They say that the amendments would not only result in better regulation but, equally important, help to change the culture of the regulators. At present, our largely unaccountable regulators tend to be bureaucratic and negative. They prioritise box-ticking and find it easiest to say “No”. Moreover, companies admit that this culture feeds back into their own compliance departments, often staffed by people from the regulators who bring the same bureaucratic negativism with them. That dampens companies’ enterprise and initiative from within.
I also mentioned at Second Reading that it is no coincidence that the four greatest global financial centres are all based on common law, as are the new ones starting up in the Middle East and elsewhere. Part of the reason for the dominance of common law in finance is that it provides the maximum predictability and consistency with the maximum freedom to innovate. These amendments are designed to strengthen those attributes. I hope my noble friend the Minister will give them serious consideration.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Lilley’s Amendment 46, to which my noble friend Lord Moylan and I have added our names. It adds a further objective to ensure that the regulators discharge their duties in a manner which maintains high standards of predictability and consistency. Noble Lords might ask why this is necessary, given that the competitiveness and growth objective obviously requires them to act in a predictable and consistent manner. As I have already remarked, it is hard to be confident that this secondary objective will have enough effect on how the regulators exercise their functions.
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said on the previous group: it is necessary to find the right balance between different objectives. However, I fear that defining an objective as secondary and placing it lower in the hierarchy will in reality lead the regulators to apply an anti-competitive balance. These amendments provide a necessary safeguard against the lack of certainty currently worrying many market participants due to the very great transfer of powers to the regulators. As my noble friend has explained so well, this additional objective should make our financial market rules more predictable, increasing the attractiveness of our markets as the best place to introduce new and innovative products.
I also support Amendment 70 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lady Noakes and its intention to introduce a principle to require the regulators to exercise their functions in an efficient manner. I also support Amendment 72 from my noble friend to promote proportionality as something that the regulators must apply in exercising their general duties. I am not advocating a race to the bottom, but it is widely believed that much of our current regulatory regime is applied in a less than efficient manner; it is often disproportionate in that the benefit, if any, is often smaller than the cost of achieving it.
Amendment 74 from my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond also seeks to strengthen the existing regulatory principle when the regulators are considering a new restriction but, on balance, I prefer the amendment from my noble friend Lady Noakes, which has wider application. In considering all these amendments, we should not lose sight of the need to question what the regulation is for. Amendment 77A in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes ensures that we constantly ask ourselves this question. If there is no evidence that a regulation is needed or brings any benefit, we should not introduce it, or if it exists, we should abolish it. I hope my noble friend the Minister will accept these amendments and look forward to hearing her response.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 54 and 64. They are vital to the future planning of existing companies, but they seem even more important to people entering a financial market, whatever it may be. When they are doing their planning, they must recognise—it must be self-evident to them—that there is consistency and objectivity. Most of my commercial life has been in the creative world and bringing it into the ordinary world—for want of a better description.
It may be that there is a difference between what is required for growth, which is the primary objective behind the Bill, and the competitive nature. They are two distinct objectives.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I first apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading. I speak in support of Amendments 46, 54, 57, 64, 82 and 85 tabled by my noble friends Lord Lilley, Lord Moylan and Lord Trenchard. When effected, they will provide a much-improved basis for regulation. These amendments introduce an additional statutory objective, consistent with the existing objectives—namely, predictability and consistency.
Amendment 85, as we can see, obliges the FCA and PRA to apply common-law techniques of interpretation to regulations. These are to be interpreted in the same way as a court would look at them. That is critical for the promotion of predictability and consistency. Here I speak, as noble Lords know, as a lawyer, not a financier. By Amendment 85, rules of high-level generality will be used by the FCA only to assist in interpreting specific rules, not as stand-alones, as a general principle.
The context of these amendments is important. First, the ombudsman can award as much as £375,000—that is a lot of money—in an individual case and there might be 50 claims. Secondly, its determination is in respect of a vast body of technical rules with which the financial companies have to comply. Thirdly, as we have heard, the ombudsman decides a dispute on the basis of what is “fair and reasonable”, but is under no obligation to be predictable or consistent, nor to explain its reasoning. Indeed, the ombudsman is
“free to make an award different from that which a court applying the law would make”
when applying a rule. Lack of consistency results in unpredictability. We need legal accountability and predictability. We are dealing here with complaints about potentially large sums of money.
Lack of predictability means that firms must build compliance programmes based, in part, on guesswork about how the regulator might react when applying its rulebook. This is particularly so when considering the vaguely drafted rules known as “principles”. To take one example, it will be a principle for there to be a new vague duty to
“act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers”.
That is a rule with a high level of generality, which our amendment will address. It should not stand alone.
To apply such concepts to specific fact situations, without case law precedent, can be contentious. It is hard to challenge the assertions of the regulators as to how their rules are to be applied. Lack of definition in the rules cannot be good for entrepreneurs or for the competitiveness of the United Kingdom. Compliance activity becomes materially inefficient where there is lack of clarity and certainty in drafting and where there is lack of predictability and consistency in application. Costs are driven up; ultimately, the consumer pays.
We seek to introduce a new approach which produces predictability. Having established the principles set out in the amendments in this group, there will follow in later groups the means to give them practical effect through properly conducted adjudications. The gain for all concerned will be consistency and predictability, flowing from having to apply the regulations consistently and in accordance with ordinary legal principles of interpretation. Everyone concerned will know where they stand.
It will be simple, therefore, for the regulator to see whether a regulation is being applied—by adjudication or on appeal by the courts—as it would wish. It can then make changes based on hard evidence. Consumers and financial companies, meanwhile, will know where they stand. We invite my noble friend the Minister to acknowledge the need to incorporate these new objectives and the need for consistent, predictable application of the rules.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, because any way that we can reinforce the need for the regulators to be efficient is welcome. I look forward to hearing what she has to say when she speaks to her amendment.
I also have two amendments of my own in this group: Amendments 72 and 77A. Amendment 72 deals with proportionality, which the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to in the discussion on the first group of amendments. My amendment seeks to raise proportionality from a regulatory principle to a general duty. I have to say that I have always found the hierarchy of what the regulators have to follow rather difficult. They have general duties, strategic objectives, operational objectives, secondary objectives and a number of statutory “have regard” duties, which include regulatory principles. On top of that are the so-called recommendations from the Treasury to which they also have to have regard.
The regulatory principles in Section 3B of FSMA are a list of eight motherhood and apple pie things about which I am sure there is little debate, but there should be a debate about whether all or any of them have any practical impact on the way in which regulators behave. For example, one of the principles is that consumers should take responsibility for their decisions, but the FCA’s direction of travel is the opposite. Indeed, I do not think that caveat emptor has any part in the FCA’s thinking. There are other principles on value for money and transparency, but if we thought that they had any impact, we would not have the amendments that we have in today’s Marshalled List.
I am sceptical about regulatory principles not because they are bad things but because they appear to be ineffective. With Amendment 72 I have sought to elevate the proportionality principle, which is one of the eight, into a duty so that it has more meaning in how the PRA and the FCA go about their business. In case anybody has any doubt about whether proportionality concerns are real, I will give a few examples.
The first is PEPs, which we will be debating later in Committee, but, for today, both Houses of Parliament are full of people who have faced wholly disproportionate action by financial services providers. Of course, at the end of the day, it is the financial services firms—the providers—which apply the rules, but the FCA has done nothing of substance to ensure that the firms act in a way that is proportionate. Had it done so, the aggravation that we and, importantly, our family members have had to face would have been considerably reduced. It is obvious that we present no more risk than the general UK population, yet enhanced due diligence is still required—and is often extremely officiously applied.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
If I could just interrupt, the noble Baroness might want to go back and take a look at the MREL rules. It is in the UK that smaller banks got loaded up with the MREL requirement. I do not have the exact numbers in front of me but I could easily get them for the noble Baroness. She will discover that within the EU, small banks do not have to deal with the MREL issue. This was the particular interpretation by the UK PRA and has long been a battle that I have every time I meet PRA officials.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. Of course, I got carried away by my usual desire to knock the EU and lost sight of the essential principle, which is that the PRA is in fact applying the MREL rules disproportionately. I think that on that, the noble Baroness and I will agree.
So the PRA is applying a system that is designed for systemic bank failure to smaller banks, which present no systemic risk at all. While some modifications were made in 2021, medium-sized banks still end up having to issue MREL-compliant capital, which adds to their cost of capital, and this in turn reduces their capacity to lend. A number of mid-sized banks told the Treasury late last year that this reduction in the capacity to lend could amount to £62 billion over the next five years. Everyone loses—except the larger banks, who see smaller competitors facing considerable competition barriers. I believe that the regulators need to focus more on proportionality, which is the aim of my amendment.
Earlier I said that I was sceptical about the regulatory principles in FSMA, but they exist and we need to make sure that they are comprehensive. My Amendment 77A introduces an additional regulatory principle of being evidence-based. We have inherited all those EU rules, which were drawn up in the context of the EU’s well-known precautionary approach to regulation. I can see how easy it is to slip into the habit of regulating in the UK in the same way, just because we had to regulate that way in the past.
On our first day in Committee, we had a short debate on short selling. There is no evidence that short selling is or has been a problem in the UK, and yet the Government and the FCA are lining up to carry on regulating it. We need a shift of mindset in financial regulation in the UK, because the regulators should regulate only where the evidence points to the need for regulation, and we should not be regulating on the basis of hypothesis or speculation. That may well mean stepping back from regulating in areas where there is a possibility of a problem but no evidence that problems actually exist.
If we have a nimble system with agile and responsive regulators—I accept that that might be a rather big assumption—we should have no problem in stepping back, because we can act when a problem emerges. I certainly do not recommend or seek the widespread dumbing down of our regulation, because good regulation is part of the strength of our financial services sector. However, I believe that we are failing to take advantage of our Brexit freedoms to liberate our financial services businesses where there is no evidence that it is not safe to do so. That is what lies behind my seeking to add an additional regulatory principle.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I declare my interests as in the register. I was not intending to begin with these remarks but I think the one thing we can all agree on is the fundamental weakness of the Bill, which is that it repatriates considerable powers to UK regulators from the EU without giving any meaningful consideration as to how these powerful bodies will be scrutinised and held accountable.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has made a detailed proposal; there are others around. Somewhere in that area we have to put something on to the statute book to accompany these measures. I think that is relevant to the consideration of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. One task such a body can be asked to accomplish is to evaluate and make suggestions for more far-reaching reform. A number of the amendments in the noble Lord’s name might fall into this category and they may have quite profound effects on the way that we are regulated.
As for competition—which I also was not intending to speak about but I cannot resist it—I spent an enormous amount of effort and time, with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, and others, when we were in the other place, trying to get competition and competitiveness built into FiSMA; this was in 1998-99. We largely failed and even now we have not succeeded as much as we would like. I strongly agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about these multi-tiered objectives and principles—operational objectives, strategic objectives, et cetera. The consequence, of course, is that they are gamed by regulators, which implement the bits that they most like and leave behind the bits that they do not like if they are all too difficult.
These two first points I have made are interlinked. Currently nobody holds regulators to account for that gaming. If we did have a more powerful body, if Parliament could have at its disposal more effective expertise—something akin, perhaps, to the NAO but much smaller and specialising in regulatory scrutiny; we will come on to this in more detail next week—we might find that the regulators stopped picking and choosing.
When I first read the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, I thought they were easy to support. They have some of the character of motherhood and apple pie about them. What could be more reasonable than that the regulator should be given the additional statutory objective of predictability and consistency? But, having thought about it a bit and discussed it with quite a few people, now I am not so sure. I am becoming concerned that, taken together—the noble Lord’s amendments are interlinked—and notwithstanding his good intentions, they could have a major effect on the conduct of financial regulation in the UK, and not altogether necessarily for the public good.
Perhaps I could step back for a moment and explain why, in the context of some of the work we did on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. The current regulatory framework derives directly from that commission, which I chaired, and from the Vickers commission. These proposals have largely been put on to the statute book and implemented, where appropriate, in the rulebook, with many of those rules being implemented only recently.
When the PCBS and subsequently the Treasury Select Committee were trying to work out how to improve the regulatory framework, which had so manifestly failed in 2008-09, we had several core purposes in mind. Among these were, first, to challenge and, where possible, expunge the box-ticking, back-covering culture which had grown up in both the regulators and the regulated community, often in the search for safe harbours—safe harbours for both of them, incidentally. In doing so, we hoped to bear down on regulatory capture—the dangerous community of interests between the regulators, the regulated and the sponsor departments, which develops at the least opportunity. I strongly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said about what regulators will regulate for if no one keeps an eye on them at all.
A second purpose we had in mind was to try to safeguard market entry; that is, in particular, to develop a regulatory framework that did not discourage challenger banks: regulation to competition, not from it. I mention in passing that this is very much unfinished business, to put it mildly. There are barriers to entry everywhere.
A third purpose, and closely related to the second, was to bear down on excessive legalism. Access to the law is rarely cheap and usually favours large incumbents. Regulatory barriers to entry suit them and they are difficult and expensive for small firms to deal with. Big firms can certainly look after themselves. Tracey McDermott—I am almost quoting; I tried to look up the quote just before I came in this afternoon but could not quite find it—once suggested in evidence that we catch the small fry, the big fish get away.
A related point on excessive legalism is that legal scrutiny can provide greater certainty, but after a certain point it comes at the price of effective regulation. Markets are themselves inherently uncertain. Risk-making is of its nature forward looking. It will therefore always be imperfect for the conditions in markets at any one time. Regulation can be a lot better than nothing, but there will always be regulatory failure, and there will always be some legal uncertainty.
The fourth purpose we had in mind was to limit the FCA to a narrow range of objectives and to expect it to explain in much more detail than prior to the crash how they should be applied. This lies at the heart, at least in theory, of principles-based regulation supported by guidance. Multiple objectives, as I said a moment ago, will always be gamed by the regulator. Generally, the fewer the objectives, the better.
Others may disagree with everything I have said, but I still think that those purposes, which were not the only purposes that we had in mind, were probably on the right track. What concerns me about these amendments is that, among other effects, several of them will strike at some of these core purposes. For example, building on Amendment 54, Amendment 85 seems to suggest that the regulator can make new rules only if, or will find it difficult to make new rules unless, they are fully consistent with existing rules and that they are capable of prediction. At the least, even if the regulator can make rules, can they be enforced? This is what I understand proposed new subsections (1) and (2) in that amendment to say. It seems to me that it is how the objectives of consistency and predictability will be satisfied in law. My concern is that this will restrict adaptation and enforcement by the regulator. Fast changes in markets and the creation of new markets are features of much of the financial sector. We want to encourage dynamism and creativity and it seems to me that this proposed new requirement of predictability could make it more difficult for a regulator to enforce rules to address new market developments. It certainly seems likely to make regulators more cautious about enforcement.
I heard calls on the radio today for regulation of the cryptocurrency markets. I offer no view on the merits of cryptocurrency market regulation at the moment, but if they are to be regulated and enforced, does that have to be done in a way that could have been predicted from current regulation; for example, from the regulation of securities markets? I hope not, and I may have misinterpreted. I certainly do not think that was the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but I hope it is not the effect of his proposal.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests on the register as a shareholder in an FCA-regulated asset management company. I should add that I have worked for 30 years within investment banking and investment management, including five years as a designated senior manager, and in that role I had direct experience of the FCA. I also apologise that I did not contribute at Second Reading.
I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lilley’s Amendments 54, 85, 46, 57, 64 and 82, which require the regulator to act with predictability and consistency. I believe these also tie in neatly with a number of amendments, yet to be discussed by my noble friend and others. Those address oversight, accountability and right of appeal, and following precedent will be important to those functions—fundamental to our legal system but not necessarily to our regulation at present.
I think all would agree that predictability and consistency of rule interpretation and enforcement are desirable, but they are not always in evidence, and I do not believe that the Bill addresses that. Indeed, by placing on the FCA secondary objectives around economic growth, international competitiveness and UK net-zero emissions, I agree with my noble friend that the Bill is likely to reduce predictability, defeating those secondary objectives by making the UK a more difficult place to do business.
From my own experience, I believe that the FCA is an effective and informed regulator, but there can be a fear of the unknown when interacting with it. Dealing with the FCA often requires legal intermediaries to try to understand what that body is currently thinking about interpretation of the rules. Enforcement actions frequently happen in the shadows and are surrounded by rumour. The legal intermediaries have the only access to these precedents that are established by those actions. There is also pressure on senior managers to enforce these unspoken interpretations under threat of personal liability if they fail to implement them in line with the FCA’s thoughts. Who would want to be a senior manager?
To address the noble Lord’s points on legal uncertainty, I believe this can be avoided by dynamic communication from the FCA on emerging issues and how those rules will therefore be enforced in future. That appears to remain perfectly possible under the amendments proposed.
These amendments would force the FCA to be clearer about how it interprets and enforces rules, leading to greater disclosure around the precedent being established in its recent actions—where information is confidential, perhaps anonymised. That in turn will also allow for more effective oversight of the FCA, as greater disclosure will allow more informed investigation of whether these rules and interpretations are consistent with the mandate of the regulator. Greater regulatory certainty would reduce barriers to innovation and entrepreneurialism. It would reduce the cost and complexity of doing business in the UK by removing unnecessary precautionary compliance expenditure. We need the regulator to demonstrate that it is acting with predictability and consistency to free our finance industry to focus on creating wealth for this country within a transparent regulatory framework.
These are excellent amendments, and I would have put my name to them had I known how.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 74 in my name, but before I do so, I give my wholehearted support to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lilley and those in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, particularly Amendment 72, which is excellent.
My Amendment 74 can be summed up in one word: proportionality—simply that—no more, no less. Disproportionality does not reduce risk or increase consumer protection, and it certainly has nothing to say about optimising the resources of any organisation. Amendment 74 seeks to simply insert the proportionality concept, as does Amendment 72 in a broader sense—rightly. I hope my noble friend the Minister will respond positively when she comes to sum up.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make three brief observations. First, in this context, we are looking at the mandate that we are giving the regulator. One obviously could look at rules by some ex ante supervision, but that is not how this will work. Leaving it all to accountability after the horse has bolted is not the right way to proceed. It is very important that we give attention to the scope of the mandate.
Secondly, there is an obvious illustration as to the scope of the mandate in the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: proportionality. I would be astounded if anyone disagreed with that proposition, because only a fool would argue that you should make disproportionate legislation.
It seems to me that, in looking at this, we ought to know how the people given the mandate by Parliament intend to operate. Do they intend to produce consistent and predictable rules? I would imagine that they do intend to. They may agree with many of these objectives, but it is very important for the Committee to know the Government’s view of the form of regulation—the mandate—before we decide on what should happen. We also need to know how they are going to do it, because you always ask your agent how they will do something. If we were informed, there might be much less dispute.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 70 in this group, which was also referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who supported and signed it. It would insert a regulatory principle of efficiency that the PRA and FCA must ensure that their supervisory and approval interactions are efficient from the perspective of the regulated entities and in comparison with regulators in comparable countries. Clearly, it overlaps with some of the issues that we have already discussed, but it gets to the heart of the matter as to how and for whom the regulators are thinking, and whether they recognise what their impact is.
My Amendment 122 establishes that a corresponding report is required, which must include how they have undertaken this efficiency comparison, including the periodicity of the comparison and its outcome.
Amendment 144 is another go at inserting the same principle into the bank’s supervisory roles. It will not have escaped the notice of those who have read all the amendments that a similar amendment also appears in other places and formats, in part as a response to the layering of objectives to make sure that they actually happen. The point is really to find the best place for this, not to keep repeating it, but I had several bites at the cherry.
As I said, the substance of my amendment has already been discussed in the previous group, but I wanted to bring out the perspective point. The regulator itself might be very efficient at the expense of the industry it regulates—for example, by using the same template letter at the start of institutional approval processes, without any regard for proportionality or without saying anything useful about what might already have been presented at an extensive, exploratory, preliminary meeting. I recognise the traps that the regulators are trying not to fall into, but this has to be looked at from the other side.
As I said before, when the Industry and Regulators Committee was looking at competitiveness, there was a constantly repeated complaint from industry about delays over routine approval matters, including staff appointments, which caused delay and costs in day-to-day matters. These issues keep coming up, both in real life and in the amendments from noble Lords from around the House, including from the Government’s side. I therefore hope that the Minister and Government will help us to address them as we proceed on the Bill. It is obviously a matter to which we will return on Report, probably in more than one way. Therefore, some preliminary discussions with the Minister would be very useful.
I must also comment on the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. If you look at all his amendments, you will see that he is also a victim of the need to insert the same thing all over the place in FSMA in order to make it happen—and I appreciate that there are bigger and more developed amendments to come. My concern is whether the amendments achieve the objectives they set out to. I see the attractiveness of predictability, but I think that some of the concepts underlying these kinds of amendment are about reintroducing thinking in the regulator and in industry. By having layer on layer of complex rules, starting at the top, drilling down, then making the next one slightly different and providing lots of tick boxes, you can get certainty. But everybody says they want principles. I thought the idea was to have principles and then to discover that, if you did not take some reasonable precautions, there may be some regulatory actions against you. I have had these kinds of conversations with some of the authors of these proposals.
This almost goes back to where it used to be, when there was unlimited liability, but you took a little more care, because you might be for the high jump. You had to think about what you would do and consider the harm, instead of looking at a set of rules, against which you could put a little compliance tick that took away the thought and judgment that should be going into what you are doing in such an important industry. This cannot be tick-box. I fear that this is driving in the same direction. If I heard correctly, even the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, talked about these broad principles needing more detail underneath.
These amendments do not solve what some of those who have spoken in this group have told me that they want them to solve. I fear that this will be static rather than agile, yet after Brexit we keep saying that we want our regulators to be agile to new things and able to adjust. One cannot be both agile and wholly predictable, because you have to respond to new circumstances.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Thank you. We are desperately trying to work out what we do to remain winding speakers but, thanks to the flexibility, that is allowed in Committee. It disappears at Report, but it has been very useful.
I wanted to make a few comments because I want to ensure that we focus strongly on the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Bowles: looking at the international competitiveness objective through the lens of efficiency of the regulator. When I talk to the industry, its beef is typically not with the regulation but with the way it is applied. It is the endless paperwork, delays, time-wasting, and everything else. The amendments that she has tabled get us laser-focused on that and tell the regulator, “This is unacceptable. It may mean that you need more resources, but then open your mouths and ask for them, because I think you would find that Parliament would row in behind you to ensure that you have that capacity to deliver that effective, efficient regulation.”
I was slightly taken aback by the example of a one-week approval authorisation in the Bahamas only because I am very conscious that the 2007-08 crash was finally tipped over the edge by AIG, the major US insurance company, saved at the last minute by a bailout of $150 billion. It has rectified itself today. I would hope that our regulators would take more than four or five days to look at authorisation for company with the capacity to bring down a very large part of the world’s economy. I just turned pale for a moment. I hope that we will not take that as a continuing example.
I also do not see the regulators as typically capricious—inefficient, but not really capricious. I am therefore concerned about the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, to the extent that they would remove agility. All of us who work in some way or other in relation to the financial services industry recognise that we are in a period of the most extraordinary change. Technology and globalisation are driving it, and all kinds of innovation are out there. We need a regulator that can cope with the pace of change that is taking place and does not come late to the table.
When I first got involved in politics, fintech was new. I remember asking every member of the fintech industry to meet me, and there were 12 people around the table. Now the leading figures associated with fintech would not fit in the Royal Albert Hall. That is brilliant—but I remember the difficulty then in trying to explain to the regulators that we needed a completely different regulatory environment, if fintech was going to develop. It wanted regulation. Being without regulation led the industry to fear that rogue players would suddenly enter that would disgrace the industry and cause a regulator to come on to its lawn with tanks blazing. There was a real desire to get appropriate and sensible regulation in place, but it had to be different and innovative and had to recognise the features of the industry.
When it comes to the word “predicted”, it seems to me that for a court it would be very hard to go through that kind of analysis, and to understand the business issues and the differences and risks in various industries, to understand whether or not predictability applied. When I looked at this issue, I thought, “My goodness, I bet this was drafted by lawyers because it looks rather like a lawyers’ charter.” I do not think that providing additional business to some of the law firms in the City is one of the purposes of the Bill. I have some real concerns, and they centre very much on that area. I hope we will think this through extremely carefully. Anyway, I consider that I have wound up, and I will sit.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, we have no amendments in this group. I have listened to this interesting debate. It comes back to the classic dilemma in all parts of life, from family dilemmas right through to how you manage an industry, and it comes right to this proportionality issue. It is very easy to create rules so simple that you cannot see what they are trying to achieve. It is very idealistic to try to create some ideas that the industry should contain. I look forward to listening to the Minister’s reply, but I have enormous sympathy with her, and I hope she might perhaps give some thought to whether we might try to develop some mechanism between now and Report to see if we can create common ground on this extraordinarily important issue.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government agree with noble Lords that the efficiency, predictability and proportionality of financial services regulation are a particularly important issue, and one that the Government and Parliament should continue to hold the regulators to account on. We have heard in this discussion many different approaches and ways of getting at this issue and seeking to advance it. I hope that in my response I can set out how the Government have had those concepts at the forefront of our mind when looking at the framework, and I shall seek to support the points that have been made by noble Lords today.
Put together, Amendments 46, 54, 57, 64 and 82 from my noble friend Lord Lilley seek to introduce a new effective for the PRA and the FCA relating to predictability and consistency. As I have said, the Government agree that predictability and consistency are an important component of an effective regulatory regime. As observed by IMF studies, when independent regulators make judgments on the design of regulatory standards, they are more likely to deliver predictable and stable regulatory approaches over time, and thus the centrality of the independence of our regulators at the heart of our regime seeks to support those objectives.
As we have discussed in previous debates, the FCA and the PRA are required to advance their objectives when discharging their general functions, as set out in FSMA. The Government’s view is that the regulators’ objectives should be focused on the core outcomes they should seek to achieve. The Government agree that, where possible, the regulators should advance their objectives in a predictable and consistent way. The framework already addresses this through the regulatory principles, as set out in Section 3B. These regulatory principles aim to promote regulatory good practice. The statutory requirement in FSMA for the FCA and the PRA to consult on rule proposals seeks to ensure that there is a predictable approach to rule-making. As part of this consultation, the regulators must explain why the making of the proposed rules advances, and is compatible with, their objectives as set by Parliament in legislation and how the proposals are compatible with their obligation to take into account the regulatory principles. These requirements are designed to ensure that consumers, market participants and wider stakeholders have a meaningful opportunity to scrutinise and feed into the development of regulator policy, guidance and rules. It also ensures that stakeholders are aware of planned changes to rules and can engage in their development.
In addition to seeking to introduce the new objective, Amendments 54 and 64 would also insert a provision that would prohibit the FCA and the PRA from taking retaliatory action against firms that challenge regulatory decisions. While I understand that firms may be concerned about how an appeal or judicial review may impact their relationship with the regulator, the Government consider that it would be wholly inappropriate for a regulator to treat a firm differently simply because it had chosen to challenge a decision. The Government would expect a regulator to respond to any such challenges appropriately and professionally. I am not aware of any evidence that the regulators have taken such alleged retaliatory action, and firms already have avenues available to them to contest and appeal enforcement decisions. The Government therefore do not believe that an amendment is required in this area.
Amendment 85 seeks to restrict the regulators from enforcing rules made at a “high level of generality”, except in certain circumstances. The FCA’s approach to regulation involves a combination of high-level principles and detailed rules. We discussed this balance and the benefits of those different approaches earlier in Committee and I am sure that we will continue to do so. Through its Principles for Businesses, the FCA aims to encourage firms to exercise judgment about, and take responsibility for, conducting their business in line with those principles. When conducting the future regulatory framework review, the Government reviewed over 100 responses to two separate consultations, which concluded that the provisions concerning enforcement and supervision remained appropriate. Enforcement decisions are specific to the firm and the rules concerned, and the FSMA model requires independent supervision and enforcement.
Amendment 85 would also require that regulator rules are interpreted according to common-law methods of interpretation. The Government are repealing the prescriptive provisions in EU law though this Bill so that they can be replaced with domestic legislation and regulator rules made under FSMA. I reassure my noble friend that it will be up to the UK courts to determine how that domestic legislation and rules are interpreted.
I turn to Amendments 70, 72, 74, 77A, 122 and 144, which in various ways aim to ensure that the regulators act proportionately. Again, I emphasise that the Government agree about the importance of proportionality and agree with the words of my noble friend Lord Holmes when he spoke to his amendment on this. A number of the regulatory principles already address the themes of good policy-making that these amendments seek to embed. These include principles of efficiency and economy, proportionality, and requiring the regulators, where appropriate, to exercise their functions in a way that recognises differences in the nature and objectives of different businesses subject to requirements imposed by or under FSMA. The Bill also introduces these principles for the Bank of England in its regulation of central counterparties and central securities depositories.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Would the Minister be able to get the views of the FCA and the PRA on this matter? It would be interesting, in examining consistency and all these issues, to see if—hopefully—they could do that in no more than two pages.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Is the noble Lord referring to their views on the question of proportionality and efficiency, or on a specific case?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
On the specific question of drafting rules, what do they think their mandate is? Do they accept that the rules have to be proportionate and clear? It would just be very useful to know how they see their new approach to things. I think it can be done in two pages, but that is a good test.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am sure that the regulators have provided some of those views already. For example, they gave evidence during the Commons Committee stage of this Bill. I do not want to speak for them but I absolutely undertake to the Committee to seek that from the regulators, and obviously it will be down to them as to how they wish to deal with the request. With that, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and valuable debate, the highlight of which was obviously the agreement between my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on the disproportionality of the PRA. Another common feature of the whole debate was that everyone seemed to express concern about the lack of accountability of the regulators. I was encouraged by the Minister’s remark that she would look positively at the debate.
I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Trenchard, Lord Naseby, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Roborough and Lord Holmes for the amendments that stand in my name. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for applying their critical faculties to the amendments that we tabled. I will consider carefully what they said. It will be easier for me to respond when I can actually read the text rather than doing so immediately now—anyway, I only have time for a few words now—but I think I can assure them that the amendments would not require new rules to be predictable from old, existing rules, nor would they forbid new rules that were inconsistent with existing rules; it would just have to be explicit that they overrode an existing rule—although I may have misunderstood what they said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, mentioned that she is worried about excessive powers to lawyers and litigation. I am in the unusual position of being in alliance with lawyers. I got into trouble early in my parliamentary career by quoting
“let’s kill all the lawyers”
in a debate in which it turned out that I was the only non-lawyer. I think we have to recognise that the only alternative to the common law approach which we seek to entrench here, which is the purpose of the Bill, is the codified approach, which is very much more rigid and unable to respond quickly to the rapidly varying world to which the noble Baroness rightly referred, or simple discretion which may not lead to being capricious, but does mean that it is very unpredictable for practitioners who do not know how rules are going to be applied. I will, of course, withdraw the amendment, but I hope we will return to these issues on later groups and perhaps on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Before I call Amendment 47, I advise the Committee that if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 48 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 47
Baroness Noakes
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes what “relevant international standards” are and their relationship with the competitiveness and growth objective.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 58 in my name. The new competitiveness and growth objective, which I strongly support, is rather curiously drafted, as the FCA and the PRA are mandated to pursue competitiveness and growth
“subject to aligning with relevant international standards”.
My Amendments 47 and 58 remove this from the formulation for both the FCA and the PRA on a probing basis to try to understand what the Government mean by it.
International standards come in all shapes and sizes and it is far from necessary for the UK to adhere to everything which claims to be an international standard. The term is not defined in this Bill nor, I think, in FSMA. Part of what I am seeking is to understand what is a “relevant standard” and what kind of standards can in effect trump the competitiveness and growth objective. I hope that my noble friend will be able to explain this when she winds up.
The competitiveness and growth objective is already circumscribed by its status as a secondary objective. Using the PRA as an example, this means that it has to act only
“so far as reasonably possible”
in a way which advances its competitiveness and growth objective. Its primary objective—promoting the safety and soundness of PRA-authorised persons—will always trump a secondary objective. In this respect, I am not sure that Amendment 65 from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is necessary. That is certainly the view of the PRA, which has been clear about the primacy of its prime objective.
Although some of us might have preferred competitiveness and growth to be a primary objective, which could then raise different issues, the Bill does not go that far and the secondary objective is therefore secondary to the primary objective. I completely understand if the PRA choses to follow international standards because it believes that this advances its primary objective, and that would trump the secondary objective. On that basis, there is no need to refer to international standards in relation to the competitiveness and growth objective because if the PRA thinks that they are necessary, they are already absorbed within its primary objective. However, if an international standard is not necessary for the primary objective, I do not understand why any such international standard should crowd out the competitiveness and growth objective.
There may well be a presumption that standards promulgated by bodies such as the Financial Stability Board or the BCBS will be followed, but that is accommodated within the primary objective. However, even in that context I think we have to remember that, for example, the Basel capital standards have not always been followed universally, most notably by the USA, which pursued its own course for a considerable period of time. International standards are not matters of international law. Their implementation is always a matter of judgment for the home regulators and therefore needs to be considered in the judgments they make on their primary objective.
I believe that the words
“subject to aligning with … international standards”
give too much weight to policies developed outside the UK and could damage our competitiveness and growth. The regulators should not be allowed to ignore the secondary objective on the grounds that they are following international standards if those standards are not core to their primary objective.
I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, on her Amendment 49, but my initial view is that it is right to keep the reference to financial services in the competitiveness and growth objective. Whether we like it or not, the financial services sector contributes around 12% to the UK economy and 7% of all UK jobs, according to the City of London Corporation. The regulators that can have the biggest impact on the financial services sector are clearly the financial services regulators: the PRA and the FCA. It seems to me only right to emphasise that their new secondary objective should specifically refer to the financial services sector. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 47 and 58 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, to which I have added my name. I also appreciate the support of my noble friend Lady Lawlor.
The FCA is influential in the formation and development of standards, and states on its website:
“We contribute to and implement international standards, and supervise and enforce rules based on them in the UK.”
The principal international standard-setting body for the industry is IOSCO. Will the Minister confirm that the UK is already using its enhanced influence in that body resulting from our having a seat at the table in our own right rather than through the EU? IOSCO’s key strategic goal is to be accepted as the recognised standard-setter for securities regulation. The International Association of Insurance Supervisors seeks to play the same role for the insurance industry. Its mission is to promote effective and globally consistent supervision of the insurance industry to develop and maintain fair, safe and stable insurance markets for the benefit and protection of policyholders and to contribute to global financial stability.
Nevertheless, international standards are a very subjective concept, and the introduction of this concept does not assist the need for clarity and predictability, besides the question of whether international standards will assist or impede the advancement of the competitiveness and growth objective. I am unable to support the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to include sustainability in addition to relevant international standards because I think that sustainability is an even more subjective concept and that this amendment would reduce clarity and predictability.
I do not understand Amendments 49 and 59 from the noble Baroness; I think the financial regulators’ responsibility for financial services does not extend to different spheres of activity, although I, too, question why this limitation is included in the Bill anyway. The amendments in this group are really important because the Bill provides for rather limited supervision of regulators, and I believe it is necessary to improve parliamentary oversight.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. Amendment 48, which has already been referred to, seeks to add “sustainability” in as a sort of foil to the international aspect. Amendments 49 and 59 seek to remove the bits in brackets relating specifically to financial services, which is more of a comprehension issue. Amendments 51 and 60 propose another placing of the efficiency amendment in case it might sit better within the competitiveness and growth objective.
There is another very dangerous thing going on here, on which I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes—we agree more often than people would think. To some extent I support her Amendment 47, as I will explain later.
As has already been said, my Amendment 48 seeks to add in “sustainability” so that the competitiveness and growth objective would be “subject to sustainability and aligning with relevant international standards”. We have been talking about the need for balance and I felt that that, potentially, was a balance that we wanted. That also seemed a suitable place in which to write sustainability into the Bill. Perhaps we could choose other words, because I meant it to cover sustainability in financial terms and in a humanitarian and environmental context, too. I am not clear that some of the things which are said to be covered actually are covered.
When we were talking about position limits, I believe that the Minister said that taking humanitarian matters into account was something that the FCA could do. I cannot see anywhere among its objectives or anywhere else where that comes about. I can see that there can be market integrity things on position limits, but not whether you want to think about whether you are causing people to starve. There are things that we expect to be taken into consideration—it is not a subliminal matter, but just by implication—but they are not there if you look for the words. From experience of looking at things when they have gone pear-shaped and the regulators want an excuse, it seems to me that they will be asking where it says those things.
Returning to the competitiveness and growth objective, the more I look at it, the less I like it, not from the point of view of the competitiveness and growth bit but for all the other drafting around it. This is where I agree: what on earth is this “subject to international standards” doing there?” It gets sprinkled around quite liberally in legislation. When I was an MEP, I learned very soon after I got to Brussels that the Treasury wanted “alignment with international standards” put liberally into EU legislation as a way to try to cut down EU degrees of freedom. Now, here we are, post-Brexit, trying the same trick on ourselves and handing it to unelected bodies. Much as I did not object to the EU system, we are where we are. I do not think it is right. If we think recently in terms of LDI and so on, we hear the Bank of England saying, “Until we have the international rules on non-bank financial institutions, we have not done anything”, when something that is a complete viper’s nest is going on that is completely within everything to do with the United Kingdom. That shows us—we will come to this later on with some of my financial stability amendments—that it is looking for support and to hugger-mugger together with the rest of the regulatory organisations rather than putting the UK first and thinking clearly about what we want.
Are we now trying to control the regulators as we tried to tie the EU? We do not need it to control the regulators because they largely control what goes into the international standards, and those international standards have far less parliamentary scrutiny than anything done by UK regulators for the UK. I accept that the Treasury has a seat at the table and therefore knows what is going on, but it is very difficult to scrutinise what goes on at Basel and the other international organisations. You can get our regulators to explain what they agree with and claim victories where they put things in, but to get any explanation in time to be able to react to it and to influence it is extremely difficult. I tried this while I was chair of ECON in the European Parliament when we were doing the capital requirement rules. We forced one or two meetings with them, but they did not really want to know, and we are going to be in even more difficulty trying to follow those kinds of things within the UK’s parliamentary system.
Here we are signing up blind to something rather than signing up after scrutiny. That is what happens in other countries, notably the EU and the US, which have a whole system, including parliamentary procedure, to determine whether they are going to sign up to the international rules.
There is nothing wrong with political statements being made which say that the broad expectation is for us to be in alignment with the international standards, but I do not see what that does without any kind of caveat around it within primary legislation. It makes a mockery of us trying to scrutinise anything when we know that what we will be getting is just what the regulators have decided with other regulators, at a different level over the UK’s head.
As I mentioned on the last group, I also put my amendments on efficiency here, so I will not go into those again. We can discuss among ourselves where they fit best.
My final point relates to the words in brackets, which I address in my Amendments 49 and 59. Simply, when I read this part of the Bill, it did not read as if the financial services references were in there because that was the bit that the regulators were empowered to do; I thought that it was possible to make it read as if some kind of preference could be given to financial services over and above other things. I know that that is not the intention, so my only objection to these words is to ask whether the Government are absolutely sure that they read properly. I am not suspicious of the motives but, if one of my assistants had written this back in my patent attorney days, I would have been thinking that it was not quite right and asking if we could rephrase it. So there is nothing more suspicious to it than that.
I do not think that those words are actually needed because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, they can only influence financial services. Financial services must serve the economy and must serve other businesses. So you could, theoretically, enhance the economy within financial services by putting up all your charges to the rest of industry. One hopes that competitiveness and competition laws would stop that from happening, but you could have that interpretation. Somebody might be able to hang something on those words if they are still there.
That explains my amendments. I do not think there is anything too untoward; I would be interested to hear from the Minister about international standards. I accept that we have them in other pieces of legislation, but if we have got it wrong somewhere else, we do not need to keep repeating it.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I speak briefly to give full-throated support to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. This tying to international standards seems odd, at best, for at least two reasons: first, this is attached to the competitiveness objective and not run through all objectives, not least the primary objectives; and, secondly, this objective, even before it has been launched, is fettered and shackled through this connection to international standards and the ISSBs that they are under. That seems curious, in that it seems to run counter to the espoused purpose and intention of the Bill. I would be very keen to hear my noble friend the Minister’s comments when she comes to sum up on those points.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a board member of the Association of British Insurers. I apologise that I was not able to speak at Second Reading. I had my name down, but unfortunately had to scratch because of a commitment from the committee that I chair.
I speak very briefly on Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe—I was not going to, because I am sure that he will explain it, but as it has sort of been challenged already, I thought it would be useful to bring the Committee’s attention to the view of TheCityUK. On the secondary objective, it says that economic growth and competitiveness would remain subordinate to the regulatory primary objective of promoting competition, preserving stability and protecting consumers. TheCityUK thinks that is the proper place for it. I think my noble friend may explain that his was more of a probing amendment, but certainly I hope that the Committee is of the view, along with many of us, not just TheCityUK, that primary means primary and secondary means secondary, and therefore that the primary will always trump the secondary.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, oppose the Question that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill.
As I read the Bill, I wondered why growth and competitiveness as a regulatory objective appear at all. A friend in the City reminded me that the Government have been unable to deliver any Brexit benefit and have to show that they are doing something; therefore this had to be tagged into the Bill—although I understand that this clause was written at the behest of TheCityUK and UK Finance, which wanted to sponsor it.
The secondary objectives of growth and competitiveness cannot be reconciled with the main role of ensuring financial stability and consumer protection. If there is growth because of financial stability and consumer confidence, that is fine, but to go out of your way and say that the regulators must somehow grow the finance industry and promote international competitiveness is something else. Unless the Minister points me to it, I could not find anything in the Bill which indicates exactly what kind of weight is to be attached to each of those four conflicting objectives.
How much growth are the Government trying to secure in the finance industry? Are there any limits, and what are the economic and social costs? What would be the opportunity cost of more graduates going into the finance industry and shunning other careers, whether in manufacturing, chemicals or any other industry? How will the regulators ensure that somehow the UK has a greater supply of graduates? How will they ensure that there is adequate infrastructure? I could not see that any of these issues were answered in the long and hefty impact assessment.
The promotion of competition is an existing aim of the financial regulators. Here we can see that the FCA has persuaded some challenger banks to enter the market, although it has been utterly unable to tame the major banks that dominate the market; they have not been broken up and have reduced people’s access to the market—for example, by closing bank branches. Is taming the banks and breaking them up a matter for the FCA or for the CMA? The regulatory architecture continues to become more and more complex. Each regulator already passes the buck to somebody else, saying, “It’s your job to secure competition”, and that is domestically. When we move on to the bigger picture, it becomes even more complicated.
The common understanding is that the notion of competition relates to the state of the market and access to it. That is very different from the notion of competitiveness, which as a discourse does not have any permanent meaning in any sense; its meaning is always constructed and needs to be given. Essentially, however, it relates to the industry as a whole. That is a task for the Government, not for the regulators at all.
International competitiveness, as many noble Lords have already said, is about the ability to attract business from other financial centres. In the words of the former Business Secretary, Vince Cable,
“chasing ‘competitiveness’ really means … a race to the bottom—watering down standards in the hope of attracting more dubious sources of money to an industry.”
That is quite an indictment of the government objectives by a former Minister. Similar principles—that is, the principle of competitiveness—and approaches were behind the 2007-08 crash that hammered the whole economy. We are yet to recover from that folly, but they are being brought back. The Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, said that before the last crash the regulator
“was required to consider the UK’s competitiveness, and it didn’t end well, for anyone”,
yet we are embarked on exactly the same course again.
There was an unprecedented bailout of the finance industry. No other industry in British history has needed that kind of state support, and we continue to be plagued by all kinds of scandals, even in an environment where regulators are not pursuing international competitiveness. We have had nearly £1 trillion of quantitative easing to the finance industry. The result is that there is asset price inflation and real wages are still down, yet it is hard to see any reflection of that in the Government’s impact assessment.
Competitiveness, as we all know, was specifically removed from financial regulation in 2012, but it is being unceremoniously smuggled back in. The Government are clearly opting for a race to the bottom for a sector that has been a serial offender and has actually eroded growth. The finance industry has mis-sold numerous financial products over the years, including pensions, endowment mortgages, precipice bonds, split capital investment trusts, payment protection insurance, mini-bonds and much more. It has led the field in international tax abuse, money laundering and sanctions busting. Is that what the Government really want to grow? Is that what the regulators are supposed to be growing?
Rather than cleaning up the industry, this Bill should have been preceded by a public inquiry into the finance industry to see what exactly needs to be cleaned up, but that never happened. Rather than cleaning up the industry, the Government, the Bank of England and other regulators have actually colluded with the UK banks over the consequences of their own criminal conduct. I have given examples, and I will repeat one here. HSBC was fined $1.9 billion in the US for facilitating money laundering. It admitted in writing that it had been engaged in “criminal conduct”. The then Chancellor, George Osborne, in collusion with the Bank of England and the head of the FSA, secretly wrote to the US regulators to say that they should go easy as HSBC was too big to jail and too big to fail. The result is that HSBC continues to commit financial misdemeanours.
Is that an example of the regulators somehow managing to balance growth and competitiveness? There is certainly growth in dirty money; that has continued. As for competitiveness, all the banks are still charging us roughly the same fees for overdrafts, and they are engaged in other nefarious practices as well. I provided that example regarding HSBC in the previous debates on the Bill.
Scholarly research carried out at the University of Sheffield, where I am emeritus professor, shows that between 1995 and 2015 the finance industry made a negative contribution of £4,500 billion pounds to the UK economy, yet the Government are weakening what modest regulation there is under the guise of the pursuit of growth and competitiveness. Just how bloated does the finance industry have to be before anyone recognises the danger signs flashing all over it? What evidence is there to show that the financialisation of everything is a positive development?
At the next crash, which will come if these objectives are implemented, not just banks but the whole high street will be in trouble, because organisations such as Morrisons, Asda and many others are under the control of private equity, which is utterly unregulated but meshes into the sector that we are trying to regulate. I hope the Minister provides us with some evidence to show that the financialisation of everything, which is inevitable if we grow this sector, will somehow be positive. I look forward to that reply.
The Government have provided no evidence to show that the finance industry has turned a new leaf. Since the 2007-08 crash, there have been scandals galore, whether London Capital & Finance, Blackmore Bond, the Woodford fund, banks forging customers’ signatures or numerous others. What are regulators going to do when faced with multiple objectives?
Do the Government and the regulators even know what the finance industry does? Mini-bonds came as a shock to the FCA; when people told it about them, it did not pay much attention. After the Kwarteng Budget, the gilt market declined because neither the Government nor the regulators knew anything about the impact of market yields on liability-driven investments and pension funds. Just yesterday, the Work and Pensions Committee was told that that Budget resulted in a £4 billion loss to pension funds. The Bank of England earmarked £65 billion of expenditure to bail out that market. As a result, some people made fortunes, but many innocent people made huge losses. There were huge wealth transfers from City speculators to pension funds.
How is the regulator going to adjudicate which kind of wealth transfer is good and which is bad? Regulators have no mandate to do that; only Parliament has that mandate and only the Government can act on behalf of Parliament to do that. Financial stability, growth and competitiveness cannot be reconciled, because there are too many contradictions and the Government are not willing to deal with them.
These kinds of losses are part of the reason why our economy is in the doldrums. The IMF is telling us that we are a basket case in terms of economic growth, yet we are piling on more and more of exactly the same. Ministers have not explained what the competitiveness and growth objective will do to regulators’ duties. We have about 41 regulators in the finance industry; will they all be required to promote competitiveness? How will their efforts be measured? There are 25 anti-money laundering regulators; how will they promote growth? Will they encourage more money laundering and bring in more hot money? Will they object? What will they actually be doing? Perhaps the Minister can spell that out.
We have a real patchwork of enforcement. We have the FCA, the Serious Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service, HMRC, the Bank of England and others. How will they be promoting competitiveness and growth? Will they be lax? Will they copy Chancellor George Osborne, secretly intervene and say to somebody, “Please do not prosecute HSBC, even though it has been caught laundering money and admitted to it”? The Government have provided no answers to these questions and there is nothing about in in the Explanatory Notes. The Government are, in effect, laying the foundations of the next crash, just as the Conservative Government’s light-touch regulation laid the foundations of the 2007-08 crash.
Experienced voices are telling us to change course and not to go down the line that the Government are pushing. For example, Howard Davies, who served as chair of the Financial Services Authority between 1997 and 2003, said that
“he was ‘not keen on’ the competition clause, which went further than the guidance laid out prior to the financial crisis. At that time, he said the FSA only had to prove that issues such as competitiveness were ‘taken into account’ and were not something ‘you were trying to achieve directly’.”
So that is a warning. He added:
“In my view, to give the regulator the objective of promoting competitiveness, could be the thin end of a rather peculiar wedge. I mean, why would … the regulators not come in and tell us to cut our cost-income ratio? That would improve our competitiveness. And if they had a competitiveness objective, it seems that would give them an ‘in’ to the way we run our business, which I think would be a bit tricky, really, and that is one reason why the regulators aren’t really keen on it either.”
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I start by speaking to my own two amendments in this group and will then move on to winding for the Liberal Democrats.
In a sense it is quite pertinent that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, because, as members of this Committee will know, I have some real concerns about the competitiveness objective and its effect and implications. It comes from people who are very much founded on the experience of the financial crash of 2007-08 and a fear at the time that lessons would be learned very briefly but the industry would very quickly push back as it is now, hoping that the crisis has been forgotten. I notice that all the speakers who are in favour of the competitiveness agenda seem very careful not to go back to that time, and they describe in some way why this is inherently different from then. If that cannot be done, or if they have all forgotten exactly what the experience was in that period, we are moving into difficult territory.
My amendments are quite specific and are very definitely probing—I hope that the Minister will disabuse me. When talking with a leading player in the industry, who was encouraging me to support the competitiveness objective, I took the government and regulators’ line: “It is a secondary objective—financial stability is clearly the priority.” I was told, “No, you haven’t read the Bill. You need to look at the section that refers to mutual recognition agreements. You have to read the two together. When you look at mutual recognition agreements, that gives us the leverage, combined with the competitiveness objective, to force the regulator to always adopt for the UK whatever is the standard that is embedded in that mutual recognition agreement.”
I am extremely troubled by that strategy, but from reading the language I can see where that thinking comes from. The attractiveness of the mutual recognition agreement to this individual was that it was an arrangement—in effect a treaty or an agreement—that was not negotiated by regulators. They might have a discussion with regulators and there might be input from regulators, but ultimately it was negotiated by businesspeople, and therefore that would be the guiding principle, not concerns about financial stability—those are not the concern of a trade negotiator—but arrangements, while measures within a trade negotiation contain a lot of compromises and trade-offs. This disturbs me hugely, and I would like the Minister to explain how those concepts and clauses work together. I was talking with someone who was using their imagination, but there was a lawyer present who was confirming what was being said, so I am really quite concerned about that interaction. We need to understand how that works as we proceed with this Bill.
I very strongly support my noble friend Lady Bowles. I am not going to repeat the arguments that she made, which were really important, but I want to pick up on the issue of relevant international standards. Like others, I am troubled by the idea that we might have slavish adherence to a set of rules that are made elsewhere, but on the other hand I am trying to trade off in my mind what we do if we do not have international standards in significant areas of financial services. We may say, as the Americans often do, that we know better than everybody else, that the way we structure our industry means that international standards do not really apply to us and that their capital requirement standards veer quite considerably away from the standards that were agreed at Basel and were largely adopted within the EU. But how do we turn to other places and say that they need to use international standards or that they should not fall below them if we say that that is allowed to us? I am trying to work my way through that thinking process because we live in a very globalised world.
The financial crash of 2007-08, which essentially exposed huge weakness, abuse and mismanagement in the UK, was triggered by events in the United States—the way in which subprime mortgages there had been packaged up and sold as collateralised debt obligations. As I mentioned earlier, subprime mortgages brought down the largest insurance company in the world, AIG, which was rescued by the American Government who, when Lehman Brothers began to collapse, said “Wait a minute. Enough. Suddenly we’ll have to rescue everybody if we’re not careful. We draw the line here.” The consequences reeled not so much through the United States but through the UK, exposing all our various weaknesses.
With this globalised world, what happens in one country, what is done by one regulator, impacts others. How do we manage this unless we have some sort of standing for international standards? I am not arguing against the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes; I am just saying that we somehow need to think this through, how it works, how we scrutinise it and how we consider it. It seems to me that it ought to be on only an exceptional basis that we decide that we do not apply those standards in the UK, but we need a mechanism for that and it seems to me that this should be largely something that Parliament determines, because it has significant consequences and would fit with much of the parliamentary accountability agenda that we have talked of today.
I want to pick up on the sustainability issue. Forgive me if I have the wrong person, because I had done that before, but I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, who mentioned sustainability and said, “How vague can you get?” As far as I remember, we have used sustainability in a lot of prior legislation, so I think there is a body of understanding. Some of the energy legislation that we dealt with certainly had the word “sustainability” in it, so there is a body of definition that sits behind that. I am one of those who would very much like to see sustainability attached to the words “economic growth”. I am not so concerned by the secondary economic growth objective, but I want growth to be sustainable. For me, that encompasses sustainability in every sense, both environmental—as it is often used—and economic.
As I say, I remain concerned about the competitiveness objective. We need to be very clear about its implications. If there are other levers that I have missed in the loan agreement that provide it in a non-obvious way with additional power and strength and the ability to get court rulings in its favour, I hope the Minister will explain them to us because I would find that very necessary for our future discussion.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wholly associate myself or my party with my noble friend Lord Sikka’s comprehensive description of the finance industry, but I go back to one important area. I mentioned earlier that my previous career had a lot to do with safety. One of the things that it brought out was that people readily forget the catastrophic because the catastrophic occurs so rarely that attention drifts away and they get on with the day to day.
We broadly support the growth and competitiveness concept, although its impact will be modest. It would be a miracle if it added 1% per annum to the growth of the UK. If we read Alistair Darling’s autobiography—and yes, I am aware of the Mandy Rice-Davies test, “He would say that, wouldn’t he?” but it reads pretty convincingly—we see just how close we came to a totally catastrophic situation. It was only saved by a number of individuals, including Alistair and Gordon Brown, taking the very brave decision to do what had never been done before, which was essentially to throw the whole economy at a guarantee of the banking system. That is a pretty dodgy thing to do and, frankly, if you look at the timeline, it got very close to a catastrophic situation.
When one is looking at catastrophic risk—a low probability, perhaps, but catastrophic—you have constantly to bear that in mind. I do not think that the average practitioner in the finance industry works like that; I feel that day to day they are making trades and so forth. The sense of the primary objective is that that should be the salient thought behind all their decision-making: “We must not create another catastrophic situation.” To be fair to the Government, over the past decade or so quite a lot of sensible legislation has been introduced to protect ourselves from catastrophic risk. The Bank of England has a department working away at the regulation of financial institutions to make sure that they are orderly, safe and so on.
I have forgotten what the words are, but the concepts of stability, security and probity must be there in the primary objective and must be well-defined and clearly prime—the top objective. After that, competitiveness, growth and so on would be great.
Our Amendment 65 was a probing amendment and it has worked very well. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, assured me—perhaps the Minister will use similar words—that there is no question about the primacy of the objectives, that it is set in other rules and that if I looked at all the rules together, I would not be worried about it. I think that is basically what she said, and I hope it is right, because it is absolutely right that we bear in mind protection from catastrophic risk.
I note the assurances that the Minister gave in her letter following Second Reading, but I am still not clear about the specific mechanism whereby the primary objectives are expressly meant to take precedence in FSMA. To me, it appears that they are indeed split up, but there is nothing to define what it means to be primary. I may be wrong in that concern, and I am here to be persuaded that I am wrong. The more effort that is put into persuading me, the more will go on the record and form the environment in which financial services are delivered. I feel concerned that there is nothing in legislation, in the regulators’ rulebook or elsewhere to guarantee the primacy of the FCA’s and the PRA’s most important objectives. However, as I said, that is an open question, and this debate has been good.
Regarding the international dimension, I see the concerns being expressed about giving it too much primacy—although I do not want to use that word, because it has the wrong effect. My memory is useless but, about two years ago, we had what I will roughly call the Basel III Covid legislation. Many of us were there to debate it. If I remember rightly, it took out the EU law and made space for the regulators to create the situation we are talking about now. My recollection is that aligning with Basel III and the FSB—or whatever it is called—became an objective within that. I see the Minister is nodding, so my memory has some fragments of it.
Once again, it is clearly a good idea to be that bit looser if we are to be innovative. The probing worked brilliantly, as I far as I am concerned. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, quite openly said that competitiveness and growth should be equal to the regulators’ concern about stability and safety. Arguably, that is a properly viewed position, but it is not my position. Failure must be avoided—not quite at all costs but, wherever there is a debate between bigger risk and modest profit, the bigger risk should be avoided.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to Clause 24 before turning to the other amendments in this group. The Government consider that, alongside their core responsibilities, it is right that the regulators can act to facilitate medium to long-term growth and international competitiveness, reflecting the importance of the sector as an engine of growth for the wider economy and the need to support the UK as a global financial centre. Therefore, Clause 24 introduces new secondary objectives for the FCA and the PRA to provide for a greater focus on growth and international competitiveness. This will ensure that the regulators can act to facilitate long-term growth and competitiveness for the first time.
For the FCA, this objective will be secondary to its strategic objective to ensure that markets function well and to its three operational objectives: to ensure consumers receive appropriate protection; to protect and enhance the integrity of the financial system; and to promote effective competition. For the PRA, this objective will be secondary to its general objective to ensure that UK firms remain safe and sound and its insurance-specific objective to contribute to the securing of an appropriate degree of protection for those who are, or may become, policyholders.
This is a balanced approach. By making growth and competitiveness a secondary objective, the Government are ensuring a greater focus by the regulators on growth and competitiveness. However, by making these objectives secondary, the Government are giving the regulators an unambiguous hierarchy of objectives, with safety and soundness and market integrity prioritised.
As set out in Clause 24(2) and (4)(b) and in paragraphs 215 and 216 of the Explanatory Notes, Clause 24 does not permit or enable the regulators to take action that is incompatible with their existing primary objectives. It is therefore clear that the FCA’s strategic and operational objectives and the PRA’s general and insurance-specific objectives are prioritised ahead of the secondary objectives in the regulatory framework. I hope that that provides further reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on his Amendment 65 that, in instances where the regulators’ primary and secondary objectives are incompatible, their primary objectives will take precedence over the secondary objectives.
I turn to Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, which seeks to ensure that, when facilitating the new growth and competitiveness objective, the FCA does not consider the financial services sector specifically. The Government are committed to ensuring that the financial services sector is delivering for businesses and consumers across the UK. It is therefore right that the objectives of the financial services regulators reflect the Government’s view that the UK financial services sector is not just an industry in its own right but an engine of growth for the wider economy. The Government are confident that the current drafting recognises that the levers with which the regulators can act are specific to the markets that they regulate—the financial services sector. We believe that this is a helpful clarification, and expect the new objectives to benefit the growth and competitiveness of the wider economy as well as of the financial services sector specifically.
I now turn to Amendments 51 and 60, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, concerning the efficiency of the regulators’ operations. I believe that we have discussed this in Committee before, so perhaps we will move on if the noble Baroness permits me.
That brings me to Amendment 48, also tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Bowles, which seeks to amend Clause 24 to include consideration of sustainability. The new secondary objective is clear that the regulators should seek to facilitate sustainable growth by specifically mentioning growth of the economy in the medium to long term. The Government do not want the PRA or the FCA to act in a way that benefits short-term competitiveness at the cost of long-term growth. However, the Government are aware that, increasingly, and particularly over recent years, “sustainable” has also been taken to mean green or environmental considerations by some stakeholders.
As discussed in previous groups, Clause 25 introduces a new regulatory principle to require the FCA and PRA, when discharging their general functions, to have regard to the need to contribute towards achieving compliance with the Government’s net-zero emissions target. Therefore, the current drafting of the objective is clear that economic growth should be pursued sustainably, and the Government are already strengthening the requirements for the regulators to consider environmental sustainability targets in undertaking their duties.
On Amendment 50, tabled by my noble friend Lord Altrincham, the Government agree that high-quality infrastructure is crucial for economic growth, boosting productivity and competitiveness. More than this, it is at the centre of our communities: infrastructure helps connect people to each other, people to businesses, and businesses to markets, forming a foundation for economic activity and community prosperity.
In the Chancellor’s recommendation letters to the FCA and PRA, of December 2022, he set out that the supply of long-term investment to support UK economic growth, including the supply of finance for infrastructure projects, was a key aspect of the Government’s economic policy to which the regulators should have regard. Therefore, the Government already expect that, when advancing their new growth and competitiveness objectives, the FCA and PRA should include investment in infrastructure among their considerations. There are a number of other aspects in this Bill, such as reform to Solvency II, which will remove barriers to private investment in infrastructure.
I turn to Amendments 47, 52, 58 and 61. Robust regulatory standards are the cornerstone of the attractiveness of the UK’s markets. Including a reference to international standards in the growth and competitiveness objective demonstrates the Government’s ongoing commitment for the UK to remain a global leader in promoting high international standards and maintaining its reputation as a global financial centre.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, expressed the importance of those standards well. Many of the issues that regulators need to address require international co-ordination and co-operation. To address the Committee’s concerns, the Government also recognise that it will not always be appropriate to fully consider international standards—for example, if it is best for UK markets to go beyond the international standard or where nuances of the UK market mean that the international standard is not appropriate. Those international standards operate on a comply-or-explain basis, recognising that individual jurisdictions will sometimes need to tailor standards to their own markets.
No standard trumps the objectives, and the clause does not constrain pursuit of the objective in relation to standards that we have not signed up to or that the regulators do not think are relevant in pursuing their objectives. It is there to acknowledge the importance and role of international standards, but we appreciate this nuance, where we may need to look at those standards and either go beyond them or adapt them to the UK market. I appreciate that this is difficult to navigate, but I hope we have done so successfully.
I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the Government do not consider MRAs to be international standards. To expand on this further, we consider international standards to be those set by specific standard-setting bodies listed in the Financial Stability Board’s compendium of standards. These standards are internationally accepted as important for sound, stable and well-functioning financial systems, and include those from organisations such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organization of Securities Commissions. To reassure my noble friend Lord Trenchard, we are using our seat on those organisations to influence those standard-setting bodies effectively.
Alternatively, MRAs are international agreements subject to international law and based on the principle of deference, where the UK and another country agree to mutually defer to each other’s regulatory, supervisory and enforcement regimes. MRAs are therefore simply a vehicle to recognise where another country meets equivalent regulatory standards to those already established in the UK. They provide a mechanism to reduce barriers to cross-border trade and facilitate greater market access between the two jurisdictions.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Would an MRA covering these issues be enabled only if an equivalence decision had already been provided by the Treasury? In other words, are these only for countries whose financial services industries are already covered by equivalence decisions or could they be in agreements where that standard has not been met in the eyes of the Treasury?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I suggest that I triple-check that for the noble Baroness and write to her. The provision to enable the implementation of MRAs included in the Bill does not enable the Government to change the clear hierarchy of the regulators’ objectives, only to specify the areas in which regulators should make rules to give effect to an MRA. If, after I have written to the noble Baroness, she wants to discuss the Government’s interpretation of international standards, or if my noble friend wants to discuss her points further, I will happily meet them if that would be helpful.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, can withdraw her amendment and that other noble Lords will not move theirs when they are reached. The Government, of course, support Clause 24 standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend is confusing me with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
Baroness Penn (Con)
When the noble Baronesses sign up to each other’s amendments, it can be confusing.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has turned out to be a rather more interesting one than I thought we might have on this subject. It has raised a lot of very interesting points. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, challenged us on why we do not keep referring back to the financial crisis. There is a very simple reason: we are in a different world now. As we know, financial regulation was overhauled both in the UK and internationally. The banks have far more capital but, more importantly, significant changes have been made to ensure that they can fail safely. We are not talking about carrying the inherent risks which came to fulfilment in the early part of this century. Constantly harking back without recognising the huge changes that have happened since then is just not helpful.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for explaining which standards are intended to be covered by this. That is a helpful statement to have on the record. However, I confess that, while I completely accept the notion that we will want generally to comply with international standards—we lead them quite a lot of the time—as far as I can tell, the regulators spend at least half their lives on airplanes to exotic parts of the world to have meetings about international standards. I am not sure that that is a very good use of their time.
It could be that we do not wish to follow particular standards, even though being in a leadership position would imply that we would generally do so. It continues to trouble me that the wording says
“subject to aligning with relevant international standards”,
as if we align with them automatically, not merely as our default position. I am not entirely convinced that my noble friend has explained to my satisfaction that this wording gives sufficient flexibility to allow international standards to be ignored when relevant to the UK. I completely accept that whether or not international standards are followed will be primarily determined by our regulators, in the light of what is necessary. I may well want to revisit this on Report but, for this evening—which has gone on for rather a long time—I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I mentioned that I wrestled with this in the EU. There it says “having regard to”, which I would have thought was the appropriate wording: we have regard to it and usually do it, but do not have it in binding language.
House of Lords
Football: Illegal Entry to Matches
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to introducing new criminal sanctions in England and Wales for those tailgating to gain illegal entry at football matches; and what other measures they are planning to take further to The Baroness Casey Review: An independent Review of events surrounding the UEFA Euro 2020 Final ‘Euro Sunday’ at Wembley, published in December 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government keep tailgating under review. Any disorder associated with attempting to gain unauthorised entry may be a criminal offence, with a football banning order imposed following conviction. The safety of spectators at sporting events is of the highest importance. We continue to work closely with all the relevant authorities to ensure that football fans can continue to enjoy the sport safely. The review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, was commissioned by and reported to the English Football Association. The Government were referred to in four of the recommendations. Our approach to these is outlined in evidence to the DCMS Select Committee, a copy of which can be found in the Library.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious that I have asked this Question before and also that the Minister has responded before. Would it not be of value to consider making this an offence, to deal with the issue of tailgating, as the review from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, suggested? This is against the background of a worrying increase in disorder at football grounds this season, evidenced by the recent increase in pitch invasions. We can never be complacent about disorder at football games, and we should never be complacent about crowd safety.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Absolutely—and we are not. As I have explained to the noble Lord before, we have taken action to implement a series of changes to the football banning order legislation with which he was associated when he was in government to help ensure safety at football matches. That included adding football related online hate crime to the list of offences, amending the threshold for the imposition of a banning order, extending the legislation to the women’s domestic game and adding football-related class A drug crimes to the list of offences. We continue to work with the police and football bodies to review disorder and consider whether any further action is necessary.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in relation to tailgating, could my noble friend the Minister outline whether the Government are considering making this an offence and making it slightly broader? This happens a lot on the Tube. Particularly as a woman, being tailgated through a barrier by somebody trying to come in behind you means you virtually are assaulted. TfL’s policy is not to do anything, probably because it is not an offence. Could the Minister review this to see whether it should be made an offence not just in football but on the Tube?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to point to the impact on people being followed through ticket barriers. Fare evasion is a criminal offence and Transport for London publishes its revenue enforcement and prosecutions policy. If convicted, people face a criminal record and a fine of up to £1,000, as well as compensation for the fares they have avoided, a victim surcharge and prosecution costs—so this is something that should not be done.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, we have a remote contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, one of the most shocking parts of the review from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was, yet again, the lack of information sharing and joined-up working between key bodies. That has been an issue at a number of serious and tragic events, including the Manchester Arena bombing. What are the Government doing to ensure that all relevant responsible bodies—whether statutory, voluntary or, as in the case of football, business—including the police, share information before, during and after events to keep people safe and to learn lessons after each event?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, had recommendations for a number of parties, and the Government have indeed spoken to the other parties for whom the recommendations were made. We will not respond on behalf of others, but we are working with them, not least the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, which we commissioned to conduct, and act on, research related to stewarding capacity in the events sector.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, given that we know that there are increasing problems at football matches, what are the Government going to do to make sure that they address those issues now? We have an outstanding review of football governance, et cetera—to which the Government have not responded and on which they have not come out with their proposals—as well as the review from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, on safety and security. We also know, if nothing else from yesterday’s mind-boggling figures for money spent in the transfer market, that there is a lot of money awash in the Premier League. In their response to the report of the Minister’s honourable friend in the other House, Tracey Crouch, perhaps they can look at how football itself improves stewardship, which was also one of the recommendations in the noble Baroness’s report. Will they make sure that they properly look after fans on a Saturday, on a Tuesday, on a Wednesday or whenever they go, by spending their money properly?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that there is action for everybody throughout football to ensure that people can enjoy the game safely. We should not overstate it; the vast majority of people who go to matches do so in a law-abiding way and help people do that. There is a minority of people who want to spoil that. As I have said, we have taken action to toughen football banning orders. The football authorities themselves have taken action, with the FA, the Premier League and the English Football League announcing tougher sanctions, including automatic reporting to the police of anyone participating in anti-social or criminal behaviour. On the fan-led review commissioned by my honourable friend Tracey Crouch, we will be coming forward in the coming weeks with our response.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it was an absolute miracle that there was no major loss of life at last year’s Champions League final at the Stade de France. It was a terrifying experience for many Liverpool fans who attended, of whom I was one. Four English teams have now reached the last 16 in this year’s Champions League, so one or more may very well reach the final. It is a matter of regret that UEFA’s own inquiry into last year’s events has yet to report. None the less, will the Minister undertake to approach UEFA to seek reassurance that all the many glaring operational failures seen in Paris will not be repeated at this year’s final in Istanbul?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has provided some insights from his own experience of attending that match. We were all appalled to see the terrifying and potentially dangerous scenes that occurred there. The French Senate published its report on the final, which rejected the initial response from French Ministers to blame Liverpool FC fans. UEFA’s inquiry is ongoing, but a full report is due to be published soon. We are in close contact, at ministerial and official levels, with both the French Government and UEFA to ensure that their investigations align with experience and point to future matches, as the noble Lord suggested.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, a lot of support was given to the report from my honourable friend Tracey Crouch in moving her suggestions, and the overall governance of football, further forward. What progress are the Government making and when can we expect an announcement?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Government published their response to the recommendations made by the fan-led review in April last year. We remain committed to publishing a White Paper following up on that, which we will do in the coming weeks.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, to return to the original Question, tailgating here or anywhere else is presumably already an offence. What briefing is given to both stewards, who should now be better trained as a result of this, and police, who are there to take action when it takes place? Also, are we looking at one of the other major areas in the Casey report—interference in the disabled access entrances, which were stormed at this event?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right: disorder associated with attempting to gain unauthorised entry may indeed be a criminal offence, and criminal punishment can follow. The Sports Grounds Safety Authority commissioned a review of stewarding, following the noble Baroness’s report, which looked at these issues. It is now working with football’s governing bodies to follow up on the points that were identified there. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the way that disabled fans were particularly affected by people trying to follow them into matches—that is deplorable.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of over 8,000 members of the Foundation of Hearts, which owns the largest fan-owned club in the whole of the United Kingdom. I have also had the great responsibility of writing a report for the Council of Europe on all the aspects of football that were raised by my noble friend Lady Armstrong. I know that, with his many responsibilities, the Minister may not have had an opportunity yet to read my report. Can I ask him to do so and write to me with responses from the Government—or I can table another Question to allow him to answer?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I suspect the noble Lord might table another Question even when I have. But I will gladly read his report and ensure that my honourable friend the sports Minister, Stuart Andrew, does so as well, and one of us will write to him.
Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many people were evacuated from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme in 2022; and how many of these were women.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that I co-chair and run the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security, and set up and run the Afghan Women’s Support Forum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
Operation Pitting was the largest UK military evacuation since the Second World War. About 15,000 people were evacuated to the United Kingdom. Since then, a further 6,000 people, including those under ACRS pathway 1, have arrived via neighbouring countries. The Home Office is working to assure information on its caseworking systems. This includes reporting on total volumes by gender. Once this work concludes, the Home Office will include all Afghan resettlement statistics, including gender breakdown, in its quarterly immigration statistics publications, the next of which is due on 23 February.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his Answer, but I am disappointed that he cannot give me specifics on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. I gather that there is no application process for this and the slow speed, lack of communication and transparency creates a feeling of abandonment for the Afghan people. How are eligible people identified for this scheme? Under pathway 3, there is provision for those who are particularly vulnerable; I am talking about the women and girls at risk. Does my noble friend realise that some vulnerable women who either held significant positions or were related to those who did have been on the run and hiding since the Taliban took over? Can he imagine what it feels like to be hunted down in this way? We have only to remember the murder of the ex-Afghan MP Mursal Nabizada a few weeks ago. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that those women human rights defenders are able to access the ACRS? How many do they hope to accept this year?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I agree with much of what my noble friend says. By way of context, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme was divided into three pathways, to which she alluded, the first of which concerned those evacuated during Operation Pitting and those on the removals list. Pathway 2 is the principal method; it concerns referrals from the UNHCR. Pathway 3 is administered by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. That is the pathway envisaged for Chevening scholars, GardaWorld employees and those who work for the British Council. I understand that the Foreign Office has received some 11,500 expressions of interest that are being worked through at the moment. In relation to her question on vulnerable women and children, I say that the principal focus of the ACRS has been to protect the vulnerable. Since the events in Afghanistan last August, thousands of women and girls have been brought to safety in the UK, including female judges, women’s rights activists and a girls’ football team. Of course, in pathway 2 the UNHCR makes referrals based on an assessment of protection needs, including vulnerabilities.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, at the end of December there were an estimated 150 Afghan interpreters still in Afghanistan, eligible but unprocessed under either the ACRS or ARAP. Given that many of them would already have been eligible under the previous ex-gratia scheme or the intimidation policy designed primarily for interpreters, can the Minister commit to fast-tracking these cases for a group of individuals to whom the UK owes an incalculable debt of gratitude, and who remain extremely vulnerable to Taliban threats and violence?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I entirely understand the point the noble Baroness makes. Obviously, those who were employed by the British Government are entitled to be relocated under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. The Ministry of Defence is working with the Home Office in relation to the assistance provided for those people. I am happy to look further into the 150 people whom she indicates. I hope that I might be able to obtain some further details and then look into that for her.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I am disappointed that the Minister was not able to give us any meaningful statistics today, beyond a figure of 6,000 people. I have had conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who has spoken to the officers of the APPG on Afghan Women and Girls. Would it be possible for the Minister to undertake for similar meetings to be held with the Home Office, ideally on a cross-party basis, and with DLUHC? Many of the issues about bringing in women and girls, and indeed British Council contractors, link to visas and the provision of accommodation. However hard the FCDO and the MoD are working, those departments cannot deal with these issues alone. Will he agree to a meeting?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Pathway 3 applications, as I have said, are led by the FCDO and its engagement will be the principal point of contact. Of course the Home Office works closely with the FCDO and will continue to do so. I will keep the question of a meeting under review and, if it becomes necessary, certainly.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that our intervention in Afghanistan directly led to the strengthening of the hands of extremists in the Taliban, causing huge difficulties for ordinary Afghan citizens, and that we have a linked moral responsibility to look to the well-being of those who we have caused to be refugees? Does he also agree that if we wish to reduce the flow of immigrants that has worried so many people, we should be much more careful in thinking first about embarking on such interventions?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I fear that this is not the correct place for me to discuss the causation of the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. But in relation to the point the noble Lord raises about the United Kingdom’s obligation to those who helped UK forces and staff, diplomatic and otherwise, during our period in Afghanistan, then I agree. That is something which the two Afghan schemes are designed to address.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, some people put the amount of Afghan refugees in Pakistan at up to half a million, some of whom are extremely vulnerable, particularly young women, former judges and former politicians. They live under a constant threat of being returned to Afghanistan, where they would certainly meet with jail or possibly worse. What conversations have the Government had with the Government of Pakistan to lift this threat of being returned to Afghanistan?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend’s question. That is probably a matter for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office but I can no doubt ask the relevant Minister to write to him.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, reminds us, in discussing the Afghanistan resettlement scheme and the help we rightly give to some, we should never forget the continuing persecution of women and girls across the world. Of the three pathways under the Afghan scheme we are accepting at-risk people from three groups: British Council, GardaWorld and Chevening alumni. Within this, is it only those who worked for the UK who are considered, or is any other priority given to women and girls?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I hoped to make clear in an earlier answer, the first pathway relates to those removed during August 2021 and those who should have been removed. The second pathway relates to those referred by the UNHCR to us, and the third pathway contains the three categories that the noble Lord just identified. The short answer to the question is no, it is not just people who worked for the United Kingdom Government in various forms; it is broader than that because the UNHCR refers refugees to us who have applied.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, how many Afghan refugees resettling in the UK are still being housed in hotels? What mechanisms do the Government have in place for tracking the successful integration of such refugees, particularly in housing, education and employment?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me; although I have a lot of knowledge about the situation with hotels, I am afraid I do not have those statistics with me today, given the topic of the Question. I will need to write to the noble and gallant Lord about that.
Employment Rights Legislation
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to retain employment rights legislation contained in retained European Union law beyond the end of 2023.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, we are proud of the UK’s record on employment standards, having raised domestic standards over recent years to make them some of the highest in the world. Our high standards were never dependent on us mirroring the same rules as the EU. We are seizing the opportunities provided by Brexit to review all retained EU law and ensure that our regulations are tailored to the needs of the UK economy.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that the Minister recognises the importance of employment rights to workers in Britain. But as he will remember, last week I asked, as did my noble friend Lord Watts, whether he would guarantee that no employment rights will fall off the statute books at year end. Not surprisingly, the Minister did not answer the question, which in my mind speaks volumes. Let us try again, please. Contrary to the impression given last week, at least 13 such legal protections, categorised as EU retained laws, are at risk. Let me name just one: TUPE, which protects pay and terms and conditions in the event of company takeovers. This right will be lost at the end of the year unless the Government actively save it. Again, I ask the Minister: can he guarantee that the TUPE protections will not be scrapped and are not for the chop?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I have said to the noble Lord on this issue before, our workers’ rights, of which we are very proud, do not and did not depend on our membership of the EU. We have standards far in excess of those provided by the EU. Regarding the regulations the noble Lord mentions, as with all retained EU law we will look at that and see whether it is appropriate for the UK economy, and if necessary we will modernise, update or replace it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, when this came up in Questions on 23 January, the Minister, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said that he had not seen the comments of CBI director-general Tony Danker, reported in the FT that day. He surely now has, but I will remind him. Mr Danker said that the plan to scrap EU laws wholesale is creating huge uncertainty for UK firms and risks throwing industry into some chaos; that companies are asking whether we are really going to erode maternity and paternity regulations and health and safety standards; and that he concluded that we need to recognise that divergence will often shrink our market size and add a skipload of red tape. Will the Minister recognise that business does not want this scrapping of EU laws?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will no doubt have this debate at Second Reading of the rule legislation on Monday. If those are the comments of the director-general of the CBI, then he is wrong. Our paternity and maternity regulations are far in excess of those guaranteed by EU minimums. We are proud of that and will continue with them.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, when the rule Bill was introduced in the Commons in September, the Explanatory Notes said that there were 2,400 bits of rule legislation. When the notes appeared here on 19 January, that number had risen to 3,200. I have just accessed the dashboard, and that refers to 3,745 bits; that is an increase of more than 40 bits of rule legislation a day in the last 13 days. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 1,345 bits of rule legislation added since September are about employment rights?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord said, they are all available on the dashboard for him to refer to.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Noble Lords are confused: just because there is an item of retained of EU law, it does not mean it is necessarily still valid for the UK. It has been a very useful exercise to go back through the history books to find out about some of this stuff. Much of it is no longer applicable—some of it refers to sugar prices in the 1970s. My favourite bit is a regulation referring to the movement of reindeer between Denmark and Sweden. I am sure noble Lords do not believe that this is something we should retain on our statute book.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister realise that many people are a bit worried that the end product might be the relaxation of some of the standards they have got used to, and that he could end this concern very easily by saying that whatever is changed, it will not worsen the protection currently in place?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I say to my noble friend that we have made it clear that we have no intention of weakening workers’ rights. I know this is a common refrain from the Opposition but let me repeat: UK standards did not depend on EU law. Let me give noble Lords an example. UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave, compared with the EU requirement of four weeks. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert parental leave to enable parents to share care. The EU minimum maternity leave is 14 weeks. Our standards are far in excess of those provided by the EU.
Lord Watts (Lab)
The Minister is quite wrong: some protections are better than the European average, but lots more are not. The Government are very fond of rolling over trade deals; why can they not roll over the protections British workers have now, so that they will not worry about their future conditions?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Perhaps the noble Lord could write and tell me what parts of British law have worse standards than are provided by the EU, because as far as I am concerned the vast majority of our standards are in excess of those offered by the EU. We will take the opportunity of reviewing retained EU law to update and modernise it to make it fit for the UK economy.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Will the Minister recognise that his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, showed that he had not read the article by the director-general of the CBI very carefully? The main point he made, which the noble Baroness raised, was that the uncertainty created by this Bill and the inability of Ministers at the Dispatch Box to say how many measures are going to be struck down, what they are going to put in their place and when they are going to do it is damaging inward investment. Will the Minister now reply to that point?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We are providing certainty. The sunset date provides certainty: a target by which departments can look at their body of retained EU law and decide whether it needs replacing, retaining or updating.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, why are the Government intent on diminishing scrutiny in this House, as is strongly suspected by many Members? Why are Members of this House being denied the opportunity to question Ministers on these changes, and why is Parliament itself, which apparently is in the Minister’s mind, being refused the opportunity to discuss these things?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Parliament is not being refused the opportunity to discuss these things. We will no doubt have many days of debate on the retained EU law Bill. All the regulations that are updated or changed will come back to Parliament for approval, in precisely the same way as the EU regulations were introduced in the first place—in fact, they were subject to a lesser degree of scrutiny. I would have a little more support for the position of some noble Lords if they had objected to the way this legislation was introduced into UK law in the first place.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, in the very short time I have had the honour of being part of this House, I have witnessed the concerns many noble Lords have about the increasing use of statutory instruments. I have seen the potential for the use of SIs in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill to reverse a half-century of progress on basic rights for women. I would like to—
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
I bring to your Lordships’ attention the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations, which were passed in 2000. These EU regulations enabled the trade unions to win a court case on behalf of more than 100,000 part-time teaching assistants and school meal staff, 95% of whom were women, who had been denied access to the local government pension scheme. Can the noble Lord confirm that His Majesty’s Government have no intention of letting these vital regulations end on 31 December 2023?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am pleased that the noble Lord finally got round to a question. We are proud of our record on workers’ rights, particularly women’s rights. I quoted earlier the figures on the maternity leave provisions that are applicable in the UK as opposed to the EU; we want to see that happy state of affairs continue.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, before I call the fourth Oral Question, I remind noble Lords of the sub judice ruling, which currently covers the case of David Carrick. Noble Lords should therefore avoid discussion of any issue related to sentencing in that case.
Metropolitan Police: Criminality
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the extent of criminality within the Metropolitan Police.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Home Office publishes regular statistics on criminal proceedings against police officers and has commissioned HMICFRS to review countercorruption arrangements, including those of the Metropolitan Police. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry will look at tackling the causes of police criminality and misconduct and, more broadly, police culture. The Home Secretary is clear that the Metropolitan Police must redouble its efforts to root out corrupt officers to prevent the kinds of shocking cases we have seen recently.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, are we not agreed across the House that urgent action is needed to enable Sir Mark Rowley, the courageous Metropolitan Police Commissioner, to boot out the many criminals and incompetents in the Met, while acknowledging, of course, the dedicated service provided by the majority of officers? How can this urgent action be reconciled with a leisurely four-month Home Office review, whose terms of reference took several weeks to be agreed? The department says it needs evidence; is not the evidence provided by the continuing supply of shocking cases that emerge? Sir Mark has said that
“we have hundreds in policing who shouldn’t be here”.
Give him the means to clean up the Met, and give it to him now.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend refers to the review of police officer dismissals that was announced by the Home Secretary on 17 January, when she published the terms of reference. That will include a consideration of the merits of a presumption for disciplinary action against officers found to have committed a criminal offence while serving in the police. Of course, the review was set up partly in response to the comments that Sir Mark has previously made, and partly in response to the interim review of the Casey report. It would be irresponsible not to collect the appropriate evidence before making these very important decisions.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is quite right to raise the urgency of these terrible cases. Will the Minister reassure us that the review being carried out will consider the most radical measures? One thing that I have become convinced of over the past 15 years is that the office of constable is more a bar to excluding the bad than it is about protecting the good. A constable’s employment rights are protected by secondary legislation, which includes the ability of lawyers in the employment tribunal process within the police. Home Office guidance establishes that when dismissing an officer the standard of proof should not be just the balance of probabilities but should travel towards beyond reasonable doubt. Both those measures do not help to get rid of the difficult officers that the noble Lord and Sir Mark have mentioned. Both those things should change. By all means, give officers access to employment tribunals, which, frankly, they can get through other means anyway.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that and defer to his extensive experience. One of the things that the review is doing is looking at whether the current three-stage performance system is effective, which will obviously have to take into account some of the things that the noble Lord has just raised. I should have said in my earlier answer that the review has a time limit of four months on it. Obviously, that time is ticking, and the terms of reference were announced a couple of weeks ago.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House will share the views of most right-thinking members of the public in condemning the crimes committed by the officers who were mentioned in the debate—the abhorrent crimes of David Carrick. There are clearly faults in the vetting system and in the complaints investigation system. Will the Minister say whether in the case of an officer in force X who is found to have had an allegation made against him in force Y, where he lives, there is a duty on force Y to inform his employer—that is, force X— of the complaint?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not have the answer to that question and will have to find out and come back to the noble Lord. I would say that the IOPC is capable of investigating these allegations without having been notified by the officer’s force.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, this is more than a series of bad apples; I am sure that there is something rotten in the culture and structures in policing that comprehensively and immediately needs to be addressed. We have the nine turnaround priorities that the new police commissioner has set out. Can the Minister set out how the Government will assist with and ensure those priorities are realised as a matter of urgency?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
In my original Answer, I referred to part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry. I met Lady Angiolini last week and she made it clear that police culture will form a critical part of her investigations in part 2. The formal consultation on the terms of reference for part 2 opened earlier this month and will conclude, I think, on 24 February. Noble Lords are welcome to contribute to that consultation process. I am sorry for the long answer, but I shall go on a little. The inquiry will consider whether vetting and recruitment processes do enough to identify those in policing who are not fit to serve. It will investigate the extent to which misogynistic and predatory behaviour exists in police culture and look at whether current measures do enough to keep women safe, particularly in public spaces.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us a firm undertaking that any investigation will not be hampered by a lack of resources? If we do not have that, it does not really matter what we do.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am happy to give that undertaking.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, given the important Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, which concerns us all, and the concerns that have been raised in this Chamber, how on earth is it possible to read in the papers this morning the headline: “Retired rogue police invited to come back and fill vacancies”? Reported figures show that 99 recently retired officers who had retired under investigation for misconduct had been invited back; and 253 officers who had received warnings at misconduct hearings were invited to return. How on earth does that restore public confidence in the police?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I have not read the story to which the noble Lord refers, so I cannot comment specifically, but certainly superficially, I agree it does not restore confidence.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, at a time when public confidence in policing is at this low level, will the Minister examine the role of the 200 or so staff networks, many of which are blurring the line between policing and politics? I refer not to the Police Federation but to organisations such as the Green Police Network, the police vegan network and the National Association of Muslim Police, which has been known to criticise the Government’s Prevent programme. Is it not critical that police officers stick to operational duties rather than interfering in politics, and leave the latter to politicians?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, policemen should be able to express their opinions on these matters, as we all do, but I will certainly take my noble friend’s points away, do some more investigating and reflect on them back at the department.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there is a significant cultural dimension to this issue? Understandably, as a body, the police have a deeply defensive and internally focused culture. Simply picking malefactors out of that body will not solve the fact that there is a deep-rooted cultural issue. In my view, deep-rooted cultural change is needed to change the culture of the police force so that it is not as defensively minded as it appears to be at the moment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I have already expressed that the Angiolini inquiry will look into all aspects of that culture. This is also a useful time to remind all of us that the vast majority of serving policemen do an exceptional job and deserve our thanks and praise.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the “spy cops” undercover policing inquiry that is going on at the moment has taken years. It is a classic case of police forces covering up former crimes. What makes the Minister think the inquiry he mentioned will be any different?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
There are very specific circumstances surrounding the undercover inquiry to which the noble Baroness refers. She is right that it has gone on for too long; unfortunately, it looks like it is going to continue to go on for quite a long time. As regards this inquiry, I have every confidence that Lady Angiolini—as I say, I met her last week—will be rigorous; she has been up to now.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many more criminal prosecutions are pending against serving Metropolitan Police officers?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I do not have that statistic to hand, but I do have some others.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I promise noble Lords that this is a better answer than it sounds. The latest data shows that 83 criminal proceedings relating to police officer misconduct were finalised in 2021-22, but of misconduct cases commenced after 1 February 2020, when new regulations came into effect, 68 resulted in the officer being found guilty; there was a change to the way in which the statistics are collected.
Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 December 2022 be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
Civil Legal Aid (Housing and Asylum Accommodation) Order 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 30 November and 9 December 2022 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 23 January.
Trade (Mobile Roaming) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 December 2022 be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 31 January.
Health and Safety and Nuclear (Fees) Regulations 2022
Lord Evans of Rainow
That the Regulations laid before the House on 20 December 2022 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 31 January.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Plant Health and Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 19 December 2022 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 31 January.
Energy Bill Relief Scheme (Non-Standard Cases) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Regulations laid before the House on 11 January be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 31 January.
Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 1st February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have it on command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister could help us: why does His Majesty believe that it is necessary to give consent to this very important Bill so that, when he sells his properties in the private sector, he has to have an electrical certificate? Is it not time that we got rid of this ridiculous procedure of seeking the King’s consent?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the King’s consent is needed because Clauses 1 and 4 of the Domestic Premises (Electrical Safety Certificate) Bill may affect the interests of the Crown.
Arrangement of Business
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before we take questions on last week’s Statement in the House of Commons from Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I want to ensure that the House is aware that the time for questions from Back-Benchers has been extended. In recognition of noble Lords having the opportunity to discuss two Statements concurrently, the usual channels have agreed that they should have an extra 10 minutes, so there will be 30 minutes available for Back-Benchers. The time for Front-Bench contributions will remain at 20 minutes, as usual. I would also like to reiterate—the Companion is clear on this—that this is an opportunity for questions, not speeches. My noble friend is very keen to answer as many questions as possible.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Look how enthusiastic he is. I encourage short and focused contributions. I thank noble Lords.
Agricultural Transition Plan
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I shall first speak to the Statement on the agricultural transition plan. We know from the Statement that Defra is moving away from the direct payment schemes that farmers have been receiving for many years from the EU, such as the basic payment scheme, and is instead moving to a system where farmers are paid to make improvements to the environment, animal health and welfare, and to reduce carbon emissions and pollution. We welcome this. Farmers will get grants to improve productivity, including new robotic equipment.
Our one concern around this is that funds will need to be matched, which will make them unaffordable for many. The Government claim that farmers will, within seven years, produce healthy and profitable food in a sustainable way and without subsidies. Therefore it is important that the Government keep a close eye on progress to ensure that it is achievable, because we know that farmers have been struggling with the increased cost pressures on fertiliser, fuels and labour supply, for example. For upland farmers, such as in Cumbria where I live, the withdrawal of the basic payment support is going to make life much harder. What reassurance can the Minister give to upland farmers that they will have access to sufficient funds for their farms to continue to be viable?
We also know that tenant farmers have raised concerns: for example, how will the new environmental payments work in practice? How will the value of income streams be possible for tenants? How would tenant farmers go about claiming them, and how can the length of tenure be accommodated within this? We also know that they are concerned that the loss of BPS could have an impact on rents. The Rock review raised the issue of access to the various schemes, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further clarity and reassurance in these areas.
The other concern we have is that, despite the many schemes on offer, some of them are quite complex. We would be grateful if there was more attention paid by the Government to ensure strong take-up of the new schemes. Our concerns arise from the figures on the sustainable farming incentive from the last year: just 224 applications were paid out, a far lower number than the number that received BPS, which was over 80,000. It is clearly important that these schemes are successful, both for our farming and rural communities but also for the environment. If the Minister is able to provide any information on the projected take-up over the next 12 months and what Defra is doing to encourage that maximum level of interest, we would be very grateful.
Moving on to the Statement on crustacean mortality in the north-east of England, I am sure that many of us are aware of the extremely distressing scenes of thousands of dead and dying lobsters and crabs that have washed ashore on beaches there. We also know that fishing crews have reported a drop of up to 95% in their catches and continue to report high levels of dead shellfish, a situation which has been described as catastrophic for their livelihoods.
We do not understand why this mass die-off has happened, and I appreciate that it is understandably very difficult to identify exactly what the cause is for such incidents. But as the Statement says, the independent crustacean mortality expert panel reports that a novel pathogen was the most likely cause. In making this Statement to the House of Commons on 26 January, Mark Spencer, the Minister, said:
“I am considering carefully whether further analysis by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science can ascertain conclusively the cause of this unusual mortality.”
Since then, Sir Robert Goodwill, the chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, has written to the Minister asking for a study to be carried out as “a matter of urgency.” The letter also states:
“The Committee believes that further work should be undertaken to identify this novel pathogen, given the importance of determining its origin, its vectors of transmission, its transmissibility, its virulence and other factors related to it.”
I have two questions for the Minister. First, how is Defra working with the local fishing industry to support it during this crisis? Secondly, will the Government take note of the Select Committee’s letter and act on its request to get this mystery solved, so it is prevented from happening again?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the farming Statement in the other place on 26 January has been generally welcomed. Farmers are keen to move forward with ELMS, but sufficient detail to allow them to plan ahead has been sadly lacking in the past. This current announcement provides more information, which should give some reassurance. The rollout of the sustainable farming incentive is overdue. There appear to be six strands to this, and it provides for paid actions by farmers to manage hedgerows for wildlife, plant nectar-rich wildflowers and to manage crop pests without the use of insecticides.
I particularly welcome this last one as there were amendments and debates during the passage of both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act on the very harmful effect of pesticides. Can the Minister tell the House the extent of the regulations around the proposed use of insecticides?
The six additional standards to the sustainable farming initiative allow farmers to receive payments for actions on hedgerows, grasslands, arable and horticultural land, pest management and nutrient management. This adds to the existing standards on soil health and moorlands. Can the Minister give more detail on these standards?
There do now seem to be a plethora of ways in which farmers can access money. Farmers are busy people and their workload is heavy, especially in bad weather. The larger farm businesses will employ staff, including farm managers, to look at the detail of the schemes and assess what is best for them. The smaller farmer is unlikely to have the time to look into the detail of the myriad schemes available in order to make the best choices for his or her land. The Minister is aware that there have been complaints about the complexities of applying for existing schemes, and has said on previous occasions that the process is being simplified. Can he give us reassurance that these new schemes will be easier to apply for and less complicated than those already running? It is vital to increase the uptake of sustainable farming initiatives and Countryside Stewardship schemes, and crucial that the schemes are easily understood and that the forms are not overly complex, so that the smaller independent farmer is able to participate.
I am concerned about tenant farmers generally. Countryside Stewardship Plus encourages farmers to work together with their neighbours and landowners. How will the tenant farmer fit into this pattern?
I welcome the new ambition for local nature recovery to include managing flood plains and maintaining peatlands. How will that assist farmers on the Somerset Levels, where flooding is a way of life and water management an everyday part of life? This year, as in others, large tracts of land have been under water for a considerable time. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this.
My final comment is about the overall thrust of the transition plan, which is towards improving the land, increasing biodiversity, carbon capture, and enhancing and managing woodlands. This is a vital part of managing the land. However, there is insufficient mention of the production of food. The growing of crops, the husbandry of animals and the production of food is essential, both for the sustainability of the British farming industry and as part of the process of feeding the nation. Agriculture cannot be about only biodiversity and carbon capture. Food production must have equal billing for farming to survive. Can the Minister provide reassurance that there is a balance in the transition plan?
My noble friend Lord Teverson, who led on the then Fisheries Bill from these Benches, will speak on the north-east crustacean Statement.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief. Exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, the images of this incident are quite something. Given its importance, I would be very interested to understand from the Minister why Professor Gideon Henderson, the main scientific adviser to Defra, was not involved at the beginning to make sure that the first inquiry was well managed and actually dealt with the real issues. That, perhaps, would have made the second inquiry unnecessary. In fact, we have had two inquiries now but we still do not know what the answer is. I would be interested to learn from the Minister what happens next.
I am particularly interested to understand whether we have samples in cold storage of the original crustacean victims so that we could actually go back and look at pathogens. As we all know, invasive species, whether they are pathogens or larger organisms, are potentially extremely dangerous and expensive to our economy. This was a major incident and I would like to know what will happen next, and exactly how this should move from here. We have had very few answers from those two inquiries.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I will try to give noble Lords as much time to ask questions as possible. I thank noble Lords on the opposition Front Benches for their questions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her support for this transition. I know that this announcement has been long awaited, not least by farmers but also by this House. I hope that a look at GOV.UK will reveal the depth we have gone into and the easy accessibility for farmers to find out more.
The noble Baroness asked what other measures we are taking. We are offering a range of one-off grants to improve farm productivity. That perhaps answers also the point the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, made. We want farmers to produce food and to do so sustainably. We want them to look at natural capital as something to grow, because it will improve the productivity of their businesses in the long term. Many farmers are doing that, but we want to help them to do it better. For example, we are giving grants for slurry management, animal health and welfare, and environmental and access features, and to support the innovation, research and development the sector needs. We are reforming our approach to farm regulation to make it clearer, fairer and more effective for farmers. We will develop a new entrants scheme to encourage the next generation of farmers to bring their necessary skills into managing their businesses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised a concern for uplands that I entirely share. Over recent decades, farmers have had to put up with a system that is skewed against the small farmer. Over 50% of basic farm payments would go to the largest 10% of farms. We want to ensure that that money is distributed more fairly. Upland farmers can be paid for actions on moorland, grassland and upland peat, with more than 130 actions in all schemes applicable to them.
All the standards we are introducing in the SFI in 2023 are open to upland farmers. We have tried to make SFI as simple as possible. A very good point was made that smaller farmers tend not to have either the resources of a land agent or the time necessary to do this. Most early applicants to SFI have been very complimentary about the ease with which it can be done. In less than 45 minutes—perhaps the most valuable 45 minutes that they will spend this year—they can access these schemes. The menu is now being rolled out, with lots of different things that are applicable to their farms. Rather than having it done to them, as happened under the system we are transitioning from, they will be able to select what suits their land and business, and to improve their way of working.
Again on upland farms, I am delighted to say that, within the EIP, we have announced an extension of the farming in protected landscapes grant—the first bespoke grant scheme we have introduced since Brexit and, by all measure, the most popular; the money has gone out of the door very quickly. Some 74% of national parks are in upland areas, and farmers in those areas have been able to access more than 1,800 schemes that have seen 84 kilometres of hedgerow planted, large numbers of stone walls repaired, and lots of environmental benefits.
I hope we will see a transition to a scheme that will not only be popular for the wider public, who want to see government support to uphold farmers’ drive to sustainability and environment benefits, but assist farmers to continue to produce food, and to do so sustainably. We want at least 70% of farmers to be in SFI. I hope we will see a big surge in numbers as people see the six new standards we have produced being rolled out.
I will answer the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on this and then turn to the crustaceans issue. One of the six standards is an integrated pest management standard. It will provide farmers with at least three things. The first is advice on how to transition their production from one that is reliant on chemicals, both herbicides and insecticides. It will also give them advice on companion cropping, so that they can plant different crops at the same time, the insects and other measures from which can help to control pests on the other crop. This has had considerable success; I have seen it for myself. The last is perhaps the most relevant to the noble Baroness’s question, which is on insecticides. It will give arable farmers help in transitioning away from using insecticides on their farms.
There are plenty of ways for farmers to achieve finance. We have ring-fenced the £2.4 billion that we are spending on BPS, and, as the transition tails off for BPS payments, we are now seeing the environmental land management schemes kick in. Farmers will start to see how they can fill the gap that is being created by the phase-out of BPS.
As I say, we want to make sure we are helping smaller farmers. I think the future is very good, once we can get over this transition period. Undoubtedly some farmers are worried, and some may not survive because of a whole range of extraneous circumstances, not least the spike in commodity prices, but I can see a future for them. They are more adaptable than many bigger farms, and we want to see them having access to a simplified system.
One of the most exciting developments I have seen is the surge of interest in countryside stewardship. Countryside stewardship has increased by over 90%, and more people are participating. We want to see that continue. We have three tiers now. It is easy to migrate from existing schemes to the new schemes, and many farmers are looking at the potential of that.
I know the Somerset Levels well. I remember being the floods Minister and having to go down there during the floods of 2011, 2012 and 2013. It was devastating. The flooding that takes place on the Somerset Levels comes from the Mendip Hills, which the noble Baroness knows better than me. Farming activity up there can slow the flow of water on to the levels. We are trying to encourage farmers in their water and soil management and in other methods that can be accessed through these schemes, so we can stop the surge of water, Such water often brings with it topsoil, particularly from maize being grown higher up the hill, which floods down into the Somerset Levels. Sometimes after heavy rainfall you can see in an aerial photograph a plume of soil going out into the Bristol Channel. Better soil management will prevent that.
I turn now to the important questions raised by the tragic situation on the north-east coast of England, with the deaths of crustaceans. I entirely agree with noble Lords in their concern about this. It is a great shame that we do not know precisely what has caused this extraordinary die-off of crabs. To condense very quickly a detailed scientific report, it is as likely as not that a pathogen new to UK waters has caused this. It is unlikely that it was a harmful algal bloom causing a loss of oxygen in the water resulting in crab deaths. It is very unlikely that pyridine or another toxic pollutant caused the crab deaths. It is also very unlikely that maintenance dredging, as required to keep the port open, or capital dredging for the new freeport, was responsible.
What do we do now? That’s the point noble Lords rightly raised. The Environment Secretary has considered carefully whether further analysis by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science can ascertain conclusively the cause of this unusual mortality. We are continuing to monitor wash-ups in the area and encourage local people to report findings. The North Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority has created an online reporting tool for local people to use.
There is currently no evidence to suggest that there has been another mass die-off event or that any is occurring in wash-ups that are currently in line with what we would normally expect to see. While a novel pathogen—a disease or parasite—has not been identified, the experts concluded that it could explain the key observations, including mortality, over a sustained period along 70 kilometres of coastline. A particular feature was the unusual twitching of dying crabs and the deaths being predominantly of crabs rather than of other species. That is what ruled out some of the suspected causes. The report was clear in its conclusion that a novel pathogen is as likely as not to be the cause.
We support the local fishing industry in a great many different ways. It is a fact that crab catches across the whole of that area are roughly normal. Some local vessels fishing in particular parts have seen the number of crabs they are able to catch drop off significantly, and we have to find ways of supporting them until populations recover. I do understand that it is very difficult for them, but we have provided a lot of finance to the inshore fleet right around the coast. We want to make sure that that is adaptable and can be used in circumstances such as these.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests. I very much enjoyed the Minister’s upbeat presentation on the situation in agriculture, but I know that, from his own farming experience, he will empathise with the fact that any farming business is a complex series of ecosystems that interact with each other, and a decision on one will affect others in many different ways. Therefore, can he help me by explaining why the Defra strategy appears to be to drip out bits of the environmental programme, for example, piece by piece? One month it is soil, the next month it is hedgerows. Farmers, who are trying to feed the nation and improve the environment, find it impossible to plan a business when these bits of information are dropped out on a fragmentary basis, as I understand it, right out until 2025.
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are two reasons for that. First, we have a programme of tailing out the basic payment scheme and replacing it with ELMS. That requires us to manage the public money properly. Secondly, we want this to be an iterative—a wonderful Civil Service word—process that responds to our understanding of real life. We have had our tests, trials and pilots and have learned from them. In the autumn we had a serious tyre-kicking session on this, which drew some criticism. I can understand why; people were very nervous that we were going to do a screeching U-turn, but we have not. Out of that has now come the announcement of six, as opposed to three, new standards—because farmers wanted to know precisely what the noble Lord said.
It takes time to get this right because, as he says, it is about people’s livelihoods and businesses, and they want to be able to plan for the future. I think farmers much prefer that—or will in hindsight, when they look back on this era—to some big bang moment where we stop one scheme on 31 December and go into another on 1 January. By and large, when Governments have tried that across a whole range of different reforms in different departments, it has been a disaster. We have tried to do this over many years, and in time farmers will understand that they have been able to migrate from one system to another. As a farmer, that is certainly what I want; I understand if other farmers have different views. I want a Government who listen to farmers and change accordingly, and that is what we have tried to do.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the declaration of interests. How will the Government make farmers confident in this excellent report when they are signing contracts with other countries that will allow people to export into this country and compete with our farmers when they do not have to meet the same high standards we are asking? It is impossible to ask for their confidence unless we stop this activity.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that I should have drawn noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register as a farmer. As he knows, and as I have said frequently from this Dispatch Box, it is the Government’s policy that all trade deals should reflect our own high standards in environment and animal welfare, and that remains the policy of the Government.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government were ring-fencing the £2.4 billion for ELMS, but the fact is that the basic payment scheme has been going down much more quickly than the sustainable farming incentive has been going up, so there is an inevitable gap in farmers’ incomes as a result of all that.
So I ask the Minister: how much of the £1 billion cut from farmers so far will they be able to get back this year through the ELM scheme? If he finds that the take-up is not the 70% that the Government aspire to, at what point will they go back and look at whether or not the factors are right and whether or not the payments are right? We all want it to be a success, but there is an awful lot of finger in the air at the moment, and we need to make sure that all that money does go back to the farming community to have long-term, sustainable farming enterprises in this country. So how much will they get, and at what point will the Government reconsider whether the amount should go up further?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We have tried to help farmers in as many ways as possible. For example, we have brought forward to a half-yearly payment what they are currently receiving in the basic payment scheme, so what they were receiving in one lump sum they now receive six- monthly. That has helped their cash flow.
There are other things, such as the extra money we have put into Countryside Stewardship, which has drawn many more people into the scheme and front-loaded some of that money. The fact that we are setting six new standards now as opposed to the original three that we were going to announce is another example of how we are pulling the money forward. We want to make sure that it is going into farmers’ pockets as quickly and as easily as possible, keeping the application for it simple and getting the money to them through the Rural Payments Agency as quickly as possible.
I cannot answer the noble Baroness precisely, for the simple reason that it is different for every farm. As a farmer looks at the proposals that we have announced, they will be able to see on each standard that there are different things that they can do that fit in with the ecosystem that they farm in—the water management that they want to achieve and the wildlife that they want to encourage, while still producing food—and every single farm will be different. We are also helping through the announcement we made on landscape recovery, allowing farmers to work together in clusters to bring forward schemes. That has been really effective at drawing people into that scheme as well. So I cannot tell her precisely because every farm is different, but that amount is ring-fenced and farmers will be supported through the scheme.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the further update on the transition plan. When the Agriculture Bill was going through this place, pleas were made to the Minister’s predecessor to allow us to amend the two agricultural Acts that are the foundation of the tenancies. Will my noble friend take that away with him and urgently ensure that the tenancy agreements can be amended so that they will benefit? Who will advise the farmers on which applications they can make? Will it be Natural England?
On a positive note, I welcome the eight new agricultural attachés the Government have announced. Can the Minister say in what way they will actually help, for example, farmers in the north of England to reach export markets many miles away?
On the issue of crustaceans, he will be aware that this has had a devastating impact on those who fish for crabs off the north Yorkshire coast. What compensation can they look for, and what foreseeable future in this area of fishing will they have?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend, first, for reminding me that I did not answer the points made by the noble Baronesses on the Front Benches about tenants. I absolutely agree that we want to make these schemes as accessible as possible to tenant farmers. They are a fundamental part of the tenure of land that we have, from owner-occupiers, statutory tenants under the Agricultural Holdings Act, farm business tenancies, grazing rights and grazing on commons; there is an array of them. I agree with my noble friend that the legislation is a bit out of date. We have an organisation called TRIG, which is bringing together people across farming businesses to try to find a way of reform, although there is not agreement on that. My noble friend Lady Rock’s report has brought forward some measures that have already found their way into the Environmental Land Management Scheme and into Countryside Stewardship. We want to make these as accessible as possible for tenants, and I hope that the changes we made will please them.
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s points on exports. I am pleased to see that we have recently agreed exports of pig meat to countries such as Mexico. This fills the gap created when markets were cut off for China. Our attachés, embassies and high commissions abroad will be working hard to secure better export opportunities for high-quality British food, so I hope that we will see a better future for that.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the north-east fishing industry, despite the great popularity of its crab and lobster products in mainland Europe, has faced a series of challenges. The one the Minister described today has been the most devastating. Alongside that, the industry has had to find ways of getting products to market in Europe, which has proved far more complicated as it has to be done within 24 hours in most cases. In the case of Holy Island, new problems, of which he is aware, may be posed by marine protection zones. Is there a focus in his department on ensuring that we continue to have a north-east of England fishing industry, given all these difficulties?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Absolutely. Regarding Holy Island, as he knows, we are holding a consultation, which is causing great concern. I have had letters from a variety of people, including the Archbishop of York, on this matter. I know it is causing serious stress to individuals, and we want to resolve it as soon as possible; that is the point of a meaningful consultation. The people managing that fishery need to know that we are listening to them. We will make an announcement very soon, which I hope will set their minds at rest.
The noble Lord and my noble friend also asked about support for that fishing industry. We want to see more biomass in the sea, so fishermen in the north-east of England feel that they can have a sustainable stock of fish to exploit in years to come. Everything we are doing is about driving towards sustainability. The greatest friends of protected marine areas should be fishermen. As we saw in a report I wrote for the Government before I took this position, in other parts of the world the greatest supporters of marine protection are fishermen. Outside those areas, they see biomass moving into an area, which they can then exploit. We want to see a good future for fishermen all around our coasts.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
We have plenty of time. I think it is the turn of the Cross- Benchers, and then Labour.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, as set out in the register. I also express my thanks to the Minister and his department for the progress on and development of ELMS so far. I emphasise “so far” because there are still some areas of concern, and my two principal ones are as follows.
First, the implementation of biodiversity net gain becomes a legal requirement at the end of this year. We need to know how land set aside for BNG relates in terms of payment to land incorporated in ELMS, as this could be a major income opportunity for farmers. Secondly, there is a need for immediate clarity from Defra and the Treasury on income and capital tax treatment and reliefs, as well as the possibility of VAT on BNG and other aspects of ELMS, including woodland. I would be greatly relieved if the Minister could respond on these two points.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the biodiversity net gain target becomes effective from November this year. We are working hard with other departments to ensure that that rollout is happening. I know that contracts and covenants are already being worked up by famers and their advisers. We see this as an income source from which they can benefit, and we want to ensure that it happens. This absolutely dovetails with what they are doing with environmental land management schemes. In addition to the noble Lord’s point, next month we are due to publish our green finance strategy, which will try to create the right degree of regulation in a market which some people refer to as “the wild west”, because you see all sorts of players offering farmers and land managers enormous sums of money, some of which is greenwash. We want to focus that, so we are working effectively to get ESG money and other funds invested in our natural environment through farmers and land managers in a meaningful way. As the noble Lord said, there are also tax concerns. We are in discussions with the Treasury on that, and we will ensure that we keep your Lordships abreast of those developments.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, tempted as I am to put the case of the challenge for upland farmers in County Durham, I actually want to concentrate on the crab deaths. First, I thank the Minister for the correction I have just received to the Parliamentary Answer he sent me yesterday. I understand that all these issues are challenging, including this one. It is challenging because we do not yet know, and the Government must admit in their report that they do not yet know, the precise nature of what has caused this awful problem. I know the Government want to rule out dredging, but they are not yet in a position to do that, so can he assure me that any future dredging will be monitored very carefully? When the steelworks closed in Consett, we saw the results of processes that nobody had thought about. I am sure that will also be the case around the Redcar works, where stuff got into the river from both the steel and chemical works. Will the Minister ensure that the Government continue to monitor the effects of dredging and that they come up with a firm plan to restore the health of the sea, so that not just fishermen but tourists have confidence to go to those magnificent beaches again?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I entirely accept the point that the noble Baroness makes, and her passion for that area is well known. In doing his survey, the Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Henderson, pulled together 12 leading experts in their field. They are listed in the report, and they have looked at this in the way scientists do. It is sometimes frustrating that you cannot ever get a clear, black-and-white answer to a scientific question, and sometimes there are mysteries, but I hope that this is not one of the mysteries that will always elude us. However, when talking to the scientists and really pushing them to find out whether we gave them the right remit, all the answers I received satisfied me that Professor Henderson, who is a deeply respected public servant and scientist, pulled together the most effective group possible, and they have produced a report that indicates what is very unlikely to be the cause.
Two types of dredging have gone on in that area. One is maintenance dredging, whereby very small amounts of the depths of sediment are removed. We tested that sediment before it was put in a licensed part of the sea, and the levels of pyridine were absolutely inconsequential in terms of its ability to cause the crab deaths. The other one is capital dredging for the new port, and the dates for that are interesting. In December 2020 capital dredging took place, but not actually on the freeport; the deaths occurred in October 2021, some months afterwards; and in September 2022 there was capital dredging in the freeport, after which there were no deaths. The fact that, largely, only crabs have been washed up is really extraordinary, so we want to ensure that we keep an open mind. I absolutely give the noble Baroness the assurance that we are also willing to look at other—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have two questions about the agricultural transition. First, the Minister is very enthusiastic about the number of farmers who would take it up. Does he have any estimate or is that too difficult to find? Secondly, what happens about monitoring practices of farmers who do not sign up? Is there a process for that?
On the crabs, Gary Caldwell, a senior lecturer in applied marine biology at Newcastle University—so, a well-respected expert—says that there is no direct evidence for disease among the crabs, and that very high levels of pyridine were found in the crab carcasses. The next stage of dredging will move a million cubic metres of riverbed seven miles out to sea. The noble Baroness asking the previous question asked whether there will be very careful monitoring of that so that we do not have a repeat occurrence.
Lord Benyon (Con)
On the farmer situation, about 2,200 have entered the sustainable farming incentive to date. That is not particularly surprising, because the amount of money that was available was between £22 and £60 a hectare, and now there will be considerably more. There will be farmers who will not join the scheme because they can farm profitability without support, or for whatever reason. We monitor or collect data from farms right across the country. It is vital that we do, so that we know what crops are being planted and where. It will feed a very important piece of strategic work that I am sure the noble Baroness will support: the land use framework, which is coming forward.
The noble Baroness referred to Dr Gary Caldwell. Professor Henderson has been in touch with him on a number of occasions. There was a rumour that he had somehow been excluded. There is a paper trail of emails between Professor Henderson and Dr Caldwell. I can only rely on the evidence we have seen, in the report from the 12 eminent scientists, that indicated that the levels of pyridine were “very unlikely” to be responsible—we have to be very precise in our language here. We will keep our minds open and make sure that developments in that area address the points the noble Baroness makes.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my farming interests in the register. Does the Minister agree that perhaps the most susceptible group of farmers in these difficult times are those on marginal land which is rather too good to be supported through the upland support schemes? Those are very often smaller farms on not good land. Is there anything in the Government’s proposals tailored specifically for this particular group in the margins?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend. His knowledge and interest in this subject are of course really helpful. We want to make sure that precisely those farmers are able to access these schemes. In fact, they are the people most often able to deliver the kind of benefits we want, in reversing the decline of biodiversity, hitting our net-zero targets and hitting our tree-planting targets. There is something in there for them, particularly in the upland areas. If they are farming areas that have either upland or lowland peat, there is a standard that would be of particular value to them. I also draw farmers’ attention to the hedgerows standard. Farmers are used to hedgerows, and they are restoring their number to deal with those that were taken out with government grants in the 1970s. They know that if they can manage those hedgerows in a different way, it can have enormous benefits, both in carbon and biodiversity. I really hope they will benefit from these new standards.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister said that there were no other deaths, but independent marine experts claim that there have been deaths of bivalve shellfish, octopuses, barnacles and algae and there is growing evidence that seal populations were affected. If the assumptions in this new report are accurate, it suggests that we have a discrete, pathogenic, multi-species serial killer committing ecocide. That is significant because it is also in an area that is coterminous with the blast radius of the explosion of the Teesside furnace, which was demolished by explosion with the dust cloud scattered across the sea. I am sure the Minister must be worried about that level of death in the sea. Can he at least try to challenge the notion that there is a multi-species element to this, because I think the report focused just on crustaceans?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I absolutely accept the noble Lord’s point. I want to make sure that my language is correct, because there are a lot of conspiracy theories at the extremes; then there are the absolutely genuine points made by people such as the noble Lord, who want, quite rightly, to ensure that they are addressed.
Although a novel pathogen—a disease or parasite—has not been identified, the experts concluded that it could explain the key observations, including mortality, over a sustained period along a 70-kilometre coastline. The report makes clear the unusual twitching of dying crabs and the deaths being predominantly among crabs rather than other species, and it concluded that a novel pathogen is as likely as not to be the cause.
That leads us to ask, “What now?”, which is why we are talking to Cefas to make sure that we are monitoring this issue. We are also talking to the IFCA about the measures that it brought in and making sure that we are drawing on the evidence of citizen science and other scientific organisations—some of which have understandably been taking part in campaigns on this. We recognise that, as yet, we do not precisely know what the cause is, but we want to.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, on the hypothesis that the cause is indeed a novel pathogen, the Minister will know that in respect of red belly disease in salmon the original hypothesis was a novel pathogen, but the hypothesis now is an existing pathogen with a novel stressor. Has the review looked at the possibility of an existing pathogen caused by a new stress element? If not, why not? Does the Minister agree that that should be looked at?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Viscount makes a very good point. One of the things that the review looked at was what was going on in the sea at the time. He is absolutely right that there are factors that can affect species and their ability to withstand a pathogen if such a pathogen exists. Those factors can include storm and tide effects and other human effects; they were certainly considered as part of the review and will be considered in any future reviews of this work.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, during the passage of the then Environment Bill, my noble friend’s predecessor as Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, promised the House that there would be a soil health action plan and that it would be a “key plank” of the Government’s policy. When is that promise going to be honoured?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not sure, because I was not involved in any commitments made at the time of that Bill, but I will certainly look into it and contact my noble friend. I should say that soil is absolutely at the heart of our agricultural reforms. We want farmers to use it in a way that means we are protecting it. There are certain areas, such as lowland peat, where the soil is being depleted at an alarming rate. We want to make sure that the measures we have introduced are used to protect and maintain soils; and that soils can be used for all the things we want, such as cleaning up rivers and protecting our environment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister—[Inaudible]—the crabs are safe to eat —[Inaudible]—or are they poisonous?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness that they are safe to eat. The FSA advice is that they are safe to eat and that there is no zoonotic effect on human health from crabs that have been found dead and have been examined.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches. There will be time for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to speak afterwards.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
In the light of the answer that the Minister gave to my noble friend, can he tell the House whether his own adviser, Professor Henderson, has recommended to him further action or research that should be undertaken? The Minister also referred to a wider group of interested people who will want to know what has happened in this tragedy; sometimes, things occur in nature and we do not understand them. Will the action taken involve a wide range of scientific societies, including, for example, the Royal Society of Biology?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Absolutely, in addition to the organisations I listed earlier. The initial views are that finding something to which we can attribute the cause is unlikely, but Professor Henderson has suggested that the university sector will be well placed to extend research in this area, and he is working with it to see what further research can be done.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as in the register. I would like the Minister to return to the reply he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, when he explained that British agriculture and those engaged in it would not be, with their products, competing against people who operate under lower environmental and welfare standards. How does that square with the remarks of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, on the Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill, where he told the House that the standards in Australia were lower than those in this country?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Our policy is that agricultural products taken in as part of a trade deal cannot be imported into this country if they fall beneath our standards of animal welfare and environmental protection. That is the policy in the agricultural chapter of the Australia deal; it is the first time such a chapter in a trade deal has said that.
Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill
Wednesday 1st February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 View all Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-I Marshalled list for Report - (23 Jan 2023)
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is my privilege to move the Third Reading of the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in this House today. As we have discussed in debate, it is essential that we forge ahead with the Bill now to help address the many challenges we are facing across our food system and environment.
During the Bill’s passage through the other place, we saw record-breaking heat and drought and now, as it nears the end of its journey, we are managing the impacts of winter flooding. Precision-breeding technology is one of the tools we can use to develop plants that are more productive, more resilient to extreme weather, and less reliant on fertilisers and pesticides. This technology will help support our farmers to grow and harvest better, improve the health and welfare of animals, and provide healthier and more nutritious foods for consumers.
We have some of the best scientists and research institutes in the world, and we want to encourage this exciting research and translate it into tangible benefits. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Professor Jane Langdale at the University of Oxford, where I learned about her cutting-edge work developing high-yielding rice varieties for smallholder farmers. I heard how you can precision breed drought-resistant varieties. That is exactly the kind of work we want to see. I know that this is happening across the country, including at the John Innes Centre at Rothamsted, the Roslin Institute and many more places. I left Oxford with the warm glow—no doubt some noble Lords might feel that it was naive but I felt it was genuine—one gets from the belief that we have actually done something good here, which will benefit people in not just this country but abroad.
By introducing a more proportionate and science-based regulatory framework, we want to encourage innovation and enable new breeds of plants and animals to be released for field trials and brought to market more easily. We want to encourage this innovation responsibly. Following the Bill’s passage, we will continue to work with experts and other stakeholders to develop measures to safeguard animal welfare before we bring the measures in the Bill into force in relation to animals.
I thank all those who have supported the Bill and those who put it through its paces to ensure it will deliver on its vision of proportionate and safe regulation of precision-breeding technologies. The specialist expertise that the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Trees, Lord Winston and Lord Cameron of Dillington, have brought to the debates has been invaluable. As we are all aware, this is a scientific policy area with which some of us do not always feel at ease. It was a truly extraordinary experience to hear the level of understanding and knowledge in some of the exchanges. I really thank many noble Lords for their wisdom and for ensuring the appropriate direction of debates.
I also thank noble Lords on the Front Benches for their invaluable contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has led well-considered scrutiny, and I thank her for her debate on this legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has provided extensive input to these debates, for which I am grateful. I thank other noble Lords from all sides of the House for their interest and engagement, which has undoubtedly improved the Bill. I know that we had some arguments and that not everyone will have been happy with precisely where we ended up, but it was an enormously beneficial experience to have the debates that we did.
Finally, I want to thank the Bill team, who were led by Fiona White, Emily Bowen, Elizabeth Bates and Elena Kimber, and the Bill policy team, parliamentary counsel and the Food Standards Agency, which worked so hard on the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their support and input into these important debates. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I realise that the Chamber is filling up and getting ready for the next debate, which is very important, but I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, for his good humour, patience and flexibility during the passage of the Bill. I also thank the Bill team for their help in answering our queries, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and all those on the Labour Benches, including the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who made a very valuable contribution to the Bill.
As the Minister has said, the expertise of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Trees and Lord Cameron of Dillington, was absolutely invaluable. I really enjoyed the exchanges across the Chamber on this very technical Bill. I cannot sit down without mentioning the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who also brought a great deal of expertise to it. My noble friend Lady Parminter supported me brilliantly; we could not have got where we are without her, so I thank her for that.
There were excellent cross-party debates and we reached a reasonable conclusion. We did not get everything that we wanted but we got a satisfactory result and I thank the Minister for that.
Lord Benyon (Con)
In adding to the noble Baroness’s thanks to noble Lords, I forgot to mention my noble friend Lord Harlech, without whom chaos would have ensued.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her comment and want briefly to pick up one point from the Minister on Report. He gave the assurance
“that I will be open to any suggestions”
for
“a forum or fora for a wider conversation with the public”.—[Official Report, 25/1/23; col. 278.]
I hope the Minister will confirm that; I am hoping to outreach with him in the coming weeks to do that. The Minister did not refer to the fact that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have both rejected the legislative consent Motions for the Bill to apply to their countries. Can he provide any more information on where the Government are going forward with that?
Two things have happened since we finished Report. The European Patent Office has revoked an EU patent for heme proteins in plant-based meat alternatives, an issue which was also the subject of litigation in the US. In Committee, we talked a lot about patent issues. We did not go back to them on Report but that certainly raises lots of those issues from Committee. Finally, since our debate we have had a statement from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes on so-called precision-bred organisms. Many people are reaching out to me to say that it does not resolve the issues of labelling and other regulatory issues, so I draw that response to the Minister’s attention.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this was at times a very complex and sometimes challenging Bill, particularly for a non-scientist such as myself; I think both the Minister and I were on a steep learning curve. I thank everybody who provided detailed information and support during the course of this Bill. It really was invaluable as we moved through its progress.
I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. A lot of people spent a lot of time going into detail and depth on this, which was really important when you consider its nature. In particular, I would like to thank: my noble friends Lord Winston and Lady Jones of Whitchurch; the noble Lords, Lord Krebs, Lord Trees and Lord Cameron; the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Parminter, with whom I worked closely, on the Opposition Benches; and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. There was a lot of very clear insight and knowledge that came through noble Lords’ contributions on this Bill, which is one of the reasons why this House is so good at improving legislation—I think this Bill really demonstrated that.
I would also like to thank the officials for their time and their patience with me and my many questions. It was very much appreciated from the Opposition Benches. Finally, I thank the Minister for his time and the constructive way he worked with those of us on the Opposition Benches. It is very much appreciated.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind thanks.
To answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—and I thank her for her challenge in this debate and this Bill—I am very keen to continue a conversation about how we raise people’s awareness about how this technology can help, or unravel some of the mystery that might surround people who are concerned about it at times. I assure her that will be the case.
On the question of Scotland and Wales, I hope in time they will see what we are doing and the direction in which the EU is moving on this. I hope they will listen to farmers and institutions like the Roslin Institute, Bangor and Aberystwyth universities, and the James Hutton Institute, and understand that this is an area where it is possible to develop technologies and where, if we all work together, Britain can be a leader. With that, I beg to move.
Online Safety Bill
Wednesday 1st February 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 January 2023 - large print - (17 Jan 2023)
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad to be here to move the Second Reading of the Online Safety Bill. I know that this is a moment which has been long awaited in your Lordships’ House and noble Lords from across the House share the Government’s determination to make the online realm safer.
That is what this Bill seeks to do. As it stands, over three quarters of adults in this country express a concern about going online; similarly, the number of parents who feel the benefits outweigh the risks of their children being online has decreased rather than increased in recent years, falling from two-thirds in 2015 to barely over half in 2019. This is a terrible indictment of a means through which people of all ages are living increasing proportions of their lives, and it must change.
All of us have heard the horrific stories of children who have been exposed to dangerous and deeply harmful content online, and the tragic consequences of such experiences both for them and their families. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who arranged for a number of noble Lords, including me, to see some of the material which was pushed relentlessly at Molly Russell whose family have campaigned bravely and tirelessly to ensure that what happened to their daughter cannot happen to other young people. It is with that in mind, at the very outset of our scrutiny of this Bill, that I would like to express my gratitude to all those families who continue to fight for change and a safer, healthier online realm. Their work has been central to the development of this Bill. I am confident that, through it, the Government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online will be delivered.
This legislation establishes a regulatory regime which has safety at its heart. It is intended to change the mindset of technology companies so that they are forced to consider safety and risk mitigation when they begin to design their products, rather than as an afterthought.
All companies in scope will be required to tackle criminal content and activity online. If it is illegal offline; it is illegal online. All in-scope platforms and search services will need to consider in risk assessments the likelihood of illegal content or activity taking place on their site and put in place proportionate systems and processes to mitigate those risks. Companies will also have to take proactive measures against priority offences. This means platforms will be required to take proportionate steps to prevent people from encountering such content.
Not only that, but platforms will also need to mitigate the risk of the platform being used to facilitate or commit such an offence. Priority offences include, inter alia: terrorist material, child sexual abuse and exploitation, so-called revenge pornography and material encouraging or assisting suicide. In practice, this means that all in-scope platforms will have to remove this material quickly and will not be allowed to promote it in their algorithms.
Furthermore, for non-priority illegal content, platforms must have effective systems in place for its swift removal once this content has been flagged to them. Gone will be the days of lengthy and arduous complaints processes and platforms feigning ignorance of such content. They can and will be held to account.
As I have previously mentioned, the safety of children is of paramount importance in this Bill. While all users will be protected from illegal material, some types of legal content and activity are not suitable for children and can have a deeply damaging impact on their mental health and their developing sense of the world around them.
All in-scope services which are likely to be accessed by children will therefore be required to assess the risks to children on their service and put in place safety measures to protect child users from harmful and age inappropriate content. This includes content such as that promoting suicide, self-harm or eating disorders which does not meet a criminal threshold; pornography; and damaging behaviour such as bullying.
The Bill will require providers specifically to consider a number of risk factors as part of their risk assessments. These factors include how functionalities such as algorithms could affect children’s exposure to content harmful to children on their service, as well as children’s use of higher risk features on the service such as livestreaming or private messaging. Providers will need to take robust steps to mitigate and effectively manage any risks identified.
Companies will need to use measures such as age verification to prevent children from accessing content which poses the highest risk of harm to them, such as online pornography. Ofcom will be able to set out its expectations about the use of age assurance solutions, including age verification tools, through guidance. This guidance will also be able to refer to relevant standards. The Bill also now makes it clear that providers may need to use age assurance to identify the age of their users to meet the necessary child safety duties and effectively enforce age restrictions on their service.
The Government will set out in secondary legislation the priority categories of content harmful to children so that all companies are clear on what they need to protect children from. Our intention is to have the regime in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent, while ensuring the necessary preparations are completed effectively and service providers understand clearly what is expected. We are working closely with Ofcom and I will keep noble Lords appraised.
My ministerial colleagues in another place worked hard to strengthen these provisions and made commitments to introduce further provisions in your Lordships’ House. With regard to increased protections for children specifically, the Government will bring forward amendments at Committee stage to name the Children’s Commissioner for England as a statutory consultee for Ofcom when it is preparing a code of practice, ensuring that the experience of children and young people is accounted for during implementation.
We will also bring forward amendments to specify that category 1 companies—the largest and most risky platforms—will be required to publish a summary of their risk assessments for both illegal content and material that is harmful to children. This will increase transparency about illegal and harmful content on in-scope services and ensure that Ofcom can do its job regulating effectively.
We recognise the great suffering experienced by many families linked to children’s exposure to harmful content and the importance of this Bill in ending that. We must learn from the horrific events from the past to secure a safe future for children online.
We also understand that, unfortunately, people of any age may experience online abuse. For many adults, the internet is a positive source of entertainment and information and a way to connect with others; for some, however, it can be an arena for awful abuse. The Bill will therefore offer adult users a triple shield of protection when online, striking the right balance between protecting the right of adult users to access legal content freely, and empowering adults with the information and tools to manage their own online experience.
First, as I have outlined, all social media firms and search services will need to tackle illegal content and activity on their sites. Secondly, the Bill will require category 1 services to set clear terms of service regarding the user-generated content they prohibit and/or restrict access to, and to enforce those terms of service effectively. All the major social media platforms such as Meta, Twitter and TikTok say that they ban abuse and harassment online. They all say they ban the promotion of violence and violent threats, yet this content is still easily visible on those sites. People sign up to these platforms expecting one environment, and are presented with something completely different. This must stop.
As well as ensuring the platforms have proper systems to remove banned content, the Bill will also put an end to services arbitrarily removing legal content. The largest platform category 1 services must ensure that they remove or restrict access to content or ban or suspend users only where that is expressly allowed in their terms of service, or where they otherwise have a legal obligation to do so.
This Bill will make sure that adults have the information they need to make informed decisions about the sites they visit, and that platforms are held to their promises to users. Ofcom will have the power to hold platforms to their terms of service, creating a safer and more transparent environment for all.
Thirdly, category 1 services will have a duty to provide adults with tools they can use to reduce the likelihood that they encounter certain categories of content, if they so choose, or to alert them to the nature of that content. This includes content which encourages, promotes, or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm or eating disorders. People will also have the ability to filter out content from unverified users if they so wish. This Bill will mean that adult users will be empowered to make more informed choices about what services they use, and to have greater control over whom and what they engage with online.
It is impossible to speak about the aspects of the Bill which protect adults without, of course, mentioning freedom of expression. The Bill needs to strike a careful balance between protecting users online, while maintaining adults’ ability to have robust—even uncomfortable or unpleasant—conversations within the law if they so choose. Freedom of expression within the law is fundamental to our democracy, and it would not be right for the Government to interfere with what legal speech is permitted on private platforms. Instead, we have developed an approach based on choice and transparency for adult users, bounded by major platforms’ clear commercial incentives to provide a positive experience for their users.
Of course, we cannot have robust debate without being accurately informed of the current global and national landscape. That is why the Bill includes particular protections for recognised news publishers, content of democratic importance, and journalistic content. We have been clear that sanctioned news outlets such as RT, formerly Russia Today, must not benefit from these protections. We will therefore bring forward an amendment in your Lordships’ House explicitly to exclude entities subject to sanctions from the definition of a recognised news publisher.
Alongside the safety duties for children and the empowerment tools for adults, platforms must also have effective reporting and redress mechanisms in place. They will need to provide accessible and effective mechanisms for users to report content which is illegal or harmful, or where it breaches terms and conditions. Users will need to be given access to effective mechanisms to complain if content is removed without good reason.
The Bill will place a duty on platforms to ensure that those reporting mechanisms are backed up by timely and appropriate redress mechanisms. Currently, internet users often do not bother to report harmful content they encounter online, because they do not feel that their reports will be followed up. That too must change. If content has been unfairly removed, it should be reinstated. If content should not have been on the site in question, it should be taken down. If a complaint is not upheld, the reasons should be made clear to the person who made the report.
There have been calls—including from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, with whom I look forward to working constructively, as we have done heretofore—to use the Bill to create an online safety ombudsman. We will listen to all suggestions put forward to improve the Bill and the regime it ushers in with an open mind, but as he knows from our discussions, of this suggestion we are presently unconvinced. Ombudsman services in other sectors are expensive, often underused and primarily relate to complaints which result in financial compensation. We find it difficult to envisage how an ombudsman service could function in this area, where user complaints are likely to be complex and, in many cases, do not have the impetus of financial compensation behind them. Instead, the Bill ensures that, where providers’ user-reporting and redress mechanisms are not sufficient, Ofcom will have the power to take enforcement action and require the provider to improve its user-redress provisions to meet the standard required of them. I look forward to probing elements of the Bill such as this in Committee.
This regulatory framework could not be effective if Ofcom, as the independent regulator, did not have a robust suite of powers to take enforcement actions against companies which do not comply with their new duties, and if it failed to take the appropriate steps to protect people from harm. I believe the chairman of Ofcom, the noble Lord, Lord Grade of Yarmouth, is in his place. I am glad that he has been and will be following our debates on this important matter.
Through the Bill, Ofcom will have wide-ranging information-gathering powers to request any information from companies which is relevant to its safety functions. Where necessary, it will be able to ask a suitably skilled person to undertake a report on a company’s activity—for example, on its use of algorithms. If Ofcom decides to take enforcement action, it can require companies to take specific steps to come back into compliance.
Ofcom will also have the power to impose substantial fines of up to £18 million, or 10% of annual qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. For the biggest technology companies, this could easily amount to billions of pounds. These are significant measures, and we have heard directly from companies that are already changing their safety procedures to ensure they comply with these regulations.
If fines are not sufficient, or not deemed appropriate because of the severity of the breach, Ofcom will be able to apply for a court order allowing it to undertake business disruption measures. This could be blocking access to a website or preventing it making money via payment or advertising services. Of course, Ofcom will be able to take enforcement action against any company that provides services to people in the UK, wherever that company is located. This is important, given the global nature of the internet.
As the Bill stands, individual senior managers can be held criminally liable and face a fine for failing to ensure their platform complies with Ofcom’s information notice. Further, individual senior managers can face jail, a fine or both for failing to prevent the platform committing the offences of providing false information, encrypting information or destroying information in response to an information notice.
The Government have also listened to and acknowledged the need for senior managers to be made personally liable for a wider range of failures of compliance. We have therefore committed to tabling an amendment in your Lordships’ House which will be carefully designed to capture instances where senior managers have consented to or connived in ignoring enforceable requirements, risking serious harm to children. We are carefully designing this amendment to ensure that it can hold senior managers to account for their actions regarding the safety of children, without jeopardising the UK’s attractiveness as a place for technology companies to invest in and grow. We intend to base our offence on similar legislation recently passed in the Republic of Ireland, as well as looking carefully at relevant precedent in other sectors in the United Kingdom.
I have discussed the safety of children, adults, and everyone’s right to free speech. It is not possible to talk about this Bill without also discussing its protections for women and girls, who we know are disproportionately affected by online abuse. As I mentioned, all services in scope will need to seek out and remove priority illegal content proactively. There are a number of offences which disproportionately affect women and girls, such as revenge pornography and cyberstalking, which the Bill requires companies to tackle as a priority.
To strengthen protections for women in particular, we will be listing controlling or coercive behaviour as a priority offence. Companies will have to take proactive measures to tackle this type of illegal content. We will also bring forward an amendment to name the Victims’ Commissioner and the domestic abuse commissioner as statutory consultees for the codes of practice. This means there will be a requirement for Ofcom to consult both commissioners ahead of drafting and amending the codes of practice, ensuring that victims, particularly victims and survivors of domestic abuse, are better protected. The Secretary of State and our colleagues have been clear that women’s and girls’ voices must be heard clearly in developing this legislation.
I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the concerns voiced over the powers for the Secretary of State regarding direction in relation to codes of practice that currently appear in the Bill. That is a matter on which my honourable friend Paul Scully and I were pressed by your Lordships’ Communications and Digital Committee when we appeared before it last week. As we explained then, we remain committed to ensuring that Ofcom maintains its regulatory independence, which is vital to the success of this framework. As we are introducing ground-breaking regulation, our aim is to balance the need for the regulator’s independence with appropriate oversight by Parliament and the elected Government.
We intend to bring forward two changes to the existing power: first, replacing the “public policy” wording with a defined list of reasons that a direction can be made; and secondly, making it clear that this element of the power can only be used in exceptional circumstances. I would like to reassure noble Lords—as I sought to reassure the Select Committee—that the framework ensures that Parliament will always have the final say on codes of practice, and that strong safeguards are in place to ensure that the use of this power is transparent and proportionate.
Before we begin our scrutiny in earnest, it is also necessary to recognise that this Bill is not just establishing a regulatory framework. It also updates the criminal law concerning communication offences. I want to thank the Law Commission for its important work in helping to strengthen criminal law for victims. The inclusion of the new offences for false and threatening communications offers further necessary protections for those who need it most. In addition, the Bill includes new offences to criminalise cyberflashing and epilepsy trolling. We firmly believe that these new offences will make a substantive difference to the victims of such behaviour. The Government have also committed to adding an additional offence to address the encouragement or assistance of self-harm communications and offences addressing intimate image abuse online, including deep- fake pornography. Once these offences are introduced, all companies will need to treat this content as illegal under the framework and take action to prevent users from encountering it. These new offences will apply in respect of all victims of such activity, children as well as adults.
This Bill has been years in the making. I am proud to be standing here today as the debate begins in your Lordships’ House. I realise that noble Lords have been waiting long and patiently for this moment, but I know that they also appreciate that considerable work has already been done to ensure that this Bill is proportionate and fair, and that it provides the change that is needed.
A key part of that work was conducted by the Joint Committee, which conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, drawing on expertise from across both Houses of Parliament, from all parties and none. I am very glad that all the Members of your Lordships’ House who served on that committee are speaking in today’s debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron; the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Knight of Weymouth, who have very helpfully been called to service on the Opposition Front Bench; the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats; as well as my noble friends Lord Black of Brentwood and Lord Gilbert of Panteg.
While I look forward to the contributions of all Members of your Lordships’ House, and will continue the open-minded, collaborative approach established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and her predecessors—listening to all ideas which are advanced to make this Bill as effective as it can be—I urge noble Lords who are not yet so well-versed in its many clauses and provisions, or who might be disinclined to accept at first utterance the points I make from this Dispatch Box, to consult those noble Lords before bringing forward their amendments in later stages of the Bill. I say that not to discourage noble Lords from doing so, but in the spirit of ensuring that what they do bring forward, and our deliberations on them, will be pithy, focused, and conducive to making this Bill law as swiftly as possible. In that spirit, I shall draw my already too lengthy remarks to a close. I beg to move.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, like many in your Lordships’ House, I am relieved to be finally speaking on the Second Reading of this important Bill. I am very grateful to the Minister for his introduction. Despite being central to a recent manifesto and having all-party support, it has taken nearly six years to get us to this moment, as the Minister alluded to. A revolving door of four Prime Ministers and seven changes in Secretary of State have not exactly been conducive to this process.
But it is also fair to say that the Bill has been strengthened by consultation and by the detailed pre-legislative scrutiny carried out by the Joint Committee, to whom I pay tribute. It means that this version of the Bill bears a very welcome resemblance to the Joint Committee’s report. I also thank the Communications and Digital Select Committee for its ongoing work and warmly acknowledge the long-term campaigning work of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others in and outside this House.
It seems that every passing week reminds us why stronger online regulation is needed. Just today, we read that the influence of Andrew Tate, despite his being in custody in Romania, has whipped up a storm of rape and death threats directed to my colleague in the other place, Alex Davies-Jones. And writ large is the damning verdict of the inquest into Molly Russell’s death. I want to pay tribute to the determination of her father, Ian, who is present with us today.
In today’s digital age, social media is everywhere: in our homes, workplaces and schools. With the rise of virtual reality, it is also in our heads. It is a central influence on what we buy and think, and how we interact and behave. The power and money at stake are enormous, yet the responsibilities are minimal and accountability lacking.
The focus of this long and complex Bill is on reducing the seemingly ever-increasing harms caused by social media services and search engines, whose algorithms generate detailed pictures of who we are and push us towards certain types of content, even if it impacts on our physical and mental health. As we know, Molly Russell tragically took her own life after having been bombarded with material relating to depression, self-harm and suicide.
Many platforms have upped their game since, but the need for this legislation has not diminished: there remain too many cases of children and vulnerable adults being exposed to digital content that is simply not appropriate. I welcome the arrival of the Bill, but it is too late and, due to recent changes, arguably too narrow. We must now do what we can to get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
The Government have committed to changes in your Lordships’ House, but we need to see the detail, and soon, not least because of the significant public and stakeholder interest. It has become fashionable to leave major changes to legislation until Report stage, leaving noble Lords unsighted and limiting the scope for improvement. I hope the Minister will commit to bucking this trend and give noble Lords early sight of the Government’s thinking.
On these Benches, we will, as always, work constructively with colleagues across the House, and hopefully with the Minister too, as we have already been doing. But, in so doing, we must acknowledge that this Bill is unlikely to be the last word. A future Labour Government will want to return to these issues, to tidy up any deficiencies that are identified once the Bill becomes law.
I now turn to some of our priorities. I am in no doubt that other noble Lords will add to this list. There is a legitimate concern around the decision of Ministers to take powers of direction over what is supposed to be an independent regulator and to leave so much to secondary legislation. The need for flexibility is indeed understood, but Parliament must have an active role, rather than being sidelined.
On the protection of children, despite notable progress by many platforms, too many failings exist. Several children’s charities have put forward important recommendations. The NSPCC has called for user advocacy to influence future regulation, while Barnardo’s wants restrictions on access to online pornography, holding the Government to their previous promises.
The scrapping of legal but harmful provisions means a lack of protection for vulnerable adults. The Samaritans, for example, is keen to ensure that self-harm provisions properly capture vulnerable adults as well as children. We understand that defining the term is difficult, but a solution has to be found.
On anti-Semitism, racism and general abuse, the Government shifted policy in response to a former Conservative leadership hopeful who said that we cannot legislate for hurt feelings. We believe in free speech, but it is not clear that DCMS has found the right balance with its triple shield. The toggle system may prevent users from seeing categories of harmful material, but it will still exist and influence others unless the Government compel an auto-on setting.
On violence against women and girls, I welcome the commitments made in relation to cyberflashing and making controlling behaviour a priority offence. I hope the Minister confirms that there will be work with an extensive range of relevant stakeholders to build on the amendments already made, and to identify and close potential loopholes in forthcoming text.
We find it unacceptable that the Government have stripped back the Bill’s media literacy provisions at a time when these skills are more important than ever. I am grateful to organisations such as Full Fact for highlighting the need to equip people of all ages, but particularly children, with the skills necessary to identify misinformation and disinformation. We have all seen the damage caused by vaccine disinformation, not only on Covid but on HPV. This extends to other areas; social media is awash with misleading material on nutrition, breastfeeding and natural health remedies, to name but a few. Once again, we acknowledge that some platforms perform well in response to such issues, but the recent takeover of Twitter has highlighted how swiftly and radically that can change.
I know that the Minister has been working on this agenda for some time and that he wants to get it right. We can all share our own experiences or those of friends or family in respect of online harm and abuse. We can also all cite ways in which technological innovation has improved our lives. We therefore all have a stake in improving this legislation. We have a long and complex process ahead of us, but uniquely there is no political divide on the Bill. Therefore I hope that in the finest traditions of your Lordships’ House we will work together to improve what is before us, while recognising that this is unlikely to be the last word.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the spirit of co-operation they have both shown in introducing the Bill. On our side we will be led by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is keeping his powder dry for the summing up.
I was pleased that there was praise for the pre-legislative scrutiny, which is a very useful tool in our locker. I was a member of the Puttnam committee, which in 2002 looked at what became the last Communications Act, and I took two lessons from that. The first was the creation of Ofcom as a regulator with teeth; it is important that we go forward with that. The other was the Puttnam amendment adding the protection of citizens’ interests to that of consumer interests as part of its responsibilities. Those twin responsibilities—to the consumer and the citizen—are valuable when addressing this Bill.
It is worth remembering that, although it may be a future Labour Government who deal with this, my experience is that this is not a dress rehearsal; this is the main event and we should seize the day. It has been 20 years since the last Bill, six years since the Green Paper, and five years since the White Paper, with a cavalcade of Secretaries of State. This House is entitled to stress-test and kick tyres in today’s debate and in Committee to see if the powers and scope meet the threats, challenges and opportunities posed by this technology.
We will play our part in delivering a Bill which is fit for purpose, but the Government must play theirs by being flexible in their approach in response to legitimate concerns and sensible amendments addressing them. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has already voiced concerns about powers left in the hands of future Secretaries of State. We will study what has been said this afternoon on those matters.
We welcome the Bill’s focus on protecting children. I do not think anybody who went to the presentation on the evidence in the Molly Russell inquest could have left with anything other than a determination that something must be done about this. Equally, the concerns of End Violence Against Women and other groups pose questions on whether this legislation goes far enough in the protections needed, which will have to be tested. There are real worries about the lack of minimum requirements for terms of service and the removal of risk assessment for adults. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has been raising very pertinent questions about age verification and access to pornography. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and I intend to raise questions in Committee about the free pass given to newspapers by this legislation, although much of their activity is now online. There is no specific commitment, as has been said, to expand media literacy, despite it being a major recommendation of the Puttnam committee 20 years ago.
The internet has been an amazing catalyst for change, innovation and creativity. But those benefits have come at a price of targeted actions designed to cause harms to individuals and institutions. On all Benches we believe that freedom of expression is important, but liberal democracies have a right to provide a framework of protection against those who seek to harm it. Much will depend on the response to legislation and regulation by the internet companies. The public are not stupid; they can differentiate between tick-box exercises and compliance, between profit maximisation and social responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Grade, is also not stupid and I wish him well as chair of Ofcom.
My work on the Puttnam committee 20 years ago was among the most satisfying of my parliamentary life. I hope we will all have similar feelings when we complete our work on this Bill.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of 5Rights Foundation and the Digital Futures Commission, my positions at Oxford and LSE and at the UN Broadband Commission and the Institute for Ethics in AI, as deputy chair of the APPG on digital regulation and as a member of the Joint Committee on this Bill.
As has already been mentioned, on Monday I hosted the saddest of events, at which Ian Russell and Merry Varney, the Russell family’s solicitor, showed parliamentarians images and posts that had been algorithmically recommended to Molly in the lead-up to her death. These were images so horrible that they cannot be shown in the media, so numerous that we could see only a fraction, and so full of despair and violence that many of the adult professionals involved in the inquest had to seek counselling. Yet in court, much of this material was defended by two tech companies as being suitable for a 14 year-old. Something has gone terribly wrong. The question is: is this Bill sufficient to fix it?
At the heart of our debates should not be content but the power of algorithms that shape our experiences online. Those algorithms could be designed for any number of purposes, including offering a less toxic digital environment, but they are instead fixed on ranking, nudging, promoting and amplifying anything to keep our attention, whatever the societal cost. It does not need to be like that. Nothing about the digital world is a given; it is 100% engineered and almost all privately owned; it can be designed for any outcome. Now is the time to end the era of tech exceptionality and to mandate a level of product safety so that the sector, just like any other sector, does not put its users at foreseeable risk of harm. As Meta’s corporate advertising adorning bus stops across the capital says:
“The metaverse may be virtual, but the impact will be real.”
I very much welcome the Bill, but there are still matters to discuss. The Government have chosen to take out many of the protections for adults, which raises questions about the value and practicality of what remains. In Committee, it will be important to understand how enforcement of a raft of new offences will be resourced and to question the oversight and efficacy of the remaining adult provisions. Relying primarily on companies to be author, judge and jury of their own terms of service may well be a race to the bottom.
I regret that Parliament has been denied the proper opportunity to determine what kind of online world we want for adults, which, I believe, we will regret as technology enters its next phase of intelligence and automation. However, my particular concern is the fate of children, whose well-being is collateral damage to a profitable business model. Changes to the Bill will mean that child safety duties are no longer an add-on to a generally safer world; they are now the first and only line of defence. I have given the Secretary of State sight of my amendments, and I inform the House that they are not probing amendments; they are necessary to fill the gaps and loopholes in the Bill as it now stands. In short, we need to ensure that child safety duties apply to all services likely to be accessed by children. We must ensure the quality control of all age-assurance systems. Age checking must not focus on a particular harm, but on the child; it needs to be secure, privacy-preserving and proportionate, and it must work. The children’s risk assessment and the list of harms must cover each of the four Cs: content harm, conduct harm, contact harm and commercial harm, such as the recommendation loops of violence and self-hatred that push thousands of children into states of misery. Those harms must be in the Bill.
Coroners and bereaved parents must have access to data relevant to the death of a child to end the current inhumane arrangement whereby bereaved families facing the devasting loss of their child are forced to battle, unsuccessfully, with tech behemoths for years. I hope that the Minister will reiterate commitments made in the other place to close that loophole.
Children’s rights must be in the Bill. An unintended consequence of removing protections for adults is that children will now cost companies vastly more developer time, more content moderation and more legal costs than adults. The digital world is the organising technology of our society, and children need to be online for their education and information to participate in civic society—they must not be kicked out.
I thank all those who have indicated their support, and the Secretary of State, the Minister and officials for the considerable time they have given me. However, I ask the Minister to listen very carefully to the mood of the House this evening; the matters I have raised are desperately urgent and long-promised, and must now be delivered unequivocally.
While millions of children suffer from the negative effects of the online world, some pay with their lives. I am a proud supporter of a group of bereaved parents for online safety, and I put on the record that we remember Molly, Frankie, Olly, Breck, Sophie and all the others who have lost their lives. I hope that the whole House will join me in not resting until we have a Bill fit for their memory.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, that is not an easy speech to follow, but I begin by declaring my interest as a Church Commissioner, as set out in the register. We have substantial holdings in many of the big tech companies. I am also vice-chair of the Church of England Ethical Investment Advisory Group. I commend the attention of noble Lords to our recent report on big tech that was published last September. There, we set out five core principles that we believe should guide our investment in and engagement with big tech companies: flourishing as persons, flourishing in relationships, standing with the marginalised, caring for creation and serving the common good. If we apply those principles to our scrutiny of this Bill, we will not only improve lives but save lives.
I will focus my remaining remarks on three areas. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, have noted, the powers granted to the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom on its codes of practice and provide tactical and strategic guidance put Ofcom’s independence at risk. While I recognise that the Government have sought to address these concerns, more is required—Clauses 39 and 157 are not fit for purpose in their present form. We also need clear safeguards and parliamentary scrutiny for Secretary of State powers in the Bill that will allow them to direct Ofcom to direct companies in whatever we mean by “special circumstances”. Maintaining Ofcom’s autonomy in decision-making is critical to preserving freedom of expression more broadly. While the pace of technological innovation sometimes requires very timely response, the Bill places far too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Secondly, while the Bill encompasses activity within the remit of regulators beyond Ofcom, it is largely silent on formal co-operation. I encourage the Government to introduce a general duty to co-operate with other regulators to ensure a good and effective enforcement of the various regulatory regimes. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Government will commit to looking at this once more.
Finally, I turn, as others have done, to the protection of children. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has just spoken powerfully. Can we really claim that this Bill serves to mitigate the harm that children face online when consultation of children has so far been lacking? I welcome the Minister’s remarks about the Children’s Commissioner in this regard, but we can and should go further. In particular, we should centre our decisions on promoting children’s well-being rather than on simply minimising harm. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham regrets that he is unable to be in his place today. I know he plans to raise these questions as the Bill progresses.
Related to this, we must ensure that any activity online through which children are groomed for criminal exploitation is monitored. A reporting mechanism should be brought in so that such information is shared with the police. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Derby is unable to speak today, but as vice- chair of the Children’s Society, she will follow these issues closely.
This Bill has arrived with us so late and so overcrowded that I had begun to think it was being managed by my good friends at Avanti trains. However, here at last it is. I look forward to working with noble Lords to improve this important and welcome legislation. It is my hope that, as we continue to scrutinise and improve the Bill, we will move ever closer to fulfilling those five core principles I set out: flourishing as persons, flourishing in relationships, standing with the marginalised, caring for creation and serving the common good.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as a trustee of the Loughborough Wellbeing Centre, director of Santander and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, chair of the Association of British Insurers and board member at Grayling. In fact, I could draw attention to all my interests, because what we are debating today, with online search engines and online platforms, are organisations that reach into every corner of our lives now. I want to thank current Ministers for getting us to this stage. We have heard that this is long overdue regulation. I plead guilty to being one of the “cavalcade” of previous Secretaries of State mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, but I am pleased that I have played my part in keeping this Bill on the road.
When we have passed this legislation, the UK will be world leading. That needs to be recognised, but it also means that this legislation is new and not easy, as we have heard. Polling from More in Common has said that in a list of six comparative European countries, the British are most likely to say that the Government are not doing enough to regulate social media platforms. In the brief time available, I want to set out some key themes and amendments which I hope to raise in Committee.
I welcome the criminal offences relating to violence against women and girls added to the Bill, but the whole environment of these platforms, where such online violence has become normalised and misogyny allowed to flourish unchecked, needs to change. I am afraid that adding selected offences is insufficient, and I will be calling for a specific code of practice, to be drafted by Ofcom, that the platforms and search engines will need to follow to show that they are taking the proliferation of violence against women and girls seriously.
We will hear today many arguments about freedom of speech and expression, but what about the right to access and participation online without being abused and harassed? Online violence against women and girls curtails women’s freedom of expression. The advice to avoid social media—which I myself, as a Member of Parliament, received from the authorities and the police—respects no one’s freedoms. As we have heard, women and girls are 27 times more likely to experience harassment online.
We have also heard from Luke Pollard in the other place a mention of incels. While this is a complicated topic, unfortunately what is true is that data from the Center for Countering Digital Hate has found that visits to incel websites are only increasing every day, and the content on them is getting more extreme. Many small platforms hosting incels set their own terms and conditions, allowing for violent and misogynistic discussions. How the Bill tackles those issues will be of great importance and a subject of discussion in this House.
I was disappointed that the legal but harmful restrictions were dropped, but I understand why Ministers chose to do so. However, I agree that, as we have already heard, the user empowerment toggle should be set to “on” by default. Just because a user decides not to see abusive and harmful content does not mean that it is not there, either influencing others or, where it is unfortunately necessary, for the user to see so that they can provide evidence to the authorities, including the police. I include my own experience of having seen that abuse, gathering it and then sending it to the authorities. If we have the toggle set to “off”, in relation to violence against women and girls the onus will yet again be on women to protect themselves, rather than the abuser being compelled to cease their abuse. Related themes to explore in Committee will be the minimum standards needed for risk assessments, as well as minimum standards for platforms’ terms and conditions; the publication of risk assessments to create a culture of transparency on the part of service providers; and further detail on how the information gathered by Ofcom under Clause 68 is to be used.
We will hear discussion—we already have—about the welcome creation of the offence of sending communication which encourages serious self-harm. However, as we have heard, Samaritans has pointed out that all such content needs to be regulated across all platforms for all users. Turning 18 does not stop young people being vulnerable to suicide or self-harm content. I also support the calls by Vicky Ford and others to specifically include eating disorders within the self-harm clause.
It was my pleasure last year to chair this House’s special committee on the Fraud Act 2006 and digital fraud. Time is short, but there will be more to say on the issues of fraud, as well as independent researchers’ access to information. My noble friend the Minister has mentioned senior manager liability. We will wait to see what the clause introduced says, but it needs to be sufficiently tough to change the culture.
I will absolutely support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and that proposed by my noble friend Lord Bethell, on age verification for online pornography.
I was recently at an event in this building with tech companies, including a major search engine, who complained that, via the Bill, the Government are experimenting on them. I put it to them then, and I say now, that these companies have experimented on us, particularly our children and vulnerable adults, for years without facing the consequences of the illegal and harmful material across their platforms and search engines. The Bill is long overdue. I look forward to the debates and amendments.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—and slightly intimidating. I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests: I am a director of the Antisemitism Policy Trust and a director of HOPE not hate, and I remain the chief executive of Index on Censorship. I have also had appalling experiences online. In all these capacities I have been intimately involved with the passage of this legislation over the last two years. Like every one of your Lordships, I desperately want to see a better and safer internet for all users, especially children and the most vulnerable, but I worry about the unintended consequences of certain clauses, particularly for our collective and legal right of freedom of expression.
There are certain core premises that should guide our approach to online regulation. What is legal offline should be legal online. We need secure and safe communication channels to protect us all of us, but especially dissidents and journalists, so end-to-end encryption needs to be safeguarded. Our ability to protect our identities online can be life-saving, for domestic violence victims as much as for political dissidents, so we need to ensure that the principle of online anonymity is protected. Each of these principles is undermined by the current detail of the Bill, and I hope to work with many of your Lordships in the weeks ahead to add additional safeguards.
However, some of my greatest concerns about the current proposals relate to illegal content: the definition of what is illegal, the arbiters of illegality and, in turn, what happens to the content. The current proposals require the platforms to determine what is illegal content and then delete it. In theory this seems completely reasonable, but the reality will be more complicated.
I fear what a combination of algorithms and corporate prosecution may mean for freedom of expression online. The risk appetite of the platforms is likely to be severely reduced by this legislation. Therefore, I believe that they are likely to err on the side of caution when considering where the illegality threshold falls, leading to over-deletion. This will be compounded by the use of algorithms rather than people to detect nuance and illegal content.
I will give your Lordships an example of an unintended consequence this has already led to. A video of anti-government protests in Lebanon was deleted on some current platforms because an algorithm picked up only one word of the Arabic chants: Hezbollah, an organisation rightly proscribed in the UK. But the video actually featured anti-Hezbollah chants. It was an anti-extremism demonstration and, I would speculate, contained anti-extremist messaging that many of us would like to see go viral rather than be deleted.
Something is already twice as likely to be deleted from a platform by an algorithm if it is in Urdu or Arabic, rather than English. This will become even more common unless we tighten the definition of illegality and provide platforms with a digital evidence locker where content can be stored before a final decision on deletion is made, thus protecting our speech online.
The issue of deletion is deeply personal for me. Many of your Lordships may be aware that, as a female Jewish Labour Member of the other place, I was subjected to regular and vicious anti-Semitic and misogynist online abuse—abuse that too often became threats of violence and death. Unfortunately, these threats continue and have a direct effect on my personal security. I know when I am most vulnerable because I see a spike in my comments online. These comments are monitored—thankfully not by me—and, when necessary, are referred to the police, with the relevant evidence chain, so that people can be prosecuted.
Can the Minister explain how these people will be prosecuted for harassment, or worse, if the content is automatically deleted? How will I know if someone is threatening to kill me if the threat has already gone? I genuinely believe that the Government wish to make people safer online, as do we all, but I fear that this Bill will not only curtail free speech online but make me and others much less safe offline. There is significant work to do to make sure that is not the case.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, the internet is a double-edged sword. It enables people to connect with work, education, information and social activities. It gives visibility to those often hidden from society. But it can be a dangerous place for many, especially disabled people, many of whom are vulnerable to attack merely for who they are. I want to focus on the indiscriminate abuse that disabled people face online.
In January 2019, the Petitions Committee published its report Online Abuse and the Experience of Disabled People, following a petition by Katie Price about her son Harvey. The committee heard evidence of extreme levels of abuse, not only on social media but in online games, web forums and in media website comments. As one disabled poet and writer wrote:
“I’ve been called an ‘it’ many times—‘What is IT doing?’ … I’ve had remarks about how I look in my wheelchair, and a few times the statements, ‘You should have been aborted’, and, ‘You don’t deserve to live’”,
and, “Why are you online?” The committee rightly concluded that the law was not fit for purpose.
The Bill does not do enough to address such abuse. The other place recently weakened the protections for disabled people, replacing the provisions on legal but harmful content with a triple shield of duties to remove illegal content for adults and harmful content for under-18s, and to empower adult users.
Under Clause 12, social media companies must now tackle content which is abusive or incites hatred towards disabled people. That is encouraging, but it is the companies that decide that, so in practice it may not change anything. We know that moderating social media is the Wild West. There is no consistency between platforms. It depends on the algorithms they use and the discretion of their moderators.
Clause 18 adds to those problems, requiring platforms also to consider freedom of expression and privacy issues. They will be in an impossible position, caught between competing claims for protection from abuse and freedom of speech. At the very least, the legal but harmful provisions must be restored.
Greater control for disabled people using social media is laudable. They must be consulted on the best way to achieve that. The Bill says that terms of service must be “clear and accessible”. It should provide for Ofcom to give guidance with input from disabled people. It should not be left to social media services to set their own standards.
Consistency is also vital for the way the verification process works. Clause 57 refers to “verification … of any kind” and “clear and accessible” explanations. Ofcom’s guidance will be crucial on both issues, with disabled people’s input essential. It should be mandatory to follow the guidance.
Will the Minister assure me that he will address these matters before Committee? Will he meet me and disability organisations which have expertise in this field for guidance? This is a landmark Bill and very welcome. Let us ensure that it works for everybody, especially those who need it most.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, it is an honour and privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and all those who have spoken in this debate. As a member of your Lordships’ Committee on Artificial Intelligence and a founding member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, I have followed the slow progress of this Bill since the original White Paper. We have seen increasing evidence that many social media platforms are unwilling to acknowledge, let alone prevent, harms of the kind this vital Bill addresses. We know that there is an all too porous frontier between the virtual world and the physical world. The resulting harms damage real lives, real families, and real children, as we have heard.
There is a growing list of priority harms and now there is concern, as well as excitement, over new AIs such as ChatGPT; they demonstrate yet again that technology has no inherent precautionary principles. Without systemic checks and balances, AI in every field develops faster than society can respond. We are and for ever will be catching up with the technology.
The Bill is very welcome, marking as it does a belated but important step towards rebalancing a complex but vital aspect of public life. I pay tribute to the Government and to civil servants for their patient efforts to address a complex set of ethical and practical issues in a proportionate way. But the job is not yet fully done.
I will concentrate on three particular areas of concern with the draft Bill. First, removal of risk assessments regarding harm to adults is concerning. Surely every company has a basic moral duty to assess the risk of its products or services to customers and consumers. Removal can only undermine a risk-based approach to regulation. Can the Minister explain how conducting a risk assessment erodes or threatens freedom of speech? My second concern, mentioned by others, is the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to Ofcom. This country has a record of independence of our own media regulators. Others have touched on that, so I will not elaborate. The third area of concern I wish to raise is the Bill’s provision—or rather lack of provision—over disinformation of various kinds. I currently serve on your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee; climate disinformation and medical disinformation inflict substantial harms on society and must be included in user empowerment tools.
Other right reverend Prelates will raise their own concerns in the forthcoming Committee. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester believes that it is imperative that we prevent technology-facilitated domestic abuse, as well as bring in a code of practice to keep women and girls safe online. To help young people flourish, we should look at controlling algorithmically served content, restrictions on face and body-editing apps, as well as improving media literacy overall. She is unable to speak today, but will follow these issues closely.
The Bill is vital for the health of children and adults, and the flourishing of our whole society. I look forward to progress being made in this House.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my registered interests, in particular my work with Common Sense Media, a US not-for-profit that is focused on internet safety for children. What a pleasure it is to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford—my local bishop, no less. I always find it a great thing that it is our Bishops who read their speeches from iPads; we have iBishops in this Chamber who are far more technologically advanced than the rest of us. What a pleasure it is to see our national treasure the Arts Minister on the Front Bench; yesterday he launched the 2021 report of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, which displays ancient treasures dug up from many centuries ago. I thought he might be presented with the first consultation paper on the Online Safety Bill, because it has taken so long to get to the stage where we are today.
A dozen years ago, when we talked about the impact of the internet, we were actually focused on copyright infringement; that was the big issue of the day. It is quite instructive to think about what happened there; it was a combination of technology, but also business solutions, licensing and the creation of companies such as Spotify that had an impact. But piracy remains with us, and will continue to remain with us because of the internet.
I like to think that the Jurassic journey of the Online Safety Bill began with an Adjournment debate by the then Member for Devizes, Claire Perry, who began a debate about protecting children from adult content on the internet, which is one of the most important issues. That led to her being commissioned to do a review by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and that began the ball rolling. But Prime Minister David Cameron’s biggest intervention, which I remember well, was to tackle Google on the issue of child sex abuse. At the time the prevailing mood, which still prevails, was that politicians do not understand technology—you cannot regulate the internet, “Get your tanks off our lawn”. But Cameron said, “We will legislate unless you do something”, and Google, which said it was impossible, eventually came up with something like 150,000 search terms which would give a non-search return and refer the searcher to get some help, frankly—that is what the page would come up with.
That was instructive because it was a combination of government action, but in tackling child sexual abuse we had relied on not-for-profits, such as the Internet Watch Foundation. As we debate a piece of legislation and call on the Government to do this or that, it is important to remember that the internet has always had many governors, if you like—civic society, business, not-for-profits and charities—all of which must continue to play an important role in internet policing, as must the platforms themselves, where technology has improved in leaps and bounds. We have heard some of the criticisms of the technology they use and the impact it has on the people who are relied on by some of these technology companies to police content. Nevertheless, they have made progress. We must also remember that the platforms are not publishers or broadcasters; they are still new technology.
I unequivocally support the Bill—frankly, in whatever form it takes once your Lordships have fully considered it. It must be passed because it is time to regulate the internet. Ofcom is absolutely the right regulator to do this. I have been hugely impressed by the amount of work it has put into preparing for this role. The overall approach taken in the Bill is the right one: to police not every piece of content but the terms and conditions. This week, Ofcom published a very important document pointing out that transparency, holding the platforms to account and exposing how they regulate their content will make a massive difference.
The Government have made the right compromise on legal but harmful. I counsel against the Christmas tree effect of wanting to hang every single different concern on to the Bill; let us keep our eye on the prize. Having said that, I will fully support my noble friend Lord Bethell in his points on age verification and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with her amendment.
This is the end of the beginning. The Bill will not eradicate all the nasty things we see on the internet but, for the first time, the platforms will be accountable. It is very important to support this legislation. The Minister did not mention the European Union’s important legislation on this issue, but we are beginning to make progress across the world.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow other noble Lords on this issue. This legislation is undoubtedly long overdue. Without doubt, the internet has changed the way in which we live our lives. For many this change has been positive. However, the internet, in particular social media, has created a toxic online world. We have only to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lady Anderson to realise that. As a result, the internet has become abusive, misogynistic and dangerous. Many noble Lords from across the House have personal experience of this toxic world of online abuse. Any measures that seek to place curbs and limits on that type of content are to be welcomed.
While it is important to protect adults from abuse online, it is more important that we get the Bill’s protections right for children. I welcome its provisions in respect of age verification, but for many across the House it is a surprise that we are even debating age verification. Legislation was passed in 2017 but inexplicably not implemented by the Government. That legislation would have ensured that age verification was in place to protect children over five years ago. While the Bill includes age assurance measures, it is disappointing that its provisions are not as robust as those passed in 2017. Also, it is concerning that age verification is not uniformly applied across Parts 3 and 5. What actions and steps will the Minister and his colleagues take in Committee with government amendments on this issue?
As this Bill makes progress through this House, it will be important to ensure that age verification is robust and consistent, but we must also ensure that what happened to the Digital Economy Act cannot be allowed to happen to this legislation. The Government cannot be allowed to slow down or even abandon age verification measures. This Bill, while welcome, needs to be amended to ensure that age verification is actually implemented and enforced. This must happen as quickly as possible after the Bill becomes law. I believe that age verification should be in place no later than six months after this Bill is passed.
The need for robust age verification is beyond any reasonable argument. Children should be protected from viewing harmful content online. The law in this regard should be simple. If a platform contains pornographic content, children should be prevented from viewing it. More than that, pornography that is prohibited offline should be prohibited online. Reading the provisions of this Bill carefully, it is my belief that the Bill falls short in both regards.
I look forward to the passage of this Bill through the House and, while it is a very welcome development to be discussing and having this Bill, it is important that the provisions and clauses within it are totally strengthened.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I have two observations, two pleas, one offer of help and four minutes to deliver all this, so here goes.
Observation one is that this Bill is our answer to the age-old question of “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” or, in the vernacular, “Who watches the watchmen?” With several thousand strokes of the pen, Parliament is granting to itself the power to tell tens of thousands of online services how they should manage their platforms if they wish to access the UK market. Parliament will give directions to Ofcom about the outcomes it wants to see and Ofcom will translate these into detailed instructions and ensure compliance through a team of several hundred people that the platforms will pay for. In-scope services will be given a choice—pay up and follow Ofcom’s instructions or get out of the UK market. We are awarding ourselves significant superpowers in this Bill, and with power comes great scrutiny as I am sure will happen in this House.
My second observation is that regulating online content is hard. It is hard because of scale. If regulating traditional media is like air traffic controllers managing a few thousand flights passing over the UK each day, then regulating social media is more like trying to control all the 30 million private cars that have access to UK roads. It is hard because it requires judgment. For many types of speech there is not a bright line between what is legal and illegal so you have to work on the basis of likelihoods and not certainties. It is hard because it requires trade-offs—processes designed to remove “bad” content will invariably catch some “good” content and you have to decide on the right balance between precision and recall for any particular system, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, has already referred to some of these challenges with specific examples.
I make this observation not to try and elicit any sympathy for online services, but rather some sympathy for Ofcom as we assign it the most challenging of tasks. This brings me to my first plea, which is that we allow Ofcom to make decisions about what constitutes compliance with the duties of care in the Bill without others second-guessing it. Because judgments and trade-offs are a necessary part of content moderation, there will always be people who take opposing views on where lines should have been drawn. These views may come from individuals, civil society or even Ministers and may form important and valuable input for Ofcom’s deliberations. But we should avoid creating mechanisms that would lead to competing and potentially conflicting definitions of compliance emerging. One chain of command—Parliament to Ofcom to the platforms—is best for accountability and effective regulation.
My second plea is for us to avoid cookie banner syndrome. The pop-ups that we all click on when visiting websites are not there for any technical reason but because of a regulatory requirement. Their origins lie in a last-minute amendment to the e-privacy directive from Members of the European Parliament who had concerns about online behavioural advertising. In practice, they have had little impact on advertising while costing many millions and leaving most users at best mildly irritated and at worst in greater risk as they learn to click through anything to close banners and get to websites.
There are several elements in this Bill that are at risk of cookie banner syndrome. Measures such as age and identity verification and content controls can be useful if done well but could also be expensive and ineffective if we mandate solutions that look good on paper but do not work in practice. If you see me mouthing “cookies” at you as we discuss the Bill, please do not see it as an offer of American biscuits but as a flag that we may be about to make an expensive mistake.
This brings to me to my final point, which is an offer of technical advice for any noble Lords trying to understand how the Bill will work in practice: my door and inbox are always open. I have spent 25 years working on internet regulation as poacher turned gamekeeper, turned poacher, turned gamekeeper. I may have a little more sympathy with the poachers than most politicians, but I am all gamekeeper now and keen to see this Bill become law. For those who like this kind of thing, I share more extensive thoughts on the Bill than I can get into four minutes in a blog and podcast called “Regulate Tech”.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I thank Mencap and the Royal College of Psychiatrists for their briefings. I will speak against the change in the other place which waters down the protections offered to adults, and focus in particular on adults without capacity.
The original Bill included protections for adults under the umbrella of “legal but harmful”, which gave robust directions to platforms on what content to remove. These protections must be reinstated; the triple shield is not enough. Your Lordships are presented with a system where social media platforms must filter only
“to the extent that it is proportionate to do so”,
assuming that all adults are capacitous all of the time and that they will be responsible for making their own choices to avoid seeing harmful content.
I recognise that there is an intended new duty for services to undertake a risk assessment on the impact of certain material on children, and to tackle the promotion of sites which share harmful content and to prevent children witnessing it, but this applies just to children. I agree with my noble friend Lady Kidron that tech companies must design for safety, just as we expect in the physical environment.
My main point is that there is no clear distinction between childhood and adulthood when it comes to mental health. I am concerned about the mental health consequences for anybody, whether child or adult, of seeing some of the images, messaging and push notifications which relentlessly pursue anyone who has ever engaged with one of the horrific sites like those seen by 14 year-old Molly Russell. These images are harmful to 14 year-olds; they are harmful to 24 year-olds; and they are harmful to 74 year-olds. Once seen, it is very hard to unsee them.
Misinformation and negative messaging are harmful to anyone who may struggle to belong and feel valued, whether at a vulnerable moment in their lives or as part of an ongoing struggle with depression. One in 20 Google searches is for health-related information. People in the UK apparently make 27 searches a minute for “depression”, 22 a minute for “stress”, and 21 a minute for anxiety. Given the waiting times for mental health support in the community, perhaps it is unsurprising that people seek help online. This Bill must have an emphasis on prevention. The Bill places duties on regulated providers but, as of June 2022, more than 500 hours of video were uploaded to YouTube every minute. This is content created and viewed by its users at a rate where any reactionary approach is doomed to fall quickly behind.
As legislators we must think of society as a whole, not just those who are fully engaged and economically productive citizens who currently feel invulnerable. Making sure that legislation works for people with a learning disability and those who may not have the understanding needed to protect themselves from harmful content should not be an add-on. Could the Minister suggest how the Bill could deliver greater protections to people with a learning disability or other cognitive or mental health reason for increased risk of online harm?
As I have said before, if we could get it right for people with learning disabilities, we could actually get it right for everyone.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am humbled to speak in this debate among many noble Lords who have spent years involved in or campaigning for this landmark legislation. I salute all of them and their work.
Like many, I support some parts of this Bill and am sceptical about others. The tension between free speech, privacy and online safety is not an easy one to resolve. We all accept, however reluctantly, that one Bill cannot cure all social ills—indeed, neither should it try. In fact, when it comes to online regulation, this is not the only legislation that is urgent and necessary: the digital markets, competition and consumer Bill is a critical, yet still missing, piece of the jigsaw to us achieving a strong regulatory framework. I hope the Government will bring it forward swiftly.
As my noble friend Lord Vaizey has already said, I see this Bill as the beginning of online regulation and not the end. I see it as our opportunity to make a strong start. For me, the top priority is to get the regulatory fundamentals right and to ensure we can keep updating the regime as needed in the years ahead. With my chair of the Communications and Digital Committee hat on, I will focus on key changes we believe are needed to achieve that. As I cannot do that justice in the time available, I direct any keen readers to our committee’s website, where my letter to the Secretary of State is available.
First, the regulator’s independence is of fundamental importance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and others have already mentioned. The separation of powers between the Executive and the regulator is the cornerstone of media regulation in western Europe. Any government powers to direct or give guidance should be clearly defined, justified and limited in scope. The Online Safety Bill, as it stands, gives us the opposite. Future Governments will have sweeping powers to direct and interfere with Ofcom’s implementation of the regulations.
I will come, in a moment, to my noble friend the Minister’s proposed remedy, which he mentioned in his opening remarks, but I stress that this is not a general complaint from me or the committee about executive overreach. Many of the Bill’s executive powers are key to ensuring the regime is responsive to changing needs, but there are some powers that are excessive and troubling. Clause 39 allows the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom to change its codes of practice on regulating social media firms. That is not about setting priorities; it is direct and unnecessary interference. In our view, the Government’s proposed amendment to clarify this clause, as my noble friend described, remains inadequate and does not respect the regulator’s independence. Clause 39 also empowers the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom in a private form of ping-pong as it develops codes of practice. This process could in theory go on for ever before any parliamentary oversight comes into play. Other powers are equally unnecessary. Clause 157 contains unconstrained powers to give “guidance” to Ofcom about any part of its work, to which it must have regard. Again, I fail to see the need, especially since the Government can already set strategic priorities and write to Ofcom.
Moving on, my committee is also calling for risk assessments for adult users to be reinstated, and this has already been mentioned by other noble Lords. That would have value for both supporters and critics of “legal but harmful”, by requiring platforms to be transparent about striking the balance between allowing adult users to filter out harmful content and protecting freedom of speech and privacy.
Finally, given the novel nature of the Bill, I hope the Government will reconsider their unwillingness to support the setting up of a Joint Committee of Parliament to scrutinise digital regulation across the board. This would address many general and specific concerns about implementation and keeping pace with digital developments that have been raised recently. Parliament needs to properly discharge its responsibilities, and fragmented oversight via a range of committees will not be good enough in this new, modern world.
Overall, and with all that said, I commend my noble friend and his colleagues for getting us to this point. I look forward to, and will support him in, completing the passage of this legislation in good order.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and so many other fine speeches today. I should remind your Lordships of my interests. In particular, I have been working with GoBubble, which provides social media filtering technology. I was also a member of the Joint Committee on this Bill and was previously on the Select Committee on Democracy and Digital Technologies, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam.
Right at the heart of this Bill are just two interrelated factors. First, there are bad actors: people who deliberately or carelessly do harm to others both in the real world and virtually, both physically and mentally. Our problem is how content from these bad actors interacts with the systems and processes in the online world that personalise and amplify that content. In 2021, 44% of all global spending on advertising was with Meta and Alphabet-owned businesses. Their platforms, such as Facebook, Instagram and YouTube, are machines with the objective of maximising engagement time on the platform in order to sell more advertising.
The machines have no ethics; they have business objectives. If that means feeding outrageous, disturbing or harmful content, so be it. If that means pushing at Molly Russell content that has now been implicated by the coroner in her death, so be it. If that means the corruption of children, self-harm or fraud, so be it. Whatever turns you on, keeps you engaged and keeps you on the platform is what the machines will push your way. This week, the Children’s Commissioner for England reported that one in five boys watch porn at least every day; that more than half of frequent users seek out violent sex acts; and that Twitter is the site where the highest proportion report seeing explicit sexual content.
The platforms are not all bad but the harms of manipulation and corruption are real and urgent. We must, and will, work together to get this Bill improved and passed by the summer. In doing so, our job with this Bill is to impose ethics on the algorithms used by platforms. This is less about bad content and more about systems. It is about content takedown and content suppression. It is as much about freedom of reach as freedom of speech. For too many people—especially women and girls, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned—their freedom of expression is constrained by platforms because they are shouted down and abused. They need better protection.
Without change, vulnerable adults with learning difficulties will not be protected by this Bill. Without change, the corruption of truth and democracy by the likes of Trump and Putin will continue. Without change, the journalistic and democratic exemptions in the Bill will be exploited by the likes of Tommy Robinson to spread bile. Without change, content from the likes of Andrew Tate will continue to be amplified. His videos have been viewed more than 13 billion times on TikTok alone, including by any of our children whom we have allowed an account. Teachers, parents and grandparents cannot keep up with what is going on with children online; they need ongoing education and help. I am afraid that Ofcom is not cutting through with its media literacy duty. We must use this Bill to change that. We need to constrain the Secretary of State’s powers over Ofcom so that it is properly independent and give young people themselves more influence over the regulator.
There is much to do. This is as important a job of work as any I have been a part of during my 22 years in Parliament. I look forward to working with all Peers to deliver a Bill that prevents harm, criminalises abusers and overlays human ethics on to these machines of mass manipulation.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Kidron for her tenacious moral leadership on this issue. I remind noble Lords that, when we passed the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, none of us predicted tobacco companies’ development and marketing of vapes with higher and more addictive nicotine content than that in cigarettes. It was a simple lesson.
A gap now in this Bill is the difficult issue of “legal but harmful”. We should not focus on the difficulty of defining this, but rather on the design and standards of algorithms that internet platforms use to commercial advantage, dodging any responsibility for what happens and blaming the end user.
Before the Government amended Clauses 12 and 13, category 1 service providers would have been forced to risk-assess across their sites and provide information on this in their terms of service, including how harmful content was to be managed. But this is now gone and as a result, the digital environment will not be detoxified as originally intended. What pressures, if any, were exerted on government by commercial and other sources to amend these clauses?
It matters that the Bill now treats people under 18 and over 18 very differently, because the brain’s development and peak addictive potential from puberty does not stop at 18. Those in their 20s are at particular risk.
The social media platforms act commercially, pushing out more content, including online challenges, as their algorithms pick up a keyword—whether spelled correctly or incorrectly—a mouse hovering over an image or a like response. Currently, platforms judge addiction and profit by the time spent on a platform, but that is not how addictions work. Addiction is the reward-reinforcing behaviour that evokes a chemical response in the brain that makes you want more. Hence the alcoholic, the gambling addict, the drug addict and so on keep going back for more; the sex addict requires ever more extreme images to gain stimulation; the user will not switch off access.
Those whose emotional expression is through abuse and violent behaviour find more ways to abuse to meet their urge to control and vent feelings, often when adverse childhood experiences were the antecedent to disastrous destructive behaviour. The unhappy young adult becomes hooked in by the images pushed to them after an internet search about depression, anorexia, suicidal ideation and so on. The algorithm-pushed images become compulsive viewing, as ever more are pushed out, unasked for and unsearched for, entrapping them into escalating harms.
Now, the duties in Clause 12 are too vague to protect wider society. The user should be required to opt in to content so that it can be followed, not opt out. The people controlling all this are the platform companies. They commission the algorithms that push content out. These could be written completely differently: they could push sources of support in response to searches for gambling, eating disorders, suicidal ideation, dangerously extreme sex and so on. Amending the Bill to avoid escalating harms is essential. Some of the harms are ones we have not yet imagined.
The platform companies are responsible for their algorithms. They must be made responsible for taking more a sophisticated, balanced-risk approach: the new technology of artificial intelligence could detect those users of their platforms who are at particular risk. In daily life offline, we weigh up risk, assessing harms and benefits in everything, filtering what we say or do. Risk assessment is part of life. That does not threaten freedom of speech, but it would allow “legal but harmful” to be addressed.
The Bill presents a fantastic opportunity. We must not throw it away.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest, as set out in the register, as a member of the advisory council of the Free Speech Union.
This is an important Bill. It has taken time to get to us, and rightly so. Many important requirements have to be balanced in it—the removal of illegal material, and the protection of children, as we have heard so movingly already today. But, as legislators, we must also have an eye on all elements of public policy. We cannot eliminate every evil entirely, except at unacceptable cost to other objectives and, notably, to free speech.
The Bill, as it was developing last summer, was damaging in many ways to that objective. At times I was quite critical of it, so I welcome the efforts that have been made by the new broom and new team at DCMS to put it in a better place. It is not perfect, but is considerably better and less damaging to the free speech objective. In particular, I welcome the removal of the so-called legal but harmful provisions, their replacement with a duty to empower users and the decision to list out the areas that this provision applies to, rather than leaving it to secondary legislation. I also welcome the strengthening of provisions to protect the right to free speech and democratic debate more broadly, although I will come on to a couple of concerns, and the dropping of the new harmful communications offence in the original Bill. It is clear, from what we have heard so far today, that there will be proposals to move backwards—as I would see it—to the original version of the Bill. I hope that the Government will be robust on that, having taken the position that they have.
Although the Bill is less damaging, it must still be fit for purpose. With 25,000 companies in its scope, it also affects virtually every individual in the country, so it is important that it is clear and usable and does not encourage companies to be too risk averse. With that in mind, there are areas for improvement. Given the time constraints, I will focus on free speech.
I believe that in a free society, adults—not children but adults—should be able to cope with free debate, if they are given the tools to do so. Noble Lords have spoken already about the abuse that they get online, and we all do. I am sure I am not unique in that; some if it drifts into the real world as well, from time to time. However, I do not look to the Government to defend me from it. I already have most of the tools to turn that off when I want to, which I think is the right approach. It is the one that the Government are pursuing. Free speech is the best way of dealing with controversial issues, as we have seen in the last few weeks, and it is right for the Government to err on the side of caution and not allow a chilling effect in practice.
With this in mind, there are a couple of improvements that I hope the Government might consider. For example, they could require an opt-out from seeing the relevant “legal but harmful” content, rather than an opt-in to see it, and ensure those tools are easy to use. There is otherwise a risk that risk-averse providers will block controversial content and people will not even know about it. It could be useful to require providers to say how they intend to protect freedom of speech, just as they are required to say explicitly how they will manage the Clause 12 provisions. Without that, there is some risk that freedom of speech may become a secondary objective.
To repeat, there has been considerable improvement overall. I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s commitment to listen carefully to all proposals as we take the Bill through in this House. I am happy to support him in enabling the passage of this legislation in good order soon.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill, but regret the time it has taken to arrive. To make the UK the safest place in the world to be online, it must be strengthened, and I will support amendments that would ensure greater protection for children through proper age assurance. The damage to children from exploitation by social media cannot continue. The state must regulate, using severe penalties, to force platforms to behave with greater responsibility as they cannot be trusted to self-regulate. The rise in suicide and self-harm and the loss of self-esteem are ruining young lives. The platforms must take greater responsibility; they have the money and the technology to do this but need stronger incentives to act, such as the promised executive criminal liability amendment.
Ofcom faces a formidable challenge in policing companies to adhere to its terms and conditions about content moderation. Heavy fines are not enough. Ofcom will need guidance in setting codes of practice from not only the three commissioners but NGOs, such as the Internet Watch Foundation, and an advocacy body for children to continually advise on emerging harms. A new regulatory regime to address illegal and harmful content online is essential but, having removed legal but harmful from the original Bill, we lost the opportunity to detoxify the internet.
Concentrating on the big platforms will miss the growth of bespoke platforms that promote other harms such as incel culture, a threat to women but also to young men. Incels, involuntarily celibates, use mainstream platforms such as YouTube to reel in unsuspecting young men before linking them to their own small, specialist websites, but these are outside the scope of category 1 provision and therefore any minimum standards. These sites include not only sexist and misogynistic material but anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic and transphobic items, and even paedophilia. One of the four largest incel forums is dedicated to suicide and self-harm. HOPE not hate, the anti-fascist campaign, has warned that smaller platforms used by the far right to organise and radicalise should be under the same level of scrutiny as category 1 platforms.
User empowerment features, part of the triple shield, such as options to filter out content from unverified users and abusive content, put the onus on the user to filter out material rather than filters being turned on by default. Ofcom must ensure a statutory duty to promote media literacy by the largest platforms as part of their conditions of service. The Bill should make children’s risk assessment consistent across all services, and should tackle the drivers of harm and the design of the service, not just the content.
I welcome the new offences targeting harmful behaviour, including epilepsy trolling, cyber flashing and the sending of manufactured deepfake intimate images without consent. Despite the Bill adding controlling or coercive behaviour to the list of priority offences, more needs to be done to protect women, one in three of whom has experienced online abuse. Ofcom must add a mandatory code of practice regarding violence against women and girls so that tech companies understand they have a duty to prioritise their safety.
The Bill must prevent the relentless promotion of suicide and self-harm that has destroyed the lives of young people and their families. I commend the bravery of Ian Russell, who is campaigning to prevent other deaths following the tragic suicide of his daughter, Molly. I back the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to ensure that coroners and bereaved families can access social media content. I applaud all those campaigners who want to see the Bill implemented urgently, and I will work with other noble Lords to strengthen it.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support this important Bill, but with some concerns. As drafted, it does not go far enough to fully protect children and young people online. The consequences of the policies we decide in this Bill will affect the whole of society in decades to come.
I have been working on the online pornography issue for the last 10 years. In April 2017, this House passed legislation that required age verification for pornography websites to prevent children accessing them. We were promised that social media platforms would be included later on, but that did not happen. It is hard to believe that almost six years ago this House passed the Digital Economy Act, whose Part 3 was never implemented by this Government. So here we are, still debating age verification for pornography. This is simply unacceptable—a shocking failure of society. It is now time to act fast, and we must make sure that we do it right.
I am concerned that the Bill does not go as far as what was passed in 2017. Even if the Bill is passed, I do not believe that it will deliver age verification quickly. If Ofcom’s road map on the implementation of the Bill is to be believed, it could be three years before enforcement proceedings are issued against pornography websites that allow children to access them.
Research by the BBFC found that children as young as seven are innocently stumbling across pornography online and that 51% of all children aged 11 to 13 have watched pornography online—according to Barnardo’s, 54 million times. We are creating a conveyor belt of children addicted to porn, which will affect their long-term well-being and sexual behaviour.
A fundamental problem with the Bill is that it does not deal with pornography as a harm. The Government state that it is designed to ensure that what is lawfully unacceptable offline would also be unacceptable online. However, in respect of pornographic content, the Bill as drafted does not meet that goal. Material that is extreme and prohibited offline is widely available online. Evidence shows that consumption of extreme and prohibited material, such as content that sexualises children—and that includes adults dressing up as children—can lead on to the viewing of illegal child sexual abuse material and an interest in child sex abuse. It is not only children who are at risk: men who watch extreme and prohibited material online are more likely to be abusive towards women and girls.
What is needed is a stand-alone part of the Bill that deals with all pornographic content and sets out a clear definition of what pornography is. Once defined, the Bill should require any website or social media platform with content that meets that definition to ensure that children cannot access that material, because porn can be a gateway to other harms. Contrary to what some people believe, technology exists that can accurately age-verify a user without compromising that person’s privacy. The groundwork is done, and as more countries implement this type of legislation, the industry is becoming increasingly equipped to deal with age verification. France and Germany are already taking legal action to enforce their own laws on the largest adult websites, with several already applying age checks. There is no reason why this cannot be implemented and enforced within six months of the Bill becoming law. If that is too hard for the social media platforms, they can simply remove porn from their pages until they are ready to keep that harm away from our kids.
Childhood lasts a lifetime, and we have the opportunity to ensure that pornography is not a harm inflicted on our children. We owe it to them. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a series producer of online and linear content. I, like many noble Lords, can hardly believe that this Bill has finally come before your Lordships’ House. It was in 2017, when I first joined the Communications and Digital Committee, that we started to look at online advertising. We went on to look at regulating the internet in three separate inquiries. I am pleased to see some of those recommendations in the Bill.
It is not surprising that I support the words of the present chair of the committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, when she said that the Secretary of State still has far too many powers over the regulator. Draft codes of practice, in which Ofcom can give the parameters and direction for the tech companies, and the review of their implementation, are going to be central in shaping its terms of service. Generally, in democracies, we are seeing regulators of the media given increasing independence, with Governments limiting themselves to setting up their framework and then allowing them to get on with the task at hand. I fear the Bill is not doing that. I understand that the codes will be laid before Parliament, but I would support Parliament having a much stronger power over the shaping of those regulations.
I know that Labour supports a Select Committee having the power to scrutinise this work, but having served on the Communications and Digital Committee, I fear that the examination of consultations from Ofcom would monopolise its entire work. I support the pre-legislative committee’s suggestion of a Joint Committee of Parliament, whose sole job would be to examine regulations and give input. I will support amendments to this effect.
I am also worried about Clauses 156 and 157. I listened to the Minister when he said that amendments to the Secretary of State’s powers of guidance will be brought before the House and that they will be used only in exceptional circumstances. However, the list of subjects on which I understand the Minister will then be able to intervene is still substantial, ranging from public safety through economic policy and burdens to business. Are the Government prepared to consider further limiting these powers to intervene?
I will also look at risk assessments in the Bill. They need to go further than illegal content and child safety. The empowerment lists in Clause 12 are not risk assessed and do not seem to have enough flexibility for what noble Lords know is an ever-changing world of harms. The volume of online content means that moderation is carried out by algorithms. During the inquiries in which I was involved, we were told repeatedly that algorithms are very bad at distinguishing humour and context when deciding on harmful content. Ensuring that the platforms’ systems moderate correctly is difficult. There was a recent case of that: the farcical blocking by Twitter of the astronomer Dr Mary McIntyre, whose account was suspended because her six-second video of a meteor shower was mistaken by the Twitter algorithms for a porn video. For weeks, she was unable to get any response from Twitter. Such mistakes happen only too frequently. Dr McIntyre’s complaint is only one of millions made every year against the tech companies, for being either too keen or not keen enough to take down content and, in some cases, to block accounts. So the Bill needs to include a risk assessment which looks at the threat to free speech from any changes in those systems. Ofcom needs to be able to create those risk assessments and to produce annual reports which can then be laid before a Joint Committee for Parliament’s consideration. That should be supported by an ombudsman.
I would also like to see the definition of safety duties on platforms to take down illegal content changed from “reasonable grounds” to the platform being aware that the content is “manifestly illegal”—and, if possible, for third parties, such as the NCA, to be involved in the process. That will reduce the chance of chilling free speech online as much as possible.
I am also aware that there has been concern over the duties to protect news publishers and journalistic content. Like other noble Lords, I am worried that the scope in respect of the latter is drawn too widely in the Bill, and that it covers all content. I would support amendments which concentrate on protecting journalism in the public interest. The term “in the public interest” is well known to the courts, is present in Section 4 of the Defamation Act, and is used to great effect to protect journalism which is judged to be in the public interest.
I welcome the Bill after its long journey to this House. I am sure that the hard work of fellow Peers and collaboration with the Minister will ensure that it leaves this House in a clearer, more comprehensive and safer state. The well-being of future generations of internet users in this country depends on us getting it right.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to follow so many powerful speeches. My second daughter was born in the year Facebook launched in the UK and Apple sold its first iPhone. Today she is 15; she has lived her whole life in a digitally enabled world. She has undoubtedly benefited from the great things that digital technology brings, but, throughout that life, she has had no meaningful legal protection from its harms.
A number of noble Lords have referenced the extraordinarily moving and disturbing briefing that Ian Russell and his lawyer, Merry Varney, gave us on Monday. When I went home from that briefing, first, I hugged my two teenage girls really close, and then I talked to them about it. My 15 year-old daughter said, “Mum, of course, I know about Molly Russell and all the awful content there is on social media. Didn’t you realise? When are all you adults going to realise what’s going on and do something about it?” The Bill is important, because it is the beginning of us doing something about it.
It is also a huge Bill, so we need to be careful not to let perfect be the enemy of the good. Like other noble Lords, I urge this House to focus on the critical areas where we can improve this already much debated and discussed Bill and try to resist the temptation to attach so many baubles to it that it no longer delivers on its core purpose of protecting our children online. So, like others, I will focus my remarks on three structural changes that I hope will help make the Bill more effective at driving the positive changes that, I think, everyone in this House intends: first, the consequences for senior managers of not complying with the legislation; secondly, how compliance is defined and by whom; and, finally, which services are included.
To change digital platforms and services to protect children is not impossible—but it is hard, and it will not happen by itself. Tech business models are simply too driven by other things; development road maps are always too contested with revenue-raising projects, and competition for clicks is just too intense. So we need to ask ourselves whether the incentives in the Bill to drive compliance are strong enough to counter the very strong incentives not to.
It is clear that self-regulation will not work, and relying on corporate fines is also not enough. We have learned in other safety-critical industries and sectors that have needed dramatic culture change, such as financial services, that fines alone do not drive change. However, once you name an individual as responsible for something, with serious consequences if they fail, change happens. I look forward to the government amendment that I hope will clearly set out the consequences for named senior managers who do not deliver on their overall online safety responsibilities.
The second area I highlight is how compliance is defined. Specifically, the powers that the Bill grants the Secretary of State to amend Ofcom’s proposed code of conduct are far too wide. Just as with senior tech managers, the political incentives not to focus on safety are too strong. Almost every Minister I have ever met is keen to support tech sector growth. Giving the Secretary of State the ability to change codes of conduct for economic reasons is asking them to trade off economic growth against children’s safety—the same trade-off that tech companies have failed to make over the last 15 years. That is not right, it is not fair on the Ministers themselves, and it will not deliver the child protections we are looking for.
The third area I will cover—I will be very brief—has been highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It is important that we capture all the services that are accessed by children. If not, we risk creating a dangerous false sense of security. Specifically, I am worried about why app stores are not covered. In the physical world—I say this as an erstwhile retailer—retailers have long come to terms with the responsibilities they bear for ensuring that they do not sell age-restricted products to children. Why are we shying away from the same thing in the digital world?
There are many other things I would support, not least the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I finish by simply saying that the most important thing is that the Bill is here. We need to do this work—our children and grandchildren have waited far too long.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, this is indeed a huge, complex and courageous Bill which deserves widespread support. Despite some welcome government amendments during its passage in the other place, there are residual concerns about guarantees of freedom of expression and access to information, as well as the degree to which the regulator, Ofcom, is independent of government control.
It is widely acknowledged by the Government themselves and the majority of those who have spoken to the Bill that the right to free speech is a fundamental aspect of our democracy, and that any restriction must be fully justified in the public interest. Public interest includes the freedom to access unwelcome, unpopular and even offensive material, if only to be able to refute it. It is also accepted that a functioning democracy needs new ideas and robust debate. That said, it is a fine and difficult line to draw between offensive material and illegal content. In their efforts, the Government have sought to protect above all the safety of children.
I start with a presumption in favour of free speech and a multiplicity of voices. Clauses 18 and 28 state that providers must
“have particular regard to the … users’ right to freedom of expression”
and to protecting users from breaches of any laws relating to privacy. This would be achieved by rigorous impact assessments of safety measures and policies, any infringements of which must be made publicly available. However, the definition of democratically important material as information
“specifically intended to contribute to democratic political debate in the United Kingdom”
remains vague, and other strict requirements on protecting children in the Bill could condemn offensive but necessary democratic content.
Clause 160 refers to false information intended
“to cause non-trivial psychological or physical harm”.
It may, in many cases, be entirely obvious when such harm is intended, but not in all cases. On whom does the burden of proof lie and what recourse does an individual have to appeal false accusations?
The stricture that democratically important content be preserved is by no means fully guaranteed by the following powers set out in the Bill. There is a potential danger of undue restriction that lies in the degree of control from the Secretary of State and his or her relationship with Ofcom; the terms and conditions of service for category 1 providers; the options, or lack of them, for user control of online material; and the role of Parliament.
Draft codes of practice are to be submitted to the Secretary of State, who could require Ofcom to modify codes in the interests of national security or public safety. The Secretary of State will pass any statement on strategic priorities to Ofcom, but parliamentary approval would be by means only of the negative resolution procedure.
The Secretary of State can issue guidance and directions to Ofcom, which in turn has a crucial role in acting against a provider that is not complying with the requirement to fulfil duties under the Act, including the imposition of fines of up to £18 million and “business disruption measures”—in other words, outright censorship. Although such drastic action could occur only in the case of a breach of the terms of service, there would be no restriction on taking down content to comply with other duties—for example, if it was judged that the content might be “likely” to be accessed by children. This, it is feared, would encourage providers to play safe. Furthermore, the terms and conditions can be altered at will by the provider.
The age verification process would necessarily require the user to register with a provider, preventing any casual access by adults. Furthermore, to remove unnecessary barriers to information, the controls available to the user should be a genuine option and not imposed by default.
This is a truly important Bill and I congratulate the authors and campaigners, as well as the Government, on bringing it to this advanced stage. I nevertheless believe that it could be further improved to ensure that the most liberal interpretations of online freedom of expression remain at the heart of our democracy.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Secretary of State, Michelle Donelan, has acknowledged that protecting children is the very reason that this Bill exists. If only the Government had confined themselves to that crucial task. Instead, I worry that the Bill has ballooned and still could be a major threat to free expression of adults. I agreed with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, just spoke about.
Like some other noble Lords here, I am delighted that the Government have dropped the censorious “legal but harmful” clauses. It was disappointing to hear Labour MPs in the other place keen to see them restored. In this place, I have admired opposition resistance to assaults on civil liberties in, for example, the Public Order Bill. Perhaps I can appeal for consistency to be just as zealous on free speech as a foundational civil liberty. I urge those pushing versions of censoring “legal but harmful” for adults to think again.
The Government’s counter to many freedom of expression concerns is that free speech is protected in various clauses, but stating that service providers must have regard to the importance of protecting users’ rights of freedom of speech is incredibly weak and woolly, giving a second-class status whencontrasted with the operational safety duties that compel companies to remove material. Instead, we need a single comprehensive and robust statutory duty in favour of freedom of expression that requires providers to ensure that free speech is not infringed on by measures taken to comply with other duties. Also, free speech should be listed as a relevant duty for which Ofcom has to develop a code of practice.
The Bill requires providers to include safety provisions for content in their terms of service. However, no similar requirement for free speech exists. It seems ironic that a Bill that claims to be clipping the power of big tech could actually empower companies to police and censor legal material in the name of safety, via the commercial route of terms and conditions.
The Government brush off worries that big tech is being encouraged to limit what UK citizens say or read online by glibly asserting that these are private companies and that they must be free to develop their own terms of service. Surely that is disingenuous. The whole purpose of the legislation is to interfere in private companies, compelling them to adhere to duties or face huge penalties. If the Government do not trust big tech with users’ safety, why do they trust them with UK citizens’ free speech rights? Similarly, consider the user empowerment duties. If users ask that certain specified types of legal content are blocked or filtered out, such as hate or abuse, it is big tech that has the power to decide what is categorised under those headings.
Only last year, amendments put forward in this House on placing convicted sex-offending trans prisoners on the female estate were labelled online as hate-fuelled, transphobic abuse. However, with the ability to hear all sides of the debate online, and especially in the light of recent events in Scotland around the Gender Recognition Act, more and more people realise that such views are not hate but driven by concerns about safeguarding women’s rights. Would such a debate be filtered out online by overcautious labelling by big tech and the safety duties in its Ts and Cs?
Finally, like others, I am worried that the Secretary of State is given too much power—for example, to shape Ofcom’s codes of practice, which is a potential route for political interference. My concerns are fuelled by recent revelations. In the US, Elon Musk’s leaked Twitter files prove that, in the run-up to the 2020 election, Joe Biden’s presidential campaign routinely flagged up tweets and accounts that it wanted removed, influencing the suppression of the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop exposé. Here in the UK, only this week, a shocking Big Brother Watch report reveals that military operatives reported on online dissenting views on official Covid lockdown policies to No. 10 and the DCMS’s counter-disinformation unit, allowing Whitehall’s hotlines to giant media companies to suppress this legal content. Even the phrase “illegal” in the Bill can be politically weaponised, such as with the proposal to censor content allegedly promoting small boat crossings.
Free speech matters to democracy, and huge swathes of this Bill could threaten both unless we amend it appropriately.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the House of Lords Library and various organisations for their briefings on the Bill. One of the ways I want to approach this discussion is to talk about where I think there is consensus and where there will need to be further debate. Of course, as many noble Lords have said, there will be incredible trade-offs, and there are many issues people feel strongly about.
There is consensus on the issue of protecting children, and I pay tribute the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her work over many years on this, as well as that of other noble Lords. There is consensus on making sure that, where companies have terms and conditions, they actually enforce them. We have to be aware of that. There is obviously consensus on tackling sites promoting suicide and other self-harm measures.
Where there are concerns on my part is around freedom of expression. Quite often, everyone says that they are in favour of freedom of expression until they are offended, and then they find a reason not to be. There are also concerns about the Secretary of State’s power to intervene and influence the online safety regime. I agree with other noble Lords that Ofcom should remain independent from the Secretary of State but I am aware of public choice theory; institutions could be captured by political bias, so we have to be careful about that.
Noble Lords will submit amendments to bring back into the Bill the issue of harm to adults, but I would add a note of caution: how subjective is “harm”? A quick example is how Muslims reacted to the Danish cartoons. Some would have found them distasteful; some would have said they were harmed by them. Does that mean they should have been banned or taken down? How do we face these challenges in a free society? Can we be as technologically neutral as possible? Can we be careful of rent-seeking by organisations that will peddle their products and claim that they have the best age-assurance technology or something like that? Although we want the solution, let us make sure there is a thriving market to ensure that we get the better solutions. Regulation always lacks developing technology; we will want this Bill to be as dynamic as possible, but that may require some secondary legislation, which I know many noble Lords are often sceptical about.
I really want to focus on unintended consequences, not because I am against the Bill but to warn of the difficult issues we are going to have to look at. First, companies will be acting as police but may take an overcautious approach. In the other place, and here, people talked about criminal liability with some of the directives, but think about the impact of criminal liability on other legislation—for example, financial companies when it comes to politically exposed persons. We all know the unintended consequences of that from being overcautious.
Adult verification is another issue. Whatever we think about pornography, it is legal. What people will be concerned about is whether they can verify their age in an anonymous way. They will be concerned whether their data will be used later to blackmail them; will verification drive users to the dark web? Not everything on the dark web is illegal. Some authoritarian regimes such as Russia, China, Saudi, Iran and Venezuela have tried to ban the Tor Browser, but are we going to follow them? There are also ways around it. One way that terrorists have been known to share information was to create an email account, share the password and username, and leave messages for each other in the drafts folder. How do we tackle that without impacting on all users of the internet? How do we also make sure that firms enforce their terms and conditions and, in doing so, do not water them down?
I know that there are many questions, but I hope that we will work through them, and others that have been raised, so that we have a Bill that is proportionate, workable and effective, and that protects children, women and girls, and vulnerable adults.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I generally welcome the Bill and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the great work she has done. In the Bill, I particularly welcome the movement towards greater protection for children than we have had hitherto. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that there may be difficulties, including the age-verification system, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I am in favour of age verification and I would like to see it implemented quickly. I would also like the Minister to assure us that, having waited so long, if we find that there are loopholes in it, we can find some mechanism to fill those loopholes fairly quickly—perhaps a commitment to using secondary legislation rather than having to wait for so long, as we have done in the past.
My second concern relates to Clause 12, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised and which the nobles Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Finlay, also spoke to, on the protection of adults from risk and harm. I do not think enough attention has been paid to what is happening with pornography and with mental health. Here I declare an interest as the founder and vice-chair of an All-party Group for the Twelve Steps Recovery Programme from Addiction. Addiction is not just about alcohol. AA started the 12-step programme but it has been extended over the years to a whole range of other addictions—not least drugs, gambling and overeating, and in particular it is growing quite extensively in the sexual field. We have a range of 12-step programmes operating, including for SLA—sex and love addiction—and sexual addiction. As to the latter, an ever-increasing number of people are in grave trouble due to the effects of pornography, not just solely on themselves but consequently the rest of their family in a whole range of different ways.
It is quite interesting that of the number of people watching pornography—mainly men—between midnight and 4 am is the time when most porn sites are being visited. These are affecting people mentally, affecting their work and affecting their relationships. The Bill as it stands does not address that issue sufficiently well. They had a go at it in the Commons and were persuaded that the approach was incorrect. Pornography is growing. We must protect the freedom of speech and what we circulate, but equally we must protect standards. In turn, we must make sure that we are not creating in certain areas a decadence that we have not had before that is damaging to society.
I hope that we might look again at Clause 12 and try to find a way for some accommodation to be found between the Government’s viewpoint and the views being expressed by people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It is important that we do so; if not, we will have to start campaigning privately. If we cannot get it through law, we will have to bring together those concerned about pornography and look for ways to bring to the attention of people that it must be drawn to a halt or at least diminished, given the extent and pace at which it is growing at present. I think it can be done. We have a dry January; why should we not, in the month of December, encourage people not to engage in pornography? At least it would capture attention. If we want to have a better society, we should be diminishing this practice rather than growing it.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the intriguing suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about December—which I will not repeat at this moment. I declare my interest as a former head of public affairs at the BBC who heavily lobbied this House in 1995 and 1996 to bring about the Broadcasting Act which set BBC online on its way. I am proud to say that BBC online remains a beacon of responsible content to show the rest of the world. I am also co-chair of the all-party group on media literacy and patron of Student View, which works in over 100 schools around the country to deliver media literacy.
In the original draft Bill, media literacy was not a central point but an important point of commitment. It has since been removed from the final legislation in front of us. As the Minister said in his introduction, there are multiple provisions in the legislation which cater for enabling adults to make sensible use of their media journey. However, there is very little, other than protections for children, to enable children to make intelligent understanding of their media journey.
According to the National Literacy Trust, in its assessment a few years ago, only 2% of children had the critical thinking skills necessary to be able to distinguish between fact and fiction online, and 90% of teachers say they are in favour of media literacy but feel that they do not have the skills to be able to teach it. They also feel that the vast majority of children they teach who discuss media issues consistently in the classroom do not understand the difference between truth and misinformation.
I want to keep it simple and say two things to the Minister and one to the Opposition. First, to the Minister, given the level of fines which should become apparent as a response to abuse of this legislation, money will be available to empower media literacy programmes inside and outside of schools. There should be no excuse that there is no money; the money in fines should go not just towards Ofcom’s costs but towards improving the capability of the next generation to navigate the media landscape. Will the Minister and the Government consider that?
It is obvious that media literacy is not in this Bill now because the Government argued it was essentially an education matter. In that case, will the Minister commit the Government—as he speaks for the Government —to bringing forward a media literacy education Bill before the next election? If it is not possible and there is to be a Labour Government after the next election, will the Labour Front Bench commit to bringing forward a media literacy education Bill, rather than simply letting this issue drift into the long grass? The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, can answer that directly at the end and make a commitment on behalf of the Labour Front Bench we can all hold him to account on.
There also needs to be substantial support for teaching teachers to understand and navigate a forest that they do not necessarily know how to enter or exit. That should be part of teacher development and support. Can we also consider the costs of misinformation and how it is damaging our social fabric? Can the Minister request of the Treasury that it brings forward cost assessments of the damage of misinformation?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the internet is in so many ways a wonderful new continent, discovered only in my adult lifetime. But like older territories it has not been the unadulterated bastion of freedom and equality that its pilgrim and founding mothers and fathers would have dreamt of. While it has created enormous opportunities for expression, interconnection and learning, it has also allowed the monetising of hate and abuses of power up to and including serious criminal offences to the detriment of children and other vulnerable people.
To a large extent, big tech corporations with monopolistic power have become the new imperium, colonising this new continent without the desire, expertise, independence or accountability to properly regulate of police it. Further, as the technology has moved at a breath-taking pace, national Parliaments and Governments have lagged behind in even fulfilling their basic duties to resource the enforcement of existing criminal law online or, indeed, to ensure sufficient tax raising from the new emperors who can employ former senior politicians for their lobbying, influence national elections via their products and seek to further their hegemony even beyond our shrinking, burning planet.
Alongside corporate and governmental neglect, there have been abuses of people’s rights and freedoms by state and non-state entities around the world. It is very possible to be too permissive in allowing private abuse and simultaneously too interventionist so as to abuse political power. Noble Lords would be wise to hold on to that duality as they undertake the most anxious line-by-line scrutiny of this Bill. With that in mind, given the length, novelty and complexity of this draft legislation, I regret the short time allocated today. The sheer number of speakers should have justified two days of Second Reading, if only to prevent de facto Second Reading speeches in Committee.
Legislation is required and the perfect should not be the enemy of a first attempt at the possible. However, given the fast developing and global landscape, further legislation will no doubt follow. Ultimately, I believe that His Majesty’s Government should seek to pioneer a global internet and AI treaty in due course—or at least, a Labour Government should. For one thing, the black boxes of advanced algorithms must be made transparent and subject to legal control so as not to entrench inequality, discrimination and hate.
That may sound ambitious, but it will take that kind of ambition—the kind of ambition that we saw in the post-war era to establish some notion of an international rule of law and fundamental rights and freedoms in the real world truly to establish a proper rule of law with protected human rights in the virtual one. At the very least, what is already criminal should be policed online. However, we should be wary of outsourcing too much of that policing role to corporations without at least binding them more directly to the free expression and personal privacy protection duties that bind Ofcom, police and prosecutors under the Convention on Human Rights.
Furthermore, we should look again at tightening up over-broad public order offences, such as causing alarm or distress under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, before allowing them to constitute priority illegal content for proactive removal. Conversely, will the Minister confirm that, for example, euphemistic sex for rent adverts targeting poor, vulnerable women, in particular, will be a priority under Section 52 of the Sex Offences Act? As this experiment in national regulation of an international phenomenon develops, the power of the Executive to direct Ofcom sets a dangerous politicising precedent for regimes elsewhere. They should be removed.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to the Second Reading of such an important but complex Bill. There is very little time to speak on such positive and necessary legislation—200-plus clauses and 17 Schedules. But I know from experience of this Chamber that we will scrutinise every full stop to make it far better than when we received it.
While we must recognise that companies should have safeguarding policies and penalties in place, we should also never forget the lives of our young children, those who have been taken and the voices of bereaved families. They should be in the veins of this Bill right through to the end.
I say this as I remember that, in the trial following my husband Gary’s murder 15 years ago, some of the evidence shown was horrific violence downloaded on the offenders’ phones. The content was so horrific that the judge laid it on file for whenever they had parole hearings. It showed injuries identical to those Gary received—kicking and punching injuries that those on trial thought were very funny, even when they watched it in the courtroom from the dock. I now have three daughters who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. I have to ensure that they never forget their father, and do not just remember him lying on the ground that August evening.
In my role as Victims’ Commissioner, for seven years I had the pleasure and honour of listening to many victims and survivors of horrific crimes. Time is short but I would like to mention the mother of Breck. Her son was beautiful, bright and bubbly, only to become removed from any emotion and from his family. Breck was groomed online by an 18 year-old man who ran the internet gaming server that Breck and his schoolfriends used every day. Our children are most likely using Xbox consoles and have contact with these people from their own homes. The groomer used lies, manipulation and false promises to gain Breck’s trust. Despite many attempts by the family to stop Breck’s communication with his groomer, he ignored the safety advice he had been given by his family and was sadly lured to the groomer’s flat. On 17 February 2014, Breck was brutally murdered by this online groomer. So, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and all those bereaved families who have worked tirelessly to make sure that the Bill has teeth and power to protect their loved ones, have my full support.
I thank Barnardo’s, the NSPCC, Refuge and the Centre for Women’s Justice for their briefing. My interest will be in the work and roles of the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and the code of practice to protect the VAWG sector in light of women being 27 times more likely to be abused and harassed. I will be supporting my noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendment on age verification, regarding pornographic content that children can access. We must also ensure that, while this is for the professionals and absolutely about penalising the guilty, we must never forget the families who have to live, every day, through the hardship and heartbreak of losing a loved one. We must ensure that there is a channel to protect their families and support them to have a better life in memory of their loved ones.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill but it is very long overdue. The Second Reading of my Private Member’s Bill was on 28 January 2022. It sought to commence Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. This would have ensured that age verification of pornography was applied to pornographic websites. It is disappointing that the Bill has not progressed and Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act—a vital tool that could have prevented children accessing online pornography —is still not being implemented.
I remind your Lordships that in February 2016—now seven years ago—the Government said:
“Pornography has never been more easily accessible online, and material that would previously have been considered extreme has become part of mainstream online pornography. When young people access this material it risks normalising behaviour that might be harmful to their future emotional and psychological development.”
Nothing has changed in seven years; the threat is still as real today as it was then. All that has changed is that, during that seven-year delay, more children’s lives have been harmed. This cannot be allowed to continue.
I welcome that the Government have listened to the concerns about access to commercial pornographic websites and have, as a result, introduced Part 5 of the Bill. However, I believe more changes are needed to make it effective. Today, I raise only three of them. First, the Bill needs a more robust definition of pornography, based on the 2017 Act. Secondly, the Bill needs to cover all pornography services. Clause 71 says that only if “a service has links” with the UK will it be required to comply with the duties in Part 5, where “links with” means only pornographic websites which have a significant number of UK users or have the UK as a target market.
I ask the Minister: what will be considered significant? Is it significant in terms of the total UK adult users who could use the service, or significant in terms of potential global users? Either way, it seems to me that there could be pornographic websites accessed in the UK that are not required to have age verification to protect those aged under 18 from accessing this content. I doubt that this is what parents expect from this flagship Bill.
Finally, the Bill needs a commencement clause for age verification. Far too many young people have grown up without the protection that age verification could have brought in, if the 2017 Act had been implemented. We have heard others refer to this. There should be no further delay and the Government should demonstrate the urgency that they spoke of when they announced in October 2019 that they would not be implementing the 2017 Act. Age verification needs to be implemented as soon and as quickly as possible, and that is why a commencement date clause is needed in the Bill.
We cannot countenance these measures not being brought into force, or even a long delay of three or more years. The children’s charity Barnardo’s, which has already been referred to, has estimated that children have accessed pornographic content almost 55 million times since the Government announced in 2019 that they would be bringing forward the Online Safety Bill as an alternative to Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. This cannot be allowed to continue. That is why we need to get the Bill right and ensure that robust age verification, that applies to all websites and social media accessed in the UK, is brought in as quickly as possible. I look forward to exploring these issues further in Committee.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin with a brief refection on my 26 years or thereabouts on the internet, which saw me hand-coding my first website in 1999 and sees me now, I believe, as one of the few Members of your Lordships’ House with a TikTok account. I have had a lot of good times on the internet; I have learned a lot, made a lot of friends and built political communities that stretch around the world in ways that were entirely impossible before it arrived. That tells you, perhaps, that I think we should be careful in this debate about the diagnosis of the source of undoubted issues that the Bill seeks to address. It appears that some would like to wave a magic wand and shut it all down if they could—to return to some imagined golden age of the past, perhaps when your Lordships’ House was harrumphing loudly about the damaging effects of this new-fangled television.
While we are talking about young people, I have serious questions about the capacity of this House to engage with this debate. Yes, we did well in getting online during lockdown, even if we sometimes caught a glimpse of the grandchildren or great-grandchildren pressing the buttons so that their elders could speak in the House. They are the same generation; we are looking to take control over what they are doing right now. I invite noble Lords to keep that in mind as this debate proceeds.
I put it very seriously to your Lordships’ House that before we proceed further, we should invite a youth parliament into this very Chamber. We should listen to that debate on this Bill very carefully. On few subjects is the obvious need for votes at 16, or even younger, more obvious—the need for the experts by experience to be heard. They have the capacity to be the agents and to shape their own world, if their elders get out of the road.
I have no doubt that those young people would tell us that they suffer harm on the internet, with awful violent pornography and dangerous encouragements to self-harm and suicide. There need to be protections, while acknowledging that young people cannot be walled off into a little garden of their own. But I am sure young people would also say we need to address much wider issues, to build resilience and provide an education that encourages critical thinking rather than polished regurgitation of the facts. I would associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, among others, about the need for media education. But how do we encourage critical thinking about the media when we are also encouraging regurgitation of the right results for the exam—that you have to repeat these 10 points? The two things do not fit together.
In a stairwell discussion with a Member of your Lordships’ House who is not a digital native—and I point out that nobody in this debate is a digital native—but is certainly someone with much experience over decades, they reflected on the early hopes of the internet for democracy, for access to information and for community. They suggested it was inevitably a lost age; I do not agree. Political decisions and choices allowed a handful of multinational companies—mostly tax dodging, unaccountable to shareholders, now immensely rich—to dominate. That is not unique to the internet; that is what the political decisions of neoliberalism over the past decades have done to our food supplies, our retailing systems, our energy, our medicines and, increasingly, our education system. Far right, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and transphobic voices have been allowed to take hold and operate without challenge in our mainstream media, our communities, our politics and on the internet.
Financial fraud is a huge problem on the internet and, hopefully, this Bill might address it; but financial fraud and corruption is a huge problem across our financial sector, as indeed is the all-pervading one of gambling. The internet is a mirror to our society, as well as a theatre of interaction. The idea that we can fix our societies by fixing the internet is a fallacy; for many with commercial and political interests, it is a comfortable one that deflects political challenges they would rather not face.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, if a child goes to the Windmill club, the most famous strip club in Soho, the bouncers will rightly turn them away, no ifs, no buts: no entry, full stop. If a child tries to buy a knife on Amazon or to place a bet on Bet365.com, it will be the same story: you need proof of age. But every day, millions of children in this country watch pornography in their homes, at schools, on the bus, on devices of all kinds, without any hindrance at all. The Children’s Commissioner makes it really clear that this is not just raunchy pornography like in the old days of Razzle magazine. These are depictions of degradation, sexual coercion, aggression and exploitation, disproportionately targeted at teenage girls. As Dame Rachel de Souza said:
“Most of it is just plain abuse”.
The effects of this failed experiment are absolutely disastrous. The British Board of Film Classification says that half of 11 year-olds have seen porn, and according to the NSPCC, a third of child abuse offences are now committed by children. The answer is straight- forward in principle: we need to apply the rules on age verification for porn that exist in the real world to the online world. We need to address this harm immediately, before any more damage is done—before there is any metaverse or any more technology to spread it further.
I know that the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister all broadly agree with this sentiment, and that is why the Bill has:
“A duty to ensure that children are not normally able to encounter content that is regulated provider pornographic content in relation to the service (for example, by using age verification).”
But this vague power simply starts a long process of negotiation with the porn industry and with tech. At a very minimum, it will require a children protection consultation, a child’s access assessment, a guidance statement, an agreement on child protection guidance and codes, secondary legislation, parliamentary approval of the Ofcom child protection code, monitoring and engagement, engagement on the enforcement regime, test cases in the courts—and so on.
I appreciate that we are creating laws flexible enough to cope with technological evolution and I totally support that principle, but we should not reinvent the wheel. We tried that 30 years ago when the online porn industry started, and it failed. We need one regime for the real world and for the online world. This is an opportunity to send a message to the tech industries and to the British people that we mean business about protecting children, and to put Britain at the vanguard of child protection regulation.
I want to see this Bill on the statute book, and I am very grateful for engagement with the Minister, the Bill team and all those supporting the Bill. I look forward to suggestions on how we can close this gap. But if we cannot, I will table amendments that replace Part 5 of the Online Safety Bill with Part 3 of the Digital Economy Bill—a measure that has considerable support in another place.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as in the register, and I thank all those who have sent briefing notes. I do not think any of us underestimates the scale of what we have to achieve in the coming weeks.
Just this morning, I read an article in which Dame Rachel de Souza was quoted as saying that this Bill is an “urgent priority”. The article described a 12-year-old girl being strangled by her boyfriend during her first kiss:
“He had seen it in pornography and thought it normal.”
This afternoon, many figures have been quoted on children’s access to pornography, and each figure is deeply disturbing. I listened very carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell; he made a compelling argument, and I will strongly support any amendments he brings forward.
Along with age verification we need better education for children on the use of the internet, and on appropriate relationships. We have to be very aware of content that pushes weight loss, body image and appearance, appearance-improving ads, and images that have been altered.
I would like to concentrate on violence against women and girls, and I thank all the women who have been in touch with me. We must recognise the threat that women are under. Women are 27 times more likely to experience abuse—that is one in three women. Some 62% of young women have experienced abuse. Four out of five cases of online grooming involve girls, and 120 cases are being reported every week. To bring that closer to home, 93% of female MPs have experienced online abuse just for doing their job or having an opinion. I am not trying to stifle free speech. Yes, we have to accept criticism and challenge, but not abuse and threats. I really worry about us developing a social norm of trying to shut down women’s voices. I am mindful that we in this Chamber and in another place have a high degree of protection that women in the outside world do not. We live in a world where a rape threat against a woman can potentially remain online, but a woman talking about menstruation can be told that it breaches guidelines. The balance is not yet right.
I offer my support to my noble friends Lady Hollins and Lady Finlay regarding vulnerability; it does not end at the age of 18. We have to think about those who are vulnerable. The empowerment tools do not go far enough, and we need to explore that in more detail in Committee.
Finally, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Kidron. I thank her for her work and for arranging a meeting with the Russell family, and I thank Ian Russell for being here today. That meeting fundamentally strengthened my view on what we need to do. It was shocking to hear what various platforms deemed to be acceptable. I naively expected them to be better. It completely ignores those who are in a vulnerable position, who can be constantly bombarded with abusive images. I have spent the last couple of days trying to put into words my feelings on listening to what Molly went through. It is horrendous, and while we applaud the resilience and bravery of the Russell family, this is our chance to do so much more and to protect internet users.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to talk about the link between online financial scams and mental health. People who have problems with their mental health are, for a variety of reasons, more vulnerable to such scams. They are three times more likely to be the victims of online financial scams than those people without such problems and, in reflection, people who are victims of online scams are much more at risk of having mental health problems.
I understand and have been impressed by the contributions to this debate about the problems faced by children and women, but I think, given the opportunity of the Bill, it is important that this issue is addressed. The results of such scams lead to much misery. They destroy families and, in all too many cases, lives. So the question is: can, and how should, the Bill address this problem? This is the Bill on the stocks and the one in which we must address this issue.
There is no doubt that scams are a big and growing problem. Anyone can fall victim to such a scam, but people with mental health problems are more at risk than others, so we have to do what we can, first, to improve scam prevention and, secondly, to ensure that when people fall victim they get the support that they need.
I have to pay tribute to the work being undertaken by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. It has drawn attention to how online harm can arise in a variety of areas: gambling, retail and financial offers. A number of recurring themes have emerged where action is needed, such as where people all too easily lose control of their transactions. There is also advertising and the way in which tools and techniques are developed that pressurise people into falling victim. The institute has concluded and demonstrated how, all too often, this behaviour goes unchecked, with regulation lacking or being poorly matched to what actually happens online.
While I understand the other issues that need to be addressed in the Bill and that led to the Bill, the problems of online financial scams are sufficient to deserve attention in the Bill.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, it is beyond any doubt that an Online Safety Bill is needed. The internet has been left uncontrolled and unfettered for too long. While the Bill is indeed welcome, it is clear that more work needs to be done to ensure that it adequately protects children online.
There is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that exposure to pornography is harmful to children and young people. Many have spoken in this debate already about the harm of easy access to pornography, which is carried into adult life and has a damaging impact on young people’s views of sex and relationships. For many young men addiction to pornography, which starts in teenage years, can often lead to the belief that women should be dehumanised and objectified. Pornography is becoming a young person’s main reference point for sex and there is no conversation about important issues such as consent. That is why the Bill needs to have proper and robust age verification measures to ensure that children cannot access online pornography and are protected from the obvious harms.
Even if the Bill is enacted with robust age verification, experience tells us this is no guarantee that age verification will be implemented. Parliament passed Part 3 of the Digital Economy Bill in 2017, yet the Government chose not to implement the will of this House. That cannot be allowed to be repeated. Not only must robust age verification be in the Bill, but a commencement date must be added to the Bill to ensure that what happened in the past cannot be allowed to happen again.
I know that some Members of the House are still fearful that age verification presents an insurmountable threat to privacy: that those who choose to view pornography will have to provide their ID documents to those sites and that their interests may be tracked and exposed or used for blackmail purposes. We live in an age where there is little that technology cannot deliver. Verifying your age without disclosing who you are is not a complex problem. Indeed, it has been central to the age verification industry since it first began to prepare for the Digital Economy Act, because neither consumers nor the sites they access would risk working with an age verification provider who could not provide strong reassurance and protection for privacy.
The age verification sector is built on privacy by design and data minimisation principles, which are at the heart of our data protection law. The solutions are created on what the industry calls a double-blind basis. By this, I mean that the adult websites can never know the identity of their users, and the age verification providers do not keep any records of which sites ask them to confirm the age of any particular user. To use the technical terms, it is an anonymised, tokenised solution.
The Government should place into the Bill provisions to ensure robust age verification is put in place, along with a clear time-limited commencement clause to ensure that, on this occasion, age verification is brought in and enforced. I support the Bill, but I trust that, as it makes its way through the House, provisions in it can be strengthened.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and director of the Regulatory Funding Company, and I note my other interests in the register.
I welcome the Bill as the first rung on the ladder, ensuring that the unregulated, untransparent and unaccountable platforms begin finally to be subject to the legal strictures of regulation, accountability and transparency. In 1931, Baldwin famously said the press exercised power without responsibility. Now, the press is subject to intense regulation and tough competition laws, and it is the platforms exercising power without responsibility. This vital Bill begins the journey to rectify that.
It was an honour to sit on the Joint Committee and a huge pleasure to work with colleagues from across the House under the exceptional chairmanship of Damian Collins. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, brought such insight and energy to our work. I believe that, as a result of its work, the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between platform regulation, freedom of expression and the protection of quality journalism.
I will make just two points about the policy backdrop to this legislation. While regulation is crucially important, it is just one side of the coin: it must go hand in hand with competition. What is vital is that legislation to deal with digital markets and consumer protection follows swiftly. It is time—to coin a phrase—to level up the playing field between platforms and publishers.
For years, news publishers have operated in a deeply dysfunctional digital market, hampering efforts to realise fair returns for their content. Local and regional publishers continue to be hardest hit. Platforms generate a huge portion of advertising revenue from news media content: figures calculated by Cambridge professor Matt Elliott estimate UK publishers generate £1 billion in UK revenues for Google, Facebook, Apple and others each year.
The news consumption trend from print to digital means digital markets must function in a fair and transparent way to secure the sustainability of quality journalism. Google has more than a 90% share of the £7.3 billion UK search advertising market. That means platforms take news content for free and the bulk of advertising, which would pay for it in the analogue world, at the same time.
I welcome the fact that the Government will bring forward legislation to deal with this by giving the Digital Markets Unit statutory powers and tough competition tools. It will be a world-leading digital regulator alongside this world first in online safety, paving the way for a sea change in how platforms operate and ensuring the sustainability of journalism.
As a new age of regulation dawns, I join my noble friend Lady Stowell in urging the Minister to ensure speedy implementation of changes that are the vital other side of the coin. The Joint Committee said in its report that this should happen as soon as possible. Indeed, these two pieces of legislation will feed off each other. As a joint report by the CMA and Ofcom concluded:
“Competition interventions can … improve online safety outcomes.”
My other point is the fluid nature of the legal ecosystem surrounding the platforms, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned. For almost 30 years the US tech giants have benefited from the protection of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Passed while the internet was in its infancy, it provided platforms with safe harbours in which to operate as intermediaries of content without fear of being liable for it, which is why we now have the manifold, terrible problems of social media we have heard about today, which the Bill is rightly addressing. But times have changed, and that backbone of internet law is under intense scrutiny, above all from the US Supreme Court, which has for the first time in quarter of a century agreed to hear a case, Gonzalez v Google, challenging the immunity of companies that host user content online. The court’s decision will have a significant impact on the internet ecosystem, especially taken alongside anti-trust legal actions in the US and the EU. They are issues to which we will inevitably have to return.
The Bill—along with many other developments that will have a profound effect on competition, on regulation and on the protection of children—ushers in an era of radical change, but is, as we have heard a number of times today, only part of the journey. Let us now move forward swiftly to finish that job.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, the power to amplify, together with the volume and speed of the online world, has put power in the hands of individuals and organisations, for better or for worse. While we seek to control the worst, we also have to be aware that we now have the most extraordinary communication tool for ideas, gathering others to our cause and getting information around the world in a flash, as well as providing avenues for those in countries that do not have the miracle of free speech to contact the outside world, because their media, and they, are state-controlled.
Of course, what is illegal offline is illegal online. That is the easy bit, and where my preference undeniably lies. The new offences, dealing with what were some of the “legal but harmful” issues, cover off some of the most egregious of those issues.
In our last debate on freedom of expression, I said:
“I want maximum controls in my own home. Put power in my hands”.—[Official Report, 27/10/22; col. 1626.]
The user empowerment now in the Bill will target things such as suicide content, eating disorder content, abuse targeting race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability and gender reassignment, and the incitement of hatred against people with those characteristics. But I will argue, as others have, that a default setting must be in place so that such material is not available unless chosen. Thus the algorithmic onslaught of content that follows a single search can be averted. More importantly, vulnerable adults, who may not be capable of selection and exclusion, need that protection. We do not have to view what we do not want to see, but let that be our choice before we are fed it.
Equally absent with the removal of legal harms is violence against women. The onslaught of misogyny, bullying and worse at women is dangerous and totally unacceptable. A whole raft of organisations are behind this push to amend Clause 36 to require Ofcom to develop a VAWG—violence against women and girls—code of practice. I hope and trust that noble Lords across the House will be in support of this.
I want cyberflashing—sending pictures of genitals, which thankfully is now an offence in the Bill—to be amended so that it is about not whether there was intent by the sender to cause harm, as in the Bill now, but that the sender must have consent. Women are sick and tired of being made responsible for male misbehaviour. This time, let it be on the men to have that responsibility.
On children, age verification is nowhere near strong enough in the Bill in its current form. I trust that this will change during the Bill’s passage. Like probably everyone in this House, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for all the work she does.
In our legislative endeavour, we must guard against authoritarian creep, where the prohibition against what is truly harmful oversteps itself into a world where we are to be protected from absolutely anything that we do not like or agree with—or, worse, that the Government do not like or agree with. As others have said, the powers of the Secretary of State in the Bill are Orwellian and need to be pushed back.
Free speech presents challenges—that is the point—but the best way to challenge ideas with which you disagree is to confront them by marshalling better ethics, reason and evidence. Life can be dangerous, and ideas can be challenging. While we must not submit our intellect and freedoms to the mob, we must protect the vulnerable from that mob. That is the dividing line we must achieve in the Bill.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, like other contributors to the debate, I support the Bill, but that does not mean that I think that it is perfect; we must be aware of letting the best be the enemy of the good. I declare my interests as a trustee of Full Fact and the Public Interest News Foundation.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, referred to the Broadcasting Act 1996, because, during its passage as a Bill, I was fulfilling the role that the Minister is performing today. I remember that, before coming to address your Lordships, I looked at the draft speech that had been prepared and which described the Bill at length. It was incredibly boring, and I said, “No, I am not going to do that; I want to describe to the House what the world that the Bill will bring into effect will look like”. I told your Lordships that I was taking them into a world of science fiction. In fact, I may have misled your Lordships on that occasion, because I underestimated the impact of the technology that was evolving. Also, I do not think that anybody realised quite to the extent that we do now that you cannot disinvent technology: things have happened which are here for ever from here on out.
While technology has changed, sadly one thing has not changed: human wickedness. Rather, human wickedness has been innovative. The Government tell us that they are great believers in innovation, but I do not think that they believe in innovation in this context. History suggests, and the contemporary world corroborates, that countering wickedness and vice is never easy, particularly when it is complicated by issues of jurisdiction, geography and technology.
My view is that this simply cannot be done by primary law or, indeed, secondary legislation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, touched on, we need all kinds of soft law and codes of conduct to complement that. She was right that we have to move on from the kind of legislative approach we have now, which I call “stop and start”. We have a period of intense debate in Parliament about a piece of legislation and then, as has been heard this evening, it is all forgotten for five years—and then you find that the piece of legislation you passed does not really meet the problems of the day. We must find a way of passing what I like to describe as “living legislation”, so that it is possible, in an ongoing way, to allow those things to evolve in response to the problems that the world is presenting. It is not simply a matter of a cosy relationship between the Government, the regulator, media companies, pressure groups, charities and so on; Parliament must be involved in doing what is, after all, its real job: law-making. I think that the public, too, need to know what is going on.
If I am right in saying so, and I think I am, this kind of static approach to law-making cannot really be what is needed in circumstances of the kinds we are talking about now. Parliament, this House and the other place together, should somehow take the metaphorical bull by the horns and evolve ongoing procedures to complement the technological evolution of the internet, which changes every day—indeed, things will have changed during the duration of the very debate we are having. I dare say that the same is true elsewhere, including in other sectors about which I know very little. If we, as parliamentarians, do not grasp this particular nettle, the consequence will be that the citizens of this country will materially lose control over quite a lot of what surrounds their daily lives.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I am sure I have been annoying my noble friend the Minister for the last year by asking him when the Bill is coming. Today is one of those days when everything happens at once: two of my daughters are out of school because of industrial action, and I spent most of this morning arguing with them about whether they could go on the internet and how long they could spend on it. They said it was for homework, and I said that it was not and that they should read a book; you can imagine it.
There is a point to that slightly grumpy anecdote. First, I take issue with the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that your Lordships’ House does not engage with the next generation. More to the point, there is a fundamental tension that millions of parents up and down the country face. Our children are online a lot and sometimes we want them to be online. Do not underestimate the way that lockdown accelerated their online lives through home-schooling, necessarily—I declare my interest as a non-executive at Ofsted. Sometimes this was to their advantage, but I suspect on the whole it was probably not.
My concern is that while children should be able to get on and do their homework, we have allowed big tech to mark its own homework. The really appalling evidence that we have heard today underlines the urgency to get this Bill right.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, hit the nail on the head—he usually does—about the speed and complexity of the technology; it is just so fast. Most parents that I know certainly do their best to keep their children safe. It is a bit like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill; it just comes back down, because it is so much easier now for our children to be deceived, abused and bullied and to view the stuff of nightmares. When this includes pornography sites, which many others have talked about, with characters from children’s TV such as “Frozen” and “Scooby-Doo”, I do not think it is particularly dramatic to wonder what we have become as a society to allow this sort of thing to happen. I welcome the consensus that we have heard around the need to protect our children, although it tragically is too late for many. I am sorry that the process has dragged.
I will work across the House at Committee stage and beyond to make sure that the Bill is sufficiently stringent, that the scope is correct and that it is workable, because we cannot risk giving parents and young people false reassurance or weak new systems. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, was very clear on this and I share her concerns about app stores not being in scope.
Going back to pornography, I know my noble friend the Minister takes these things extremely seriously, but I do not see how anybody can feel reassured unless the Government commit to robust age verification, as set out by my noble friend Lord Bethell.
In the time I have left, I want to address cyber flashing. I am very glad the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, did so too. I completely agree that it should be based on consent. I felt weary having to have these sorts of conversations again: about victims having to somehow prove that they are not overreacting, or if it was a bit of a laugh then it does not really matter. It makes no difference to their experience. I do not want to be presumptuous, but I think there is cross-party impetus to ensure that the new offence is based on a principle of non-consent, and I hope the Government will be prepared to listen. This is no criticism of my noble friend the Minister, who is an excellent Minister with an excellent team at DCMS, but it seems to me that these issues have been left in the “too difficult” pile for far too long and we must not miss our chance now that it is here.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think anyone in this House would disagree with the idea that freedom of expression is a very precious freedom. We have only to look around the world to see that authoritarian Governments almost invariably go after free speech as one of the first things that they do. We know that media freedom is a vital part of any democracy, as indeed is the rule of law, but as the noble Lord, Lord Black and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, law has been pretty absent in this whole arena, even where it could have been used. I am glad that we are now addressing the complicated issue of regulating the internet and these platforms.
I do not want to see journalists’ privacy invaded so that their sources are exposed. I do not want any possible chilling effect on investigative journalism exposing corruption and abuse of power. It is vital to our democracy. However, we have to think very seriously about the kind of regulation that we have been discussing in this House, because it has been part of our tradition. Unlike the United States, we have not fetishised freedom of expression. We have seen that there have to be occasions when we restrict freedom of speech to protect people from serious harm. That is what this discussion today is really about and will be in the course of the Bill.
I declare that I am a trustee of 5Rights, which is the foundation created by the redoubtable noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. As a lawyer who is pretty well versed in the need for law, I have learned so much from her, and I believe that the major priority of this Bill has to be the protection of children. There are still gaps, and when the noble Baroness comes to put her amendments through, I will be there speaking in support of them. I hope that all noble Lords will come onboard, because those gaps definitely still exist.
I want to speak to your Lordships about women, because last year I chaired an inquiry in Scotland into misogyny. It was a very powerful experience to hear from women and women’s organisations about the extent to which women are abused on the internet. It was absolutely overwhelming that these were not only women in councils or parliaments, or women who were journalists or campaigners, but in schools and universities, women were being traduced and abused. Threats to rape, sodomise or sexually assault women, and to facially disfigure them with acid, would take place online and then you would find people piling in. The pile-on is something this House should know about. It is where, because of algorithms and because of people having followers, huge numbers of people then jump on the bandwagon and add their bit of insult and abuse to what has gone before. Or you get “likes”. I once saw a television documentary saying that the man who invented the thumbs-up “like” regrets it to this day because, of course, he now has children and knows how painful that can be. Also, that business of liking is telling women that there are hundreds and thousands of people out there who think that these things should be done to them.
I really regret to say that, of course, it is not policed. There are not prosecutions, or only very rarely, because of the cover of anonymity, which is problematic. We are going to have to discuss this during the course of this Bill because it gives a veil over those who do it. As well as the pile-on, one of the difficulties is—and I say this as a lawyer—the thresholds you have to pass for criminal prosecution. People have learned that you do not say, “I’m going to come and rape you”; they say, “Somebody should rape you. You deserve to be raped.” The message to women, therefore, is not, “I’m coming to get you”, but “Somebody out there just might”. It has an incredible effect on women.
We have to have that in mind when we come to Committee. We have to recognise the urgency, in relation to children particularly, but we also have to be alert to the ways in which women and girls are finding their lives made wretched. They are made fearful because of threats. Prosecutions and criminal prosecutions should be brought more regularly, because if there is anything that will stop this, it will be that. We have to be very vigilant about media freedom—I agree entirely—but we also have to make sure that we keep the Secretary of State out of this. I do not want to see politicians having their fingerprints on it, but the idea of a Joint Committee to monitor the way in which regulation takes place and to watch developments, because technological developments happen so quickly, is a good one.
We have to address algorithms. We heard from the Russell family that, even after Molly Russell had died, there on her technology she was receiving—it was being pushed at her—stuff about suicide, and the child was no longer alive. This is not about soliciting information; this is it being pushed in the direction of people. I urge this House, with all its usual great expertise, to make this Bill the best we can make it, certainly just now; but the priority first and foremost must be children.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, it is a huge honour to speak immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. She is one of my sheroes; she did not know that but she does now—and it will be recorded in Hansard. I declare my interest as CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK. Let me start by saying that the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, was heartfelt; I will support the amendments that she plans to put forward.
I will focus on four areas of concern: the abuse of women and girls; pornography; extremist and misogynistic content; and digitally altered body images. First, I share the concerns that have been raised many times today by noble Lords on the gaps in this Bill to tackle the online abuse and harassment of women and girls sufficiently. I therefore support the call from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to introduce a code of practice.
Secondly, on pornography, I strongly support the recommendations from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. I will also support any amendments that he plans to table. Inaction by successive Governments to tackle easy access to pornography by children has led to harmful sexual behaviour towards women and girls. This Government must go further to strengthen age verification. There is plenty of technology to do this. It can and should be implemented without delay.
Thirdly, there is a lack of accountability when it comes to publishing extremist and misogynistic online content. I am concerned that, according to the vague definition in the Bill, any online platform can call itself a recognised news publisher and then be exempt from complying with any requirement in the Bill. This will result in online platforms being free to promote harmful hate speech, including misogynistic content, and not having to remove it.
Finally, another urgent concern is the digital alteration of body images and sizes in advertising. Although boys are exposed to digitally altered images of men, girls are exposed to a far greater number of images of women that are highly manipulated and altered. Editing images of models involves taking inches off bodies and faces. The manipulation of images in this way is causing serious long-term harm, contributing to low self-esteem, anxiety, depression and self-harm and driving young people to cosmetic surgery. Given that advertisers are promoting an unattainable body size, this type of online communication is fraudulent and harmful; it therefore can and should be addressed in this Bill.
Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, raised concerns about disinformation and misleading material being widely available and causing harm. This is a prime example of that, but it is often overlooked. I know that Luke Evans has introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the other place; however, this Online Safety Bill provides a prime opportunity to tackle this issue now. I urge the Government to listen to the serious concerns being raised by many campaigners, including Suzanne Samaka, founder of the campaign #HonestyAboutEditing. Other countries, such as Israel, France and Norway, have already taken decisive action by legally requiring altered images to carry a label. The UK has been left behind the curve. How will advertisers be held accountable? Will the Government consider legally requiring advertisers to label digitally altered images? Can the Minister inform the House of any alternative plans to tackle this harmful practice by advertisers, such as introducing a code of practice?
There is a common thread in all the concerns that I have shared today: how the weaknesses in this Bill will have a disproportionately negative and harmful impact on the lives of women and girls. If this Government are serious about protecting women and girls from harm, they must take a more holistic, robust approach to their safety.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, finally, the long-awaited Online Safety Bill arrives. The noise preceding it has been deafening. It is noise that we should be proud of because it is the sound of a healthy democracy deliberating on some of the most crucial issues in our society; between privacy and security, sensitivity and freedom of speech, it goes to the integrity of our democracy.
These are not new issues at all, but the context is. Online safety is as broad as the landscape it inhabits, making this Bill of great complexity. I support it. Most of us in this Chamber grew up without the internet—something that our children find a total anathema. Now, it equates itself with something as common as the air we breathe. However, it is not as universally available, for access is controlled by a small number of tech companies that have for years declared themselves platforms and dodged responsibility for content. So a sort of terrifying social anarchy seems to have emerged, where no one is accountable or responsible for anything. This offers a free space for terrorists, easy access to pornography, hate speech and bullying. Social media is available 24/7, 365 days a year, which has driven some of our children to despair. We face growing concerns about how our democracy is being undermined and manipulated—about what is real and what is a Russian bot. Regulation was always coming, but the question is: what sort? We should always be mindful that we do not want the sort of highly censored internet we see in China.
How do we effectively regulate something like the net, which shifts like sand? I have a few points. First, I support the establishment of a duty of care for legal but harmful content for children. In my mind, censorship around only what constitutes legal content falls woefully short of creating the sort of nurturing and safe environment we strive to create elsewhere in society for our children, whether in family units, at school or within the wider community. It is said that it takes a village to bring up a child, but now that village is online. However, we must be transparent about how we do this.
That brings me to my second point: we must avoid censorship with no transparency—whether it is by a government or a tech company—for it is only transparency that guarantees accountability.
Next, I turn to the point about anonymity, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, also raised, among others. It is my belief that the assumption in favour of anonymity on the web encourages people to be the worst, not the best, version of themselves. It gives disguise to trolls and bullies, and allows no off button and no shame. I support steps to encourage platforms to verify users’ identity. I understand that there will be some who cannot, such as victims or dissidents, but they can be drawn to sites that are known to protect them. Then there are those who will not, who can seek less mainstream sites, which we, as users, can choose not to use.
Fourthly, we should be doing more to address the challenge of the health of our democracy and the quality of discourse that underpins it. The insidious power of algorithms is driving us to echo chambers and polarising debate. We have lost a sense of a common truth, and with it what forms a lie. This is especially concerning around election campaigns, where fraudulent advertising or disinformation may be difficult to judge and may sometimes come from foreign agents. And what of spending limits? We carefully constructed these through Electoral Commission rules, yet there is a free-for-all on the web. I believe there is more we should do to secure the integrity of the poll online.
Some of the smartest people in the world created the internet; there is no reason why they cannot fix some of its worse characteristics. This is the first of what will surely be many Bills about online safety and how we regulate the internet. While we must strive to protect, we must also be mindful of the boundaries between privacy and security, and freedom of speech and censorship. These are questions which have run for generations through our democracy and always will. We must understand and be honest with ourselves that, while this is a battle worth fighting, it is a battle we will never entirely win.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I speak in this Second Reading debate with little detailed knowledge of the digital world. I will probably be taking up my noble friend Lord Allan’s offer. I am not on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat; I have occasionally dabbled on Twitter. What I do have is 40-plus years’ experience as a teacher and head teacher. I have seen first-hand how children can have their lives turned upside down and how they have been physically and emotionally scarred by the effects of social media and the online world.
Yesterday, we heard from a study by the Children’s Commissioner for England how children as young as nine are being exposed to online pornography; how a quarter of 16 to 21 year-olds saw pornography while still at primary school; and how, by the age of 13, 50% had been exposed to it. You might say, “So what?” Do we want to hear that 79% of 18 to 21 year-olds have seen pornography involving sexual violence while they were still children? Do we want to hear that a 12 year- old boy had strangled a girl during a kiss because he thought that was normal? Do we want to hear that half of young people say girls expect sex to involve physical aggression? This all comes, by the way, from the Children’s Commissioner’s report.
The Online Safety Bill, as we have heard, has been a long time coming. The Government’s aim in introducing the Bill is to make Britain the best place in the world to set up and run a digital business, while simultaneously ensuring that Britain is the safest place in the world to be online. But does the Bill really achieve that for children? Childhood is about loving and learning. It is about innocence and enjoying the wonders of life. It is not about having that innocence and wonder shattered by some perverse online content.
My interest in this Bill is how we as a society can restore childhood to our children. The Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, must cite the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and General Comment 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. Citing this in the Bill would mean that regulated services would have regard to children’s existing rights. The limited scope of the Bill means that, as the 5Rights Foundation points out, children will still be exposed to harmful systems and processes, including blogs and websites that promote and encourage disordered eating, online games which promote violence, financial harms such as gambling, and parts of the metaverse which have yet to be developed. The Bill will not be future-proofed. Regulating only certain services means that online environments and services which are not yet built or developed are likely not to be subject to safety duties, which will quickly make the Bill out of date.
Turning to age verification, as a teacher it always worries me that children as young as seven or eight are on Facebook. In fact, 60% of UK children aged eight to 12 have a profile on at least one social media service. Almost half of children aged eight to 15 with a social media profile have a user age of 16 plus, and 32% of children aged eight to 17 have a user age of 18. Without age assurance, children cannot be given the protections needed to have an age-appropriate experience online. Some 90% of parents think that social media platforms should enforce minimum age requirements. We should do whatever we can to protect children from harm. The Bill will establish different types of content which could be harmful to children:
“primary priority content that is harmful to children … ‘priority content that is harmful to children’ and ‘content that is harmful to children’”.
I say that any content that is harmful to children should be dealt with.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has said, media literacy is hugely important to this Bill and should be included. Media literacy allows children to question the intent of media and protect themselves from negative impacts, be it fake news, media bias, mental health concerns or internet and media access. Media literacy helps children and young people safely consume the digital world. I was a bit disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, did not ask what a Liberal Government would do, but I can tell him that we would be dealing with this issue.
Yesterday, the Princess of Wales launched a campaign to highlight the importance of childhood. Children need to enjoy their childhood and grow up in a supportive, caring environment. They need good role models, not influencers. Children are very vulnerable, innocent and susceptible. We must do all in our power to ensure that online is a safe place for them, and to be able to say to the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that we did finally do something about it.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is clear from the last speech that we must do much more to protect impressionable young people from the torrent of racism, extremism and dangerous conspiracy theories online. Sites like Facebook and Twitter fuel division, anger and extremism, which can lead to threats and violence. Small sites like 4Chan, Odysee and Minds do not even have the third layer of the so-called triple shield. People are routinely targeted, intimidated, bullied and harassed, as we have heard in so many speeches during this debate. This has a terrible impact on public debate, let alone mental health.
Research by the Antisemitism Policy Trust revealed that there are two anti-Semitic tweets per year for every Jewish person in the UK. That report was before Elon Musk’s takeover relaxed the rules. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, women get it worse, with all sorts of disgusting abuse and even rape threats. Yet the Government have so far not accepted calls for an Ofcom code on violence against women and girls. Anyone of any age can set up a Twitter account with just an email address, giving them access to hardcore pornography. Future generations will be amazed that we allowed this lawless wild west to develop.
Sites like Twitter allow the repeated publication of completely false, defamatory and made-up images, making completely unfounded allegations of the most vile behaviour. It ignores complaints, and even when you to try to take them up and can show clearly how posts break its rules, it will not do anything about it. Twitter’s entire business model is based on fuelling argument, controversy and anger, which obviously leads to abuse and in some cases threats of violence. This can become addictive, leading to a terrible impact on people’s mental health.
People abroad are making billions out of poisoning public debate and making the mental health of vulnerable people worse. Imagine it: who would be allowed to set up a business to deliver anonymous hate mail about other members of the public through people’s front doors, which is essentially what Twitter is able to do? Why are we allowing billionaires abroad to decide what young people in the UK are subjected to, instead of Parliament, which is accountable to the public, setting rules that are properly understood?
You do not need to be paranoid to ask why hostile countries might use social media to undermine western societies with extremism and violent argument. This is not about limiting free speech or censorship—remember, these sites already curate what we see anyway—but implementing proper systems of age verification and holding the executives to account when they break the rules.
I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, about whether we really need anonymity on social media in the UK. Freedom of speech should not allow threats of violence or rape, or disgusting abuse. In any event, people have the freedom to say what they like, within the bounds of the law, but that does not mean they should not be held responsible for it. Nor is it true to say that this would affect whistleblowers in countries like ours. The people who make rape threats or publish violent abuse are not whistleblowers.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, said, the boundaries between newspapers, broadcasters and social media companies are becoming more blurred all the time. Twitter and the rest of them are clearly publishers. They should be held to account for the material on their sites, in the same way as newspapers.
We need to see small, high-harm platforms brought into the scope of category 1 platforms; the re-introduction of risk assessments for legal harms; and a reversal of the current fudge on anonymity, with at the very least fines for platforms that are unable to know who their customers are. We need to look again at the status of these companies as publishers. Finally, we need to see action on search engines, including Google, which largely escape any actions in this Bill.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, we are privileged to live in an age of internet technology, which gives us greater access to information and means of communication than at any point in human history. But to get the most out of this online world it must be safe and effectively regulated to counter harm and misinformation. I fully support the Bill. It is a good start, but it needs to be improved in a number of areas.
I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her tireless work in this area, and for educating and helping us to focus on some of the core and fundamental issues. I will underline some of the amendments she proposes that I intend to support.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill primarily focuses on user-to-user services and search engines, as defined in Part 2, but harmful content published on websites such as blogs falls outside the Bill’s scope. The noble Baroness’s amendment to include within the Bill’s scope any internet service likely to be accessed by a child is crucial. I strongly support it.
The Bill must also address business models that drive users to this content. As we know, this occurs through platforms, algorithms and push notifications, which amplify and perpetuate access to this content, as illustrated by the tragic death of Molly Russell. I support the noble Baroness’s amendment to Clause 10, which would ensure tough regulation in this area and assessments to tackle drivers of harm, including the design and features of the platform.
Furthermore, online safety should apply not just to children. The 2019 White Paper said that content that actively harmed any user should be tackled. It is deeply regrettable that the Government removed adult safety duties from the Bill, arguing that this would undermine free speech. On the contrary: online safety for all has the potential to enhance free speech, as people can engage on platforms without being exposed to harmful content. I urge the Government to reverse this decision.
The importance of balancing privacy online with the need for public safety is of course crucial. Encrypted messaging services such as Facebook Messenger or WhatsApp are right to keep private messages confidential, but the Government have argued that there are situations where law enforcement agencies must have access to messages on these platforms. Can the Minister explain how they intend to balance privacy and online safety with regard to encrypted messaging services?
Age-verification regimes need to be strengthened to ensure that children are not exposed to pornography. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, made a very powerful case for that, and I strongly support the amendment which he will bring forward. His proposed amendment, he said, would bring Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act into Part 5 of the Online Safety Bill. As he said, this offers a very neat solution to addressing the significant gap in the Bill, and would make the definition of pornography online consistent with regulation of content in the offline world. I also support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to Part 4, which would task Ofcom with producing statutory guidance for age assurance. I also support her amendment to Part 7, requiring platforms to provide a point of contact to bereaved families or coroners when they have reason to suspect that a regulated service holds relevant information on a child’s death, and an amendment requiring social media platforms to share information with coroners in cases like Molly Russell’s.
While this Bill is about the online safety of children, this is an opportunity to include online fraud provisions in legislation, which predominantly affect the elderly. We need a regime where law enforcement, financial services and tech platforms collaborate to reduce online fraud. Would the Government be willing to entertain an amendment that encouraged such collaboration, to ensure that user-to-user platforms and search engines are accountable for fraudulent advertising on their platforms?
The Government have signalled that they will put forward an amendment that will classify videos of people crossing the channel which show the activity in a positive light, which I of course support. Can the Minister assure the House that this amendment, intended to target those who encourage people smugglers, will not criminalise those who show sympathy online for asylum seekers?
Finally, civil liberties groups have described social media as a modern town square. To make sure that this town square is used positively, we need robust provisions for media literacy. A new media literacy duty in the draft Bill has been dropped; now it is mentioned only in the context of risk assessment, and there is no active requirement for internet companies to promote media literacy. There is a wide media literacy gap which leaves many at risk of harm. I agree with Full Fact that a stronger media literacy duty should be reinstated with Ofcom in this legislation to produce a statutory strategy.
Finally, this is a fast-changing area, as others have said. While we can improve this Bill, we cannot make it perfect. I therefore strongly urge that a commitment is given by the Government to subject this legislation to post-legislative scrutiny after three years.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, this debate has attracted a lot of attention: some 60 speakers, nearly all of whom have run over their time. I will just make one or two observations. First, it is a long time that we have been waiting for this Bill, so we had better make a good job of it, because I doubt that the Government will let legislation through again for a good five or six years. The second point—I pick up something that my noble friend Lord Inglewood said—is that we need more flexibility in the law. The speed at which the internet has developed is not appropriate for the procedures that we have. It is no good saying that you can have a Henry VIII power, give it to a Minister and then forget it; we need to devise a method of reviewing laws on a regular rolling basis, such as they have in the United States, because the law will be out of date whatever we do.
I am fully behind the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Bethell. I think that they are excellent amendments, and I look forward to us discussing them. We do not need to do that now.
I would add into the procedures that we need to give careful thought to the idea of anonymity on the internet. I am against it, personally. I am a member of the Conservative Home page and I am there as “Richard Balfe”. Some people are there with very odd names, such as “Brussels Hater” and other handles which do not reveal who they are. I notice that the more obscure the name is, the more violent the contribution is. We need to look very carefully at anonymity; the people who need to hide behind anonymity are probably not the sort of people that we, in considering this Bill, would see as the best people to do things.
My next point is about penalties. The penalties look fine—for example, 10% of world turnover—but of course these are not penalties on the firms; they are business expenses, and that is how they will be seen. I am not a great admirer of the American system but I will say one thing that came out of a visit I paid to Washington. I talked to legislators about how they enforced legislation—in this case it was against financial firms—and the Congressman I was speaking to said, “It is very simple: you imprison them”. He said that if a Bill has a possibility of imprisonment, it puts the fear of God into directors in a way that no fine, however big, does, because that is a business expense and can be planned for. We need to look carefully at whether there should a custodial element in the Bill for severe breaches. I think that would help to get it implemented. Otherwise, the danger I see is that we are in competition with lawyers based in Hollywood rather than with people based in London.
I look forward to the Bill passing; I hope we will do it carefully and considerately—I am sure we will—and take onboard the amendments of my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the other improvements which have been mentioned.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I want to focus primarily on the safeguarding of children. I support the general provisions and intent of this Bill; it is clearly going to be a very important tool in keeping children safe online.
While the internet has so many benefits, it exposes children to myriad harmful content, such as pornography and content promoting self-harm and suicide, as well as targeted abuse and grooming. Molly Russell’s name has become synonymous with the Bill, and it is important that we get this legislation right so that harms online, such as those Molly encountered, are not just reduced but eliminated. We need to make the online world as safe as it can be for our children.
We know that young children are able to sign up for accounts on social media platforms with little or no protection from the harms they face; they are able to freely access pornography without restriction. It is shocking that over 60% of children under 13 have accessed harmful content online by accident. To safeguard children and young people thoroughly, we need to ensure that the protections for children offline are mirrored online. I fully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said and I will be supporting him in the amendments he brings forward. I also support those that will be brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
In the offline sphere, under the Video Recordings Act, the British Board of Film Classification, for example, is responsible for classifying pornographic content to ensure that it is not only not illegal but meets established standards. None of these offline standards is applied online at all.
The online pornography industry has developed and evolved without any—never mind robust—regulatory oversight. But, given what is available online, much of which is illegal, oversight is greatly needed and overdue. The Bill provides the opportunity to put that right, and we must not miss this opportunity because, as we have heard, this may not return for some years.
Age verification was supposed to be implemented under the Digital Economy Act. As a result of the Government’s decision not to implement Part 3 of that Act, children have had unfettered access to pornographic content. Therefore, in my view, age verification needs to be implemented as swiftly as possible. A coalition of charities are proposing that Ofcom must prepare and issue a code of practice within four months of Royal Assent and that age verification should be implemented within six months. That is the very minimum that we should expect. We owe it to our children that they are not exposed to any more harm than they have been already.
Much of the debate in the other place on the issue of free speech focused on the Bill’s provisions to regulate what is legal but harmful. It is important that we ensure that the provisions of this Bill protect free speech, while at the same time protecting vulnerable people against deeply damaging material and content. The Bill now places a duty on user-to-user services
“to have particular regard to the importance of protecting users’ right to freedom of expression within the law”.
We need to examine the operation of this duty very carefully. The Bill must reflect the principle and the law must reflect the principle that whatever you can say offline on the street should be protected online. Large internet companies should not have the power to decide what is said and not said online. If a company removes speech that would be legal offline, it must be placed under an obligation to give reasons why that speech was removed and be held to the highest standard of accountability for removing it.
Social media companies are enormous cartels that dominate our culture. The Government, in bringing forward this Bill, have concluded that they cannot be trusted with users’ safety. They cannot be trusted to keep their platforms safe, and equally they should not be trusted with free speech. I want also to endorse those noble Lords and Baronesses who have called for action to be taken against the awful abuse and trolling of women and girls online, and particularly the use of anonymous accounts. This issue needs to be tackled, and I look forward to working with others in Committee to strengthen the Bill in all these safeguards.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, they say that there is no such thing as a free lunch. When it comes to the social media companies, that is certainly true. Google Search is free, as are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp, YouTube, TikTok and a host of other online services. All of them are great products, hugely popular and used by billions of people every day throughout the world. So it begs the question: why are they free? It is because the mass of data that the internet companies hoover up on their billions of users is a treasure trove. They collect data such as location, shopping, searches, medical records, employment, hobbies and opinions. It is said that Google alone has more than 7,000 data points on each one of us. In our innocence, we all thought that we were searching Google; little did we realise that Google was searching us.
What do they do with this hoard of data? They synthesise it through algorithms. They sell their results to advertisers. Traditionally advertisers spend huge amounts on newspapers, television and other media, struggling to target their markets. It was imprecise. Today, using the data provided by the social media companies, advertisers can personalise their message and pinpoint it accurately. It is hugely cost effective and it generates hundreds of billions in revenue. Data truly has become the new oil.
Of the five largest companies in the world by market value, four are big tech: Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet/Google and Amazon. Indeed, Apple alone has a market value equal to the combined value of all the companies on the FTSE 100 Index. Big tech is bigger than most countries. The big tech companies are richer than us, they move faster than we do, they are aggressive, they are litigious, they are accountable to no-one, they have enormous power, and they make their own rules. They employ the smartest people in the world, even including a previous Deputy Prime Minister of our country.
The Zuckerberg shilling can buy a lot of influence. Let us take a look at Facebook. Its platform has allowed the most unspeakable acts of violence, hate and perversion to go viral, pretty much unchecked. It says that it moderates content, but it is not enough, and usually too late. Now we learn that Mr Zuckerberg is spending $10 billion a year on developing his metaverse. Already we have read of examples of virtual reality sex orgies, and participation in gruesome violence, all viewed through a Meta headset, where the avatars are quasi-people and it becomes almost impossible to distinguish reality from fiction. Imagine where that is all going. Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower, had it right when she said that only profit motivates the company.
This is a landmark Bill. We have to get it right, and we have to make it tough, with no room for loopholes or ambiguities. I have tried to paint a picture of the participants. I have worked and been involved in the digital industry for over 50 years. I know the nature of the beast. They will fight to the last to preserve their business model. Do not underestimate them. These people are not our friends.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, several Peers have mentioned the Digital Economy Act 2017 and the sadness of the constitutional impropriety when the Executive refused to implement the will of Parliament. That really concerned me because, if it had been implemented, so many children would have been protected, for several years by now. We learned some useful things during its passage that could very much be applied in this Bill.
The first was on enforcement. This is always the big problem: how do you make them comply? One of the things that will work is the withdrawal of credit card facilities. If a Government or authority ask credit card companies to withdraw facilities from a company, they will, probably internationally. In fact, this happened not that long ago, a few months ago, to one of the big porn sites. It soon fell into line, so we know it works.
The other thing is that anonymous age verification is possible. At the time I chaired it, the British Standards Institution issued PAS 1296 on how to do it, and several companies implemented it. The website itself does not check; it is done by an external company to make sure that it is right. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has just explained exactly how it works. It was a very good explanation of the whole thing. About a year ago, they were intending to elevate it to an international standard because other countries wanted to use it. Certain European countries were very keen on it and are already implementing stuff.
The other thing that struck me is this: what is meant by “legal but harmful”? It is an expression that has sort of grown up, and I am not sure whether it means the same thing to everybody. In terms of pornography, which I and a lot of us are worried by, we do not want to be a modern Mary Whitehouse on the one hand, so you do not want to regulate for adults. But the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who worked on this, explained all the dangers very well, as did several others. It is not just that children get addicted; they also do not learn how to treat each other and get completely the wrong impression of what they should do. In fact, horrifyingly, I heard that throttling, for instance, is on the increase because it has apparently been appearing on porn sites recently. It does not take long to corrupt the next generation, and that is my real concern: we are destroying the future.
To future-proof it, because that is the other worry, I would suggest quite simply that access to any website, regardless of size, that has any pornography must have anonymous age verification. It is very simple. We may not want to prosecute the small ones or those that do not matter, but it allows us to adapt it to whoever is successful tomorrow—because today’s success may disappear tomorrow, and a new website may come up that may not fall within it.
The other thing I want to mention quickly is that anonymity is necessary because it is not illegal, for instance, for any of your Lordships’ House to go and access pornography, but it is severely career limiting if anyone gets to know about it—and that is the trouble. The same thing applies if you are a Muslim leader and wish to buy some alcohol online. That is why we need to have this. It is perfectly possible, it is out there and lots of companies can do it.
Finally, what is misinformation? It is really the opposite opinion of what you yourself think, and I think there are huge dangers in how we define that.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, like every noble Lord today I welcome the arrival of this Bill after such a long wait. Like many others, I will focus my remarks on pornography. Standing back and looking at what has shaped and is shaping our society, we cannot ignore the fact that never in the history of humankind have we been so deluged by pornography. Graphic sexual activity is accessed through the internet on the push of a button and is almost impossible not to stumble across.
What we have been missing up to recently is the data on what this deluge is doing to us all. We have heard a lot about the Children’s Commissioner and her report yesterday. Her research found that most young people have seen pornography on Twitter, Instagram or Snapchat. Moreover, online pornography is not the same as the blue magazines previously available only by reaching up to the top shelf of the newsagents for those who had the chutzpah in those days to do it.
The adult content accessible in our youth is, she says, “quaint” compared to today’s online pornography displays. Pouting page three-type nude stills have given way to video portrayals of degrading, sexually coercive, aggressive, violent, pain-inducing and exploitative acts being perpetrated particularly against teenage girls and, of course, younger children. The title of her report published this week—'A Lot of it is Actually Just Abuse’—says it all. She highlights the dangers of the normalisation of sexual violence and the template this provides for children’s understanding and expectations of sex and relationships.
Her stats are a litany of innocence despoiled. Half of children have seen pornography by age 13; some 10% by age nine and more than a quarter by age 11. Some 79% see violent pornography before age 18 and frequent users are more likely to engage, as we have heard, in physically aggressive sex acts.
While I am most concerned about the impact of pornography on children and young people, we cannot ignore its prolific use by adults. International studies show high frequency of pornography use is associated with poor semen quality and reproductive hormone quantity, as well as erectile dysfunction with flesh-and-blood partners. Meta analyses show pornography use is never positively associated with relationship quality.
So, while the Bill has been much strengthened, I will support noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who table amendments requiring that: first, all pornography websites and social media platforms implement third-party age verification; secondly, that there is a Bill-wide definition of pornographic content; thirdly, that online pornographic content is regulated in the same way as offline; and, fourthly, that all pornographic sites must ensure actors are genuinely over 18 so they are not facilitating child sex abuse.
To reiterate, the pornification of society is skewing our values and practices towards cruelty and selfish gratification in intimate relationships. It is undermining efforts to tackle abuse and violence, particularly against women and girls. Not bringing Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 into force was a dereliction of duty. I was involved at Report stage, and strong forces were clearly at work to preclude hampering adult access to pornography—even to material that would have been illegal offline. The priority then seemed to be securing adults’ continued access to violent, misogynist, racist and degrading material and protecting their privacy.
Almost six years on, my and others’ plea is that we strike a better balance: introduce an age-verification regime at the speed befitting this public and mental health emergency. Third-party providers can give adults the privacy they crave and children the protection to which they are entitled in a civilised society. For too long, we have bowed a knee to cyber libertarian ideology that says internet regulation is impossible, unworkable and unwanted. This Bill must take big, bold, well-evidenced steps to reverse the decades of harm this ideology has caused.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very thankful to be in this House to discuss this Bill. I know many Lords have commented on the Bill being rather late but, being a relatively new Peer, I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate—it is something I have been active on, in another place, for quite some time. So I congratulate the Minister on bringing the Bill to the House.
Everything that a person sees on social media is there as a result of a decision taken by the platform that runs it—a point very powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—and we have heard the tragic outworking of that for children in this debate. In an article in the Daily Telegraph on 13 December last year, it was reported that Meta knew it was prompting content harmful to teenagers—that was in an internal document leaked to CBS News. It suggested that Meta knew Instagram was pushing girls toward dangerous content.
I will not repeat the many valuable points that have been made on the safety of children—I support them all and will be supporting the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—but I want to make a number of further points, some of which are unfortunately born from personal experience, somewhat like those the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, made earlier. Women and girls are disproportionately affected by abuse online. While I do acknowledge the user empowerment duties in Clause 12 and the triple lock, I am concerned that the Government’s proposals do not go far enough to protect women and girls. They put an onus on individual users to protects themselves, and while the individual can choose to opt out, it does not protect millions of others from being able to see the content.
As well as fearing for vulnerable women and girls who see such content, I am concerned at the chill factor to women and girls getting involved in public life. Many potential political candidates have said to me that they could not go through what I endure online, and so they do not. That is not good for democracy and not good for encouraging women to come forward. Therefore, I support the proposal to produce a code of practice on violence against women and girls modelled on Carnegie UK’s previous work on hate speech, and that it should be introduced as an amendment to Clause 36. I thank Carnegie UK for its work, over a long period of time, on these issues.
Additionally, it has to be said that some of the trolling against politicians and people who speak out on issues is undoubtedly orchestrated. I hope that that level of orchestration by vicious online mobs—the pile-on that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to—can be looked into as well. I hope the Minister will be cognisant of that point.
I am pleased that anonymity has been raised in the Chamber this evening. The argument goes that if everyone had to be identified and verified online, this would prevent whistleblowers and others, such as the victims of violence, coming forward and speaking out, so they need anonymity. I understand that argument but, given that the majority of abuse and criminal activity comes from anonymous accounts, surely there could be a way to protect genuine free speech users from those who overstep the line and threaten violence. I believe this could be achieved by platforms holding the ID of users behind a firewall that could be breached only if there were reasonable grounds to suspect that a criminal offence had been committed. There are those who use anonymity as a cloak of protection from criminal law. That needs to be challenged. I recognise that this is a cross-jurisdictional issue. However, it is one we need to tackle in this House.
Finally, I support and endorse the amendments being brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on those under 18 accessing pornography, particularly on robust age verification and a clear definition of pornographic content. I commend the work of the noble Lord and the coalition of NGOs that have been working with him. I thank them for their clear papers on this issue.
I support the principle of the Bill, but we will have a lot of work to do to strengthen it. I look forward to taking part in that.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall attempt to be brief but, based on previous experience with other speakers, that may be difficult. At least it gives the Whip on the Front Bench the chance to do some agile body moves.
I welcome this overdue Bill. I think the Minister got it slightly wrong when he congratulated us on waiting patiently for it. Judging by every single contribution around the entire House today, patience has been rather wanting. We want to get on with it. Like many government Bills, this has grown like Topsy. It has grown sideways, downwards and upwards. We need to beware of going around in circles. Above all, we need to expedite this and get it on the statute book.
I will focus on three key areas. Unsurprisingly, the first will be children. Here I declare that I am a governor of Coram, the oldest children’s charity in the United Kingdom. I will certainly support amendments such as those that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was talking about to try to bring in proper age verification.
Like many other noble Lords, on Monday I had the privilege of sitting in on the briefing that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, arranged. Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, was present, together with one of her sisters. What we saw was truly shocking. In some ways it was particularly shocking to me because, as Ian shared some of his daughter’s diary—what she had actually written in the days and weeks before she died—I had a sudden jolt of recognition. What 14 year-old Molly was saying was almost identical to the transcript of the suicide note that my father wrote to my mother, which I have in my desk at home. It has the same self-loathing, the feeling of worthlessness and the belief—completely wrong—that you would better serve those you love and live with by departing from this life. My father was a Second World War veteran who had won the Military Cross. He was suffering from manic depression and was clearly in a depressed state, but I cannot even begin to imagine the effect it must have had on Molly to have the deluge of filthy, negative, awful, harmful content that she was deluged in 24 hours a day. Perversely, the more she looked at it, the more excited the algorithm got and the more she received.
Particularly disgraceful is that it took no less than five years for the family and their lawyer finally to get some of the platforms Molly had been watching to disgorge and show some of the content she had been viewing. Five years is wholly and utterly unacceptable.
I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about young people being involved. It would be a good idea for Ofcom in some way, shape or form to have access to young people advising it. I support in principle the idea of a Joint Committee of Parliament. Again, I think it would be very helpful to have young people advising that.
The second area is supporting the wonderful noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I declare quite openly that I am a Beebanite. I think there are quite a few of us in the House, and we will do everything we can to support the wonderful noble Baroness in everything she does.
Lastly, I come to the companies. I speak as somebody who was a head-hunter for 30 years. A large part of our business was in North America and—surprise, surprise—a lot of our most wonderful clients were some of these new tech giants. I know a lot because of that about what I would call the psychology of attraction and repulsion. I can tell the House that for many years, on going to a candidate and saying, “Would you like to join Facebook? Would you like to join one of these other companies?”, they would get pretty excited, because it is new technology, there is a lot of money, it is sexy, it is probably in California—what could be better?
We have to change the paradigm in which people look at potentially being employed by those companies. We have to create a frisson of fear and forethought that, if they do join forces with those companies, not only might their personal reputation suffer but the reputation of the company will suffer, shareholders will suffer, and those who provide services to that company, be they banks or lawyers, will also suffer. That is what we need to change. I will do everything I can, working with others who probably know rather more about this than I do, to concentrate on getting into the minds of those companies, which have huge resources, legal and financial, to resist whatever we do. We have to get inside their minds, find their weak points and go for the jugular.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
An offence in this Bill is an offence under the law of any part of the UK. There is a complex interplay between online safety, which is reserved, and devolved matters such as child and adult protection, education, justice and policing. I realise that the legislative differences between Scotland and England are quite topical. The offence, for example, protecting people with epilepsy does not cover Scotland as Scottish law already covers this behaviour, as is the case with the new cyberflashing offence.
However, the Bill does give Scottish Ministers the powers to amend regulations relating to priority offences in Part 2 of Schedule 6. I think government amendments in the other place mean that Scotland’s hate crime Act will not affect what people can and cannot say online in the rest of the UK, since it was passed by a devolved authority without the Government’s consent. But I believe a loophole remains whereby a future Government could simply approve that or any other law that has been passed in Holyrood, so Nicola Sturgeon could still become the content moderator for the whole of the UK. How should online providers therefore respond where there are differences in legislation across the four nations?
Access to data is clearly essential to ensure that the dynamic landscape of online harms is understood in the Scottish context. I am thinking of issues for rural and remote communities, how online platforms respond to sectarian content, or understanding the online experiences of people with drug or gambling addictions. Are there any differences across the UK? In terms of the transparency reports required by the Bill, will Ofcom be able to see that data in a nation-specific way?
Scotland has a thriving gaming industry, but it is unclear if there is industry awareness or involvement in this Bill and its implications for gaming platforms. I declare an interest as a board member of Creative Scotland. Will the Minister elaborate on what consultation there has been with gaming companies across the UK, including in Scotland?
The Bill rightly recognises that children are a vulnerable group, but has thought been given to the definition of a child throughout the United Kingdom, because in Scotland it varies. The 2014 Act includes all children up to the age of 18, but there are instances where someone aged 16 may legally be treated as an adult, and other circumstances where disabled or care-experienced children can be included in children’s services until their 26th birthday. As other noble Lords have mentioned, people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities or mental health issues, people in care, people with addictions and many more of all ages could be classed as being vulnerable online. What is the data on looking at online harms from purely an age perspective?
I note that there is an obligation to consult disabled people on decision-making, but should not all those within the CRPD definition of disabled be within the scope of the consultation requirements of the Bill? I would like to see the consultation duties under Clauses 36 and 69 strengthened. I also support calls from other noble Lords for requirements to be placed on providers to risk-assess their customer base, and to provide basic safety settings set to “on” by default.
However, I do welcome the Bill. It is, as others have said, a landmark piece of legislation. We will be far better off with it on the statute book than we are now, but I hope we can get some of the details right as it makes its way through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill to the House, late as it may be. Like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I know very little about the internet. I certainly know less about the sites we are talking about tonight, but I know that some of those sites are destroying our young people and poisoning their minds.
Age verification in terms of safety for children online was first debated in 2016. It is remarkable that a child who was eight years old when this proposal was first put forward will be an adult when the protections that they deserve will finally be in place. Many children will have been allowed to live through their formative years being exposed to untold harm online. A child who was eight in 2016 could be potentially in the grips of addiction by the time that age verification is made a legal requirement. This did not need to be the case. The harms suffered by many teenagers over the last seven or eight years could have been avoided. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, indicated, if the Government had only done what they were supposed to do and implemented age verification through Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act, children could have been protected.
According to research by DCMS, 80% of children aged six to 12 have viewed something harmful online, while over 50% of teenagers believe that they have accessed illegal content online. We cannot allow children to continue to be let down. We need to ensure that robust age verification is in place, but, more than that, we need to get it right. While the Bill is a step in the right direction, I think there is a lot more work to be done. This is an important Bill, but it is also important for this House to get it right.
First, we need to ensure that age verification on pornography sites will be brought in on this occasion. The Government cannot be allowed to sidestep this issue. A clear commencement clause needs to be placed into the Bill.
Secondly, we need to ensure that age verification is in place, not just for children accessing pornography; the age of those acting in content must also be verified. User-to-user pornography websites are simply a hotbed of illegal material and children surviving sexual abuse that need to be stopped by the Bill. If it includes clear age verification for those involved in the content, it will be a valuable tool in ensuring that children are not exploited online.
Thirdly, we need to move to protect women and girls from the effects of online pornography. Harmful pornography content promotes violence against women and girls. Evidence shows that excessive consumption of some legal pornography material can result in offenders viewing illegal child sexual abuse material. As increasingly extreme pornography becomes available on mainstream sites, the threshold of what is acceptable is very much lowered.
There is much to support in this legislation: it offers an opportunity to ensure that we can protect women and children. I look forward to working with others to ensure that we can deliver on these important protections.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s commitment to protecting children online, yet, like many noble Lords, I fear that it is not yet robust enough. I am extremely concerned about the current unfettered access that children have to online pornography—pornography that is violent, misogynistic, racist and deeply disturbing in its content. For example, analysis of videos recommended to first-time users on three of the most popular porn sites, Pornhub, Xvideos, and xHamster, found that one in every eight titles described sexual activities that constitutes sexual violence as defined by the WHO. In most cases, that violence is perpetrated against women, and, in those videos, the women respond to that violence either with pleasure or neutrality. Incest was the most frequent form of sexual violence recommended to users. The second most common category recommended was that of physical aggression and sexual assault. This is not the dark web, or some far corner of the internet; these are mainstream porn sites, and they are currently accessed every month by 1.4 million UK children.
Research released yesterday by the Children’s Commissioner states that the average age at which children first see pornography is 13. Accessing this brutal and degrading content has a devastating impact on their psychological, emotional, neurological and sexual well-being. I recommend a YouTube video called “Raised on Porn”, if noble Lords want to see the damage it can do. Boys grow up to believe that girls must enjoy violent sex acts, and girls are growing up to believe that they must enjoy painful and humiliating acts, such as anal sex and strangulation. Anecdotal evidence shows that the 5,000% increase in the number of girls going through puberty now wishing to identify as male is at least partly driven by seeing this vile porn and coming to the conclusion that they would rather not be women if that is what sex involves. Yet the Online Safety Bill does little to address this. While it includes regulations on age verification, pornography will not be defined as a primary priority content until secondary legislation. Furthermore, according to the Ofcom implementation road map, multiple consultations and processes also need to be undertaken. As we have heard from other noble Lords, it may not be until 2027 or 2028 before we see robust age verification. We cannot wait that long.
Mainstream porn consists of acutely hardcore content, which, although it does not meet the narrow definition of illegal content, is none the less extremely harmful, especially when viewed by children. Depictions of sexual coercion, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable women and children, the incest porn I have already mentioned, humiliation, punishment, torture and pain, and child sexual abuse are commonplace. In the offline world, that content would be prohibited under the British Board of Film Classification guidelines, yet it remains online with no provisions in the Bill to address the staggering gap between the online and offline worlds. That is despite the Government recognising in their own research that
“there is substantial evidence of an association between the use of pornography and harmful sexual attitudes and behaviours towards women.”
Amending the Bill to protect women and children need not be a difficult task. As many noble Lords have mentioned, provisions were made to address those issues in the Digital Economy Act, although they were not implemented. We must not make those mistakes again and allow the Bill to pass without ensuring robust protections for children and society at large.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill and the opportunity it presents, if it is strengthened, to address the many online harms which have been so eloquently outlined by colleagues around the Chamber. My starting point is ensuring that we do all we can to minimise the harms to those at risk of, or with, eating disorders. I declare an interest as the mother of a young adult daughter with anorexia, which is, as many noble Lords will know, the deadliest of any of the mental health diseases.
The evidence is clear of the harm that online content can do to people at risk of, or with, eating disorders and to exacerbate their conditions. Beat, the leading eating disorder charity, undertook research last year of 255 people with lived experience of eating disorders and their carers, which found that 91% of people with lived experience of eating disorders have encountered content which was harmful to their eating disorder condition. This includes sites that are innocuously called “pro-ana” and “pro-mia”, which encourage extreme starvation and extreme bulimic behaviours by people, and content for which there is no warning if you see an image or a video of body checking or of people being fed by naso-gastric tubes, as though that were something to be applauded.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, said, there are images which have been digitally enhanced to present pictures of people’s bodies that are completely unrealistic but are not labelled as digitally retouched—unlike in France, where the law states that those commercial images do have to be if digitally retouched. It was good that the celebrity influencer Kylie Jenner, who may not be known to all noble Lords in this place, was called out last week in the media for digitally editing pictures of her body on social media. That is the right thing to do and this Government should be doing more on that, including in the Bill.
It is not just that those images are out there. Other noble Lords have made the point that there are algorithms which constantly pump them at people. People with eating disorders feel bombarded by a constant stream of triggering images, content and advertising which feeds eating disorder behaviours and conditions. Obviously, you can recover from eating disorders; that is good news for those of us who know sufferers. But having talked to my daughter Rose about it, I know that what happens on TikTok is that your feed page—I think it is called a “for you” page—obviously is based on the content you have been looking at over the last period. It will suck you back down into an eating disorder, just when those people with mental disorders are trying to get out. For the reasons given so well by other noble Members, algorithms need to be touched on.
I fully support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said about the insufficiency of the protections for adults. I cannot get my daughter to put food in her mouth to nourish her; how on earth am I going to get her or other vulnerable people to opt out in a different way from the social media content which is harming them?
It was excellent that Vicky Ford promoted this issue in the other place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned. She had some suggestions about ensuring that eating disorders were treated on a par and that the obligations on social media companies applied regarding those disorders. I support that entirely and hope that I can work with other Members from around the House to ensure that we can shut that loophole down, so that people with eating disorders, and their carers, are given another tool in the fight against these vicious and deadly diseases.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, no Bill that we can devise now can ever offer a complete solution to every online risk while balancing all the competing priorities. But I welcome this Bill as a critical early step down a hard road, because it sets up an adaptive structure to respond to emerging technologies and needs. We heard the phrase “living legislation earlier”, and that expresses it very well.
I would like to offer three examples of what some of our future challenges in this space are going to be. The first is AI: given the sheer quantity of content and genuine difficulty of some decisions that have to be made about that content, no platform can make the delicate judgments at the huge speed and scale we are looking for without automated algorithmic solutions. That inevitably comes to mean AI overseeing our activity and, given the vast behaviour-modification capabilities of the large platforms, AI coming to modify our collective behaviour in ways we are unlikely to understand or control. However benignly intended, the results of such developments are far-reaching and unknowable.
Secondly, there is digital identity. We have heard some brilliant contributions about this and I think we can all agree that a cornerstone of dangerous behaviour online is anonymity. Age-verification checks are easily circumvented today and I wholly support, of course, the analysis and proposals of my noble friend Lord Bethell in this area. There is a broad principle here: that online behaviour should be guided by the same constraints as behaviour in real life. In my view, the only real way to bring that about is by requiring a digital identity for everyone. That is not to say that everybody has to identify themselves at all times, but they should be identifiable if the need arises and should criminal or dangerous behaviour take place.
Thirdly, and lastly, there is the issue of enforcement, particularly in Web 3.0. We can foresee the enforcement of compliance by well-known platforms led and owned by household names, but we are increasingly going to see more and more online services provided by much larger numbers of decentralised platforms, run by so- called DAOs—decentralised autonomous organisations. These are organisations without boards and managers; they do not necessarily have employees or even bank accounts. They are going to require very different levers of enforcement. Put simply, you cannot easily apply criminal sanctions with neither owners to arrest nor real assets to seize. I am pleased that the Minister and his team have already started thinking about these organisations, as discussed at the briefing that he kindly arranged last week.
Of course, worrying about these future problems in no way diminishes the very real challenges of the present, which have been covered so movingly in our debate today. However, none of the risks to online safety is going to get any easier to manage. The growth of malicious activity and extremism will be multiplied by the greater emotional intensity of the immersive experience that will be enabled by some of the virtual reality technologies that we are now starting to see come on to the market. With this Bill, we are making a bold and important start, which I welcome, but I fear that the harder part of our journey lies ahead of us.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, as a former journalist and online publisher, I welcome this Bill. It is imperfect, of course, but it is much needed, as can be seen by the deeply disturbing data around online media and its impact on the young and vulnerable.
I believe that the free-for-all nature of the digital age requires us to build far more rigorous layers of protection and regulation than ever before. I say this having benefited myself hugely as an entrepreneur both from freedom of expression and information and from the extraordinary reach of online media. However, in this digital era of business to consumer as well as consumer to consumer—whether via social media or user-generated content—we cannot let freedom of expression trump all else. Users need protection from not just unscrupulous organisations but each other.
This is about addressing damaging behaviour and unhealthy lifestyles that the digital world has engendered, especially among the young—and not just in the well-documented areas of online hate, abuse and bullying but around increasing obesity, falling levels of exercise, declining levels of academic performance and, some argue, lower economic productivity. The need for teaching media literacy could not be any more clear.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, pointed out, children come across pornography online from as young as the age of seven and more than 50% of 11 to 13 year-olds in the UK have accessed pornography. Even more staggering to me is that, by the age of 18, 79% of young people have been exposed to violent porn. Such exposure has contributed to surging increases in mental ill-health, child abuse, bullying, violence and sexual assault. The evidence is overwhelming—just read the research from the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, Parent Zone and many others.
This issue is so serious and widespread that, like the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and many others, I believe that, although it is well intentioned, the tightening regulation and guidance in Part 5 of the Bill do not go far enough. We must grasp the nettle and insist that all pornography sites, without exception, adopt robust, and ideally standardised, age-verification technology, as we have for online gambling. Given the nature of many of these sites, can we really trust them to abide by a new code of practice and expect Ofcom to enforce it effectively?
I accept that social media is a much more complex beast, but here too I believe the time has come for age verification. TikTok claims to have a minimum age requirement of 13, yet Ofcom reports that 42% of our eight to 12 year-olds are on that platform. Much of the content is unsuitable for children, but TikTok monetises traffic whatever your age. Elon Musk take note: more than 40% of young people in this country have accessed porn via Twitter.
The majority of our children and grandchildren are being exposed to a barrage of disturbing content at the most formative stages of their lives. They need protection. Yes, the implementation of mandatory AV will depress audiences and revenues. It will raise privacy issues and there will be loopholes. But in my view the social benefits far outweigh the costs.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an investor, adviser and entrepreneur in the technology industry, as set out in the register. I welcome the Bill, although it is big, complicated and difficult to understand. However, there is a real risk that we are regulating the past instead of thinking about the imminent threats of the future. I will focus on two very narrow issues.
First, as immersive environments—metaverses—become more and more popular, we have the issue of actions in these environments. This is not content, photos, videos and texts but actions. Anyone can buy a haptic glove and touch inappropriately a child in a metaverse. The child would not even know that he or she was being abused. In fact, you can buy a vest with 30 different sensors so that it feels real.
There is a whole community around age play, where adults play the role of children. This is happening right now. There are virtual reality brothels with child avatars. What if that avatar has the likeness of a real child? How much of a likeness is a likeness? What if it has the name of a real child?
This industry, particularly the immersive industry, needs guidance, and it has said that it does. I hope the Minister can elaborate on the guidance that will be provided to it. On this note, I express my support for my noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendment on mandatory age verification. The technology exists and it works. There is no reason why it should not be implemented.
Secondly, the Bill defines user-generated content very clearly, but it is completely silent on machine-generated content. What if an AI chatbot was to groom or abuse a child? Who is responsible: the owner of the dataset on which that AI has been trained or the server on which that data has been transmitted? I thought: why not ask a chatbot? I did. It said, “Yes, an AI bot can abuse a child but liability for abuse by AI bots is a complex issue.” So AI bots are already trying to get out of liability for future abuse. That is what the machines are telling us today.
There are a lot of great things in the Bill and I support it very much, but we cannot always play catch-up with technology. I hope the Minister will tell us how this guidance will be provided as it relates to emerging technologies.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow so many distinguished noble Lords, and in particular the speech of my noble friend Lord Sarfraz.
Our deliberation is ever more imperative, given the latest heightened and explicit concerns stated in the Children’s Commissioner’s report on young people and pornography. As a social worker, I have witnessed first hand the devastating aftermath and the lifelong impact of child sexual abuse and violence, long before children possessed the internet in their hands and pockets, and big tech companies used algorithms for content, evidently enticing children towards dangerous cycles of harm.
The backdrop of this Bill is the aim to make Britain a global leader for digital business while ensuring that it is the safest place online, and to navigate the balance between protecting consumers and stimulating innovation in a fast-moving digital world that can preserve safety and enhance freedom of speech without compromising one or the other. At a time of deepening and detrimental public services cuts, achieving best outcomes for the legislation will require considerable financial resources, impactful monitoring and skilled oversight. The Bill will address many of the anomalies and flaws that plague the current system and stop its preventing harms, as authoritatively detailed by my noble friend Lady Kidron. I salute her and acknowledge the presence of Mr Ian Russell. I too was horrified on hearing the briefing.
I welcome this opportunity to ensure that platforms are held accountable for their interactions with users, even chatbots. I also value innovations, emerging technologies and the right to freedom of expression, but, cognisant of the evident danger presented by many platforms, government cannot be the protector of profits to the detriment of young minds and lives. Big tech platforms have resisted remedies, including identity assurance and age verification. Therefore, I will definitely be supporting my noble friend Lady Kidron and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell—unless Government concede beforehand. I cannot support preserving anonymity as a shield of protection for any subscribers, content-makers and users. If we end anonymity, it will be a huge leap in monitoring harmful content and traceability.
As co-chair of the APPG on the metaverse and web 3.0, working with stakeholders in this space, I recognise the power of innovative technology as a force for good. At the same time, as a social worker, I want to scream out loud its threat. If we do not address the gravity of harmful content that normalises children viewing extreme material on violent pornography, diet, sexual exploitation, self-harm and revenge porn that shapes their young minds, we will have abdicated our role as protector of standards. Statistics from the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, Big Brother Watch and the Internet Watch Foundation, on unprecedented and worsening levels of online access to material on grooming, sexual abuse, self-harm, bulimia and millions of unfiltered pieces of content, make horrific reading.
Many NGOs are fearful that Ofcom is not fit to address these complex matters without incorporating children’s views into regulatory decision-making and, more importantly, to counterbalance the big tech lobbyists, their infinite resources and proficiency at skewing available data on child safety. I agree that Ofcom needs strengthening and must work with safeguarding experts to uphold standards, but it must also identify and respond to the evolving nature of harms across multidimensional interconnected platforms and a plethora of small, less well-moderated operators to ensure that children’s safety and voices are not drowned out by large tech companies whose business models are not predicated on protection and thorough risk assessment.
The APPG on the metaverse and web 3.0 wants to see children’s views prioritised, and we intend to incorporate them into our reports and programmes. Our partners are also considering the balance between safeguarding and the opportunity for increasing diversity within social media companies, recognising the historical disfranchisement and exclusion prevalent within the first wave of the social media revolution platforms. There is promise on the horizon from the newcomers —the smaller, emerging generation of conscientious organisations and companies that are proactive in engaging local communities, and inclusive in their approach. Widening participation will require institutions to consider workforce training in this sector.
Finally, the online safety Bill may not prevent all children accessing harmful content as this new virtual space becomes more sophisticated within the infinite metaverse and artificial intelligence space. We will need to respond smartly to this rapidly shifting national and international digital environment of emerging technology, placing the safety of children at the forefront of our consideration.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, no one who has heard Molly Russell’s story can be in any doubt about the need to better protect young people online, and I join others in paying tribute to her family for their tireless campaign.
As we have heard, vulnerability online does not evaporate on turning 18. Some adults will be at risk because mental illness, disability, autism, learning disabilities or even age leaves them unable to protect themselves from harm. Others will be vulnerable only at certain times, or in relation to specific issues. The “legal but harmful” provisions were not perfect, but stripping out adult safety duties—when, as the Minister himself said, three-quarters of adults are fearful of going online—is a backward step.
With category 1 services no longer required to assess risks to adults, it is hard to agree when the Minister says this will be
“a regulatory regime which has safety at its heart”.
Without risk assessments, how will platforms work out what they need to include in their terms and conditions? How will users make informed choices? How will the effectiveness of user empowerment tools be measured? Without the real-time information that risk assessments provide, how will the regulator stay on top of new risks, and advise the Secretary of State accordingly?
Instead, the Bill sets out duties for category 1 services to write and enforce their own terms and conditions—they will be “author, judge and jury”, to quote my noble friend Lady Kidron—and to provide tools that empower adult users to increase control over types of content listed at Clause 12. Harms arise and spread quickly online, yet this list is static, and it has significant gaps already. Harmful or false health content is missing, as are harms relating to body image, despite evidence linking body shaming to eating disorders, self-harm and suicide ideation. Smaller sites that target specific vulnerabilities, including suicide forums, would fall outside scope of these duties.
Describing this list as “content over which users may wish to increase control” is euphemism at its best. This is not content some might consider in poor taste, or a bit off-colour. This is content encouraging or promoting suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. It is content that is abusive or incites hate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, disability, sex, gender, sexual orientation and misogyny, which evidence connects directly to violence against women and girls.
And yet tools to hide this content will be off by default, meaning that people at the point of crisis, those seeking advice on self-harm or starvation, will need to find and activate those settings when they may well be in an affected mental state that leaves them unable to self-protect. The complexities of addiction and eating disorders disempower choice, undermining the very basis on which Clause 12 is built.
We heard it said today that all adults, given the tools, are capable of protecting themselves from online abuse and harm. This is just not true. Of course, many adults are fortunate to be able to do so, but as my noble and expert friends Lady Hollins and Lady Finlay explained, there are many adults who, for reasons of vulnerability or capacity, cannot do so. Requiring the tools to be on by default would protect adults at risk and cause no hardship whatever to those who are not: a rational adult will be as capable of finding the off button as the one that turns them on.
Last week, Ministers defended the current approach on the basis that failing to give all users equal access to all material constitutes a chilling effect on freedom of expression. It is surely more chilling that this Bill introduces a regime in which content promoting suicide, self-harm, or racist and misogynistic abuse is deemed acceptable, and is openly available, harming some but influencing many, as long as the platform in question gives users an option to turn it off. This cannot be right, and I very much hope Ministers will go back and reconsider.
When the Government committed to making the UK the safest place in the world to be online, I find it hard to believe that this is the environment that they had in mind.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is hard to think of something new to say at the end of such a long debate, but I am going to try. I am helped by the fact that I find myself, very unusually, somewhat out of harmony with the temper of the debate in your Lordships’ House over the course of this afternoon and evening. I rather felt at some points that I had wandered into a conference of medieval clerics trying to work out what measures to take to mitigate the harmful effects of the invention of moveable type.
In fact, it probably does require an almost religious level of faith to believe that the measures we are discussing are actually going to work, given what my noble friends Lord Camrose and Lord Sarfraz have said about the agility of the cyber world and the avidity of its users for content. Now, we all want to protect children, and if what had come forward had been a Bill which made it a criminal offence to display or allow to be displayed to children specified harmful content—with condign punishment—we would all, I am sure, have rallied around that and rejoiced. That is how we would have dealt with this 50 years ago. But instead we have this; this is not a short Bill doing that.
Let me make three brief points about the Bill in the time we have available. The first is a general one about public administration. We seem to be wedded to the notion that the way in which we should be running large parts of the life of the country is through regulators rather than law, and that the independence of those regulators must be sacrosanct. In a different part of your Lordships’ House, there has been discussion in the last few days of the Financial Services and Markets Bill in Committee. There, of course, we have been discussing the systemic failures of regulators—that is, the box ticking, the legalism, the regulatory capture and the emergence of the interests of the regulator and how they motivate them. None the less, we carry on giving more and more powers. Ofcom is going to be one of the largest regulators and one of the most important in our lives, and it is going to be wholly unaccountable. We are not going to be happy about that.
The second point I want to make is that the Bill represents a serious threat to freedom of speech. This is not contentious; the Front Bench admits it. The Minister says that it is going to strike the right balance. I have seen very little evidence in the Bill, or indeed in the course of the day’s debate, that that balance is going to be struck at all, let alone in what I might consider the right place—and what I might consider the right place might not be what others consider it to be. These are highly contentious issues; we will be hiving them off to an unaccountable regulator, in effect, at the end.
The third point that I want to make, because I think that I am possibly going to come in under my four minutes, is that I did vote Conservative at the last general election; I always have. But that does not mean that I subscribe to every jot and tittle of the manifesto; in particular, I do not think that I ever signed up to live in a country that was the safest place in the world to be on the internet. If I had, I would have moved to China already, where nothing is ever out of place on the internet. That is all I have to say, and I shall be supporting amendments that move in the general direction that I have indicated.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I also welcome this belated Bill, particularly its protections for children. All of us, I think, very sadly over the last number of years, have witnessed the outcome of inquiries into a litany of horrific crimes against children, through decades of historic institutional abuse. That abuse, sadly, was facilitated by inaction. That might have been motivated by ignorance and complacency rather than by being complicit, but nevertheless society as a whole let down those generations of children. We must make sure that history does not repeat itself.
I am the first to admit that the internet can be a great tool for value. We saw during the recent pandemic, for example, the contribution that the internet was able to make to education, in a way that would have been inconceivable a decade ago. But there is also no doubt that there is a very negative side to the internet, through body-shaming, trolling, misogyny, anti-Semitism, racism and incitement to violence—among many other things—and most particularly, the damage that occurs to our young people and the tragic loss of life in cases such as Molly Russell and others. That is why I particularly support the amendments that will be brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.
We know that early exposure to pornography, particularly violent pornography, leads to degrading and destructive attitudes and actions, especially towards women, as has been highlighted by the Government themselves in their reports on violence against women and girls. Therefore, we must take definitive action to be able to counteract that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has indicated, there are three particular areas on which we have to intervene when it comes to amendments. First, we need robust age verification, both for users and—as has been highlighted by a previous speaker—for those involved in the porn industry itself and are producing it. We know that the porn industry, and many within it, are not exactly protective of those whom they employ, and we must make sure that everything is done to protect everyone who is underage.
Secondly, I believe that, in regulations, we need to have what is clear and consistent: consistent in a single definition of pornography; consistent that what is illegal offline is mirrored by what is illegal online; and consistent in ensuring that high standards apply across all platforms. I join with a number of speakers today who have been highly critical of large, conglomerate tech companies and the approach that they take, but that should not blind us to the fact that some of the vilest imagery, some of the vilest abuse and some of the vilest actions happen on small platforms as well. We must make sure that we hold all platforms equally to a high standard.
Thirdly, we must ensure, particularly in terms of age verification, that we see swift and early implementation. I agree that, in terms of the detail of regulation, Ofcom is best placed to be able to deliver that. However, we also know that the full package of regulations that Ofcom will produce might be three, four or five years away. We cannot allow that level of destruction to take place in the meantime. That means, particularly in regard to age verification, that we need to see that early and swift intervention.
In conclusion, I think we have a good Bill, but it could be a better Bill. Collectively, we must ensure that it is the best Bill that is possible, so that we do not face a situation in which, for families and for children—either of the current generation or of future ones—we let them down in the way that the previous generations have been let down.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, it has been well observed that the social media companies and YouTube are now the public square—only, of course, they are not public at all but privately owned companies whose primary concern is to earn profits for their shareholders in the normal way. Against this, the reality is that we have effectively outsourced our censorship to Silicon Valley AI bots, and, faced with the prospect of enormous fines for breaching the new laws, these private companies are going to programme the AI bots on the side of caution. The bots, after all, have no way of knowing the legal cut-off point of mature teenagers and immature adults, and, of course, the censoring bot has no sense of irony or satire or parody or context.
The threat to free speech will therefore now come from two sources. First, as we have seen from the Twitter files, from Big Brother Watch’s Ministry of Truth report and from Matt Hancock’s diaries, Governments covertly lean on the platforms to suppress dissent from the official line. Secondly, the threat will come from these private companies instructing the bots not to go anywhere near anything that might upset the Governments. In this sense, both have crossed the line between attacking disinformation and attacking dissent, and the ability to express dissent is at the core of freedom of speech. We therefore now have the reality of big government and big tech working together to suppress freedom of expression.
I am looking forward to initiating or supporting any amendments that will check the power of government or big tech to shut down legitimate questioning voices, which, from the Great Barrington declaration to the Wuhan lab-leak theory to the ineffectiveness of masks to the collateral damage caused by the lockdowns, over and over again have often proved to be closer to the truth than the official government line at the time.
I would like to use the few moments left to support resistance to restricting end-to-end encryption, to support the initiatives of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on age verification, and to follow the lead of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on child safety initiatives.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction and his considerable engagement on the Bill to date. This has been a comprehensive, heartfelt and moving debate, with a great deal of cross-party agreement about how we must regulate social media going forward. With 66 speakers, however, I sadly will not be able to mention many significant contributors by name.
It has been a long and winding road to get to this point, as noble Lords have pointed out. As the Minister pointed out, along with a number of other noble Lords today, I sat on the Joint Committee which reported as far back as December 2021. I share the disappointment of many that we are not further along with the Bill. It is still a huge matter of regret that the Government chose not to implement Part 3 of the DEA in 2019. Not only, as mentioned by many, have we had a cavalcade of five Culture Secretaries, we have diverged a long way from the 2019 White Paper with its concept of the overarching duty of care. I share the regret that the Government have chosen to inflict last-minute radical surgery on the Bill to satisfy the, in my view, unjustified concerns of a very small number in their own party.
Ian Russell—I pay tribute to him, like other noble Lords—and the Samaritans are right that this is a major watering down of the Bill. Mr Russell showed us just this week how Molly had received thousands and thousands of posts, driven at her by the tech firms’ algorithms, which were harmful but would still be classed as legal. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, graphically described some of that material. As he said, if the regulator does not have powers around that content, there will be more tragedies like Molly’s.
The case for proper regulation of harms on social media was made eloquently to us in the Joint Committee by Ian and by witnesses such Edleen John of the FA and Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower. The introduction to our report makes it clear that the key issue is the business model of the platforms, as described by the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Mitchell, and the behaviour of their algorithms, which personalise and can amplify harmful content. A long line of reports by Select Committees and all-party groups have rightly concluded that regulation is absolutely necessary given the failure of the platforms even today to address these systemic issues. I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett; being a digital native is absolutely no protection—if indeed there is such a thing as a digital native.
We will be examining the Bill and amendments proposed to it in a cross-party spirit of constructive criticism on these Benches. I hope the Government will respond likewise. The tests we will apply include: effective protections for children and vulnerable adults; transparency of systems and power for Ofcom to get to grips with the algorithms underlying them; that regulation is practical and privacy protecting; that online behaviour is treated on all fours with offline; and that there is a limitation of powers of the Secretary of State. We recognise the theme which has come through very strongly today: the importance of media literacy.
Given that there is, as a result of the changes to the Bill, increased emphasis on illegal content, we welcome the new offences, recommended in the main by the Law Commission, such as hate and communication crimes. We welcome Zach’s law, against sending flashing images or “epilepsy trolling”, as it is called, campaigned for by the Epilepsy Society, which is now in Clause 164 of the Bill. We welcome too the proposal to make an offence of encouraging self-harm. I hope that more is to come along the lines requested by my noble friend Lady Parminter.
There are many other forms of behaviour which are not and will not be illegal, and which may, according to terms of service, be entirely legal, but are in fact harmful. The terms of service of a platform acquire great importance as a result of these changes. Without “legal but harmful” regulation, platforms’ terms of service may not reflect the risks to adults on that service, and I was delighted to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, had to say on this. That is why there must be a duty on platforms to undertake and publish risk and impact assessments on the outcomes of their terms of service and the use of their user empowerment tools, so that Ofcom can clearly evaluate the impact of their design and insist on changes or adherence to terms of service, issue revised codes or argue for more powers as necessary, for all the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and my noble friend Lady Parminter.
The provisions around user empowerment tools have now become of the utmost importance as a result of these changes. However, as Carnegie, the Antisemitism Policy Trust, and many noble Lords today have said, these should be on by default to protect those suffering from poor mental health or who might lack faculty to turn them on.
Time is short today, so I can give only a snapshot of where else we on these Benches—and those on others, I hope—will be focusing in Committee. The current wording around “content of democratic importance” and “journalistic content” creates a lack of clarity for moderation processes. As recommended by the Joint Committee, these definitions should be replaced with a single statutory requirement to protect content where there are reasonable grounds to believe it will be in the public interest, as supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
There has been a considerable amount of focus on children today, and there are a number of amendments that have clearly gained a huge amount of support around the House, and from the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety. They were so well articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will not adumbrate them, but they include that children’s harms should be specified in the Bill, that we should include reference to the UN convention, and that there should be provisions to prevent online grooming. Particularly in the light of what we heard this week, we absolutely support those campaigning to ensure that the Bill provides for coroners to have access to children’s social media accounts after their deaths. We want to see Minister Scully’s promise to look at this translate into a firm government amendment.
We also need to expressly future-proof the Bill. It is not at all clear whether the Bill will be adequate to regulate and keep safe children in the metaverse. One has only to read the recent Institution of Engineering and Technology report, Safeguarding the Metaverse, and the report of the online CSA covert intelligence team, to realise that it is a real problem. We really need to make sure that we get the Bill right from this point of view.
As far as pornography is concerned, if we needed any more convincing of the issues surrounding children’s access to pornography, the recent research by the Children’s Commissioner, mentioned by several noble Lords, is the absolute clincher. It underlines the importance of the concerns of the coalition of charities, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and many other speakers today, who believe that the Online Safety Bill does not go far enough to prevent children accessing harmful pornographic content. We look forward to debating those amendments when they are put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.
We need to move swiftly on Part 5 in particular. The call to have a clear time limit to bring it in within six months of the Bill becoming law is an absolutely reasonable and essential demand.
We need to enshrine age-assurance principles in the Bill. The Minister is very well aware of issues relating to the Secretary of State’s powers. They have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, and we need to get them right. Some can be mitigated by further and better parliamentary scrutiny, but many should simply be omitted from the Bill.
As has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, there is huge regret around media literacy. We need to ensure that there is a whole-of-government approach to media literacy, with specific objectives set for not only Ofcom but the Government itself. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will be talking about an independent ombudsman.
End-to-end encryption has also come up; of course, that needs protecting. Clause 110 on the requirement by Ofcom to use accredited technology could lead to a requirement for continual surveillance. We need to correct that as well.
There is a lot in the Bill. We need to debate and tackle the issue of misinformation in due course, but this may not be the Bill for it. There are issues around what we know about the solutions to misinformation and disinformation and the operation of algorithmic amplification.
The code for violence against women and girls has been mentioned. I look forward to debating that and making sure that Ofcom has the power and the duty to produce a code which will protect women and girls against that kind of abuse online. We will no doubt consider criminal sanctions against senior managers as well. A Joint Committee, modelled on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to ensure that the Bill is future-proofed along the lines that the noble Lords, Lord Inglewood and Lord Balfe, talked about is highly desirable.
The Minister was very clear in his opening remarks about what amendments he intends to table in Committee. I hope that he has others under consideration and that he will be in listening mode with regard to the changes that the House has said it wants to see today. Subject to getting the Bill in the right shape, these Benches are very keen to see early implementation of its provisions. I hope that the Ofcom implementation road map will be revised, and that the Minister can say something about that. It is clearly the desire of noble Lords all around the House to improve the Bill, but we also want to see it safely through the House so that the long-delayed implementation can start.
This Bill is almost certainly not going to be the last word on the subject, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, very clearly said at the beginning of this debate, but it is a vital start. I am glad to say that today we have started in a very effective way.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I start by apologising for having absented myself during part of the debate. I promise those noble Lords whose speeches I missed that I will read them very carefully. The reason is slightly self-serving: I decided to tear up my speech, for two reasons. First, I suddenly realised that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, being the brilliant lawyer he has been and still is, would probably say everything I was going to say but better—and indeed that has proved to be the case. There is not much point in me boring noble Lords by trying to repeat what he said. The list of items I had is almost exactly identical. I did not give it to him, but we had an exchange of views before the debate, so I was not surprised by that. I will come on to that point.
Secondly, I want to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who challenged me in my very junior position as an acting Front-Bencher to commit the Labour Government to a future policy on media education. I am sure the noble Lord opposite will not out-trump me on this one, but I cannot do that. I will, however, get back at him, because I will say that the BBC has never been in better shape than when he was the PR person operating at the front of it. In fact, I do not think it has recovered since he left, so there you are. I think that what he said was quite important.
One of the big, strange things about media education—in fact, this is true of most education policy—is that it is very hard to get changes in the education system. That is partly because it is now so disparate and uncoordinated in many ways, through policy, that you cannot say that there is a core curriculum, or that it will include media education and that that will be examined on the following days, as they might do in other countries such as France. The Government should think very hard about how they might take forward the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. My answer is that you have to examine media education or assess it in some way, otherwise schools will not care about it. This is really a question for Ofsted, not Ofcom. In a sense, the Government have got it right there, but if we could put some pressure on Ofsted to include in its assessment of all schools—indeed, all education at that level—some form of ability to assess whether media education is meeting the needs of Ofcom or the needs of society, we might make some progress. Let us work on that together.
I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. That was a wonderful experience and has been mentioned by others. I am also a former member of the Communications and Digital Committee. I should also drop in that I am veteran of the Digital Economy Act—much mentioned today—so I have been there, got the scars and am aware of the issues very clearly.
The second reason why I wanted to tear up my speech was that it seemed to me that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, there has been an extraordinary amount of agreement on the issues facing the House in trying to get this Bill right. They are not fuelled in any sense by party-political points, because we have no political issue in this, and I do not think the Liberal Democrats or Cross Benches have. We are talking about an issue that we want to do together. I will come back at the end with a proposal, which I think is slightly novel, for how we might take advantage of that. I do not think we want to get ourselves into a situation of antagonism—firing amendments across the Dispatch Box during Committee —because we are broadly agreed about where we want to go. Yes, there are difference of detail, but we have to think about it. I want to come back to that as an issue—and that was what I was doing while I was away.
I want to go back to the introduction to the Joint Committee report, as I would have done in my original speech, because it says so much about what we have been doing in the last two or three years. Self-regulation of online services had failed. While the online world has revolutionised our lives and created many benefits, underlying systems designed to service business models based on data harvesting and micro-targeted advertising shape the way we experience it. Algorithms, invisible to the public, decide what we see, hear and experience. For some service providers, this means valuing the engagement of users at all cost, regardless of what holds their attention. This can result in amplifying the false over the true, the extreme over the considered, and the harmful over the benign. The human cost can be counted in mass murders in Myanmar, intensive care beds full of unvaccinated Covid-19 patients, insurrection at the US Capitol, and teenagers sent down rabbit holes of content promoting self-harm, eating disorders and suicide. As we have learned, we do not just mean teenagers—there are others involved in that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others have reminded us, too many children have suffered from infractions of this type. I pay tribute, again, to Ian Russell—who is still with us—for his campaign and for his extraordinary willingness to share his story. We all owe him a great debt.
These points, already made in other speeches, are important; they are at the heart of what this is about. This is about finding a way of organising what we all value, want and need, in a way that will allow us to get the benefits from it without paying the price that we already are. This debate, in the best traditions of this House, has brought a lot of views to bear on this, but, as I have tried to explain, it seems to me that a lot of them are very similar. There are differences and one or two outliers, but the points made broadly point in one direction: that the Bill is nearly there. It needs a little work and a bit of polishing and it will get over the finishing line.
The Bill needs to be in its best shape—there is no doubt about that—but we could identify alongside it the other issues that we will need to return to in future. We should not worry about that; I think we have all agreed that there will be other opportunities to do so. As we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and others, there are other elements that also need to go ahead, and we should be thinking harder about them—the DMU and the need for competition in this whole area. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, gave a very good summary of all the issues; I will not run through them again because it was exactly what I would have said myself.
We are in a very strange situation. There is no political divide and we all want the same things: we want the Bill improved and we want to see it pass as soon as possible. I am assuming that the Government will work with us on that—that is an assumption, because that is not the normal way it goes. I am assuming also that they recognise that there are one or two quite sensible compromises to be made—again, that is not a given, but I am getting a few nods that suggest that it might be the case. From this side, I cannot think of any issue that I have heard today, or in any of the discussions we have had recently about this Bill—and they have gone on for a number of years—that we would push to ping-pong. That is very unusual.
I suggest that we try to work together on getting the best Bill we can—while, of course, going through the various stages, because these things all eventually have to go back into the Bill—avoiding the war of attrition approach that so often bedevils the work we do here. Such an approach is important when there are big political issues at stake, but there are not, so let us use that and try to move forward. I would like to get together quite quickly and identify the policies we can move on together, and to take a route forward which will minimise the votes and the dissent and yet deliver the Bill, let us hope, by Report. That is a big ask; I do not think it has been done, except during wartime. But we are at war—at war with these people who are trying to run our lives, and we should try to get together and defeat them. It is unusual, but we live in unusual times. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the very many noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon and this evening. They have spoken with passion—we heard that in the voices of so many—about their own experiences, the experiences of their families and the experiences of far too many of our fellow subjects, who have harrowing examples of the need for this Bill. But noble Lords have also spoken with cool-headed precision and forensic care about the aspects of the Bill that demand our careful scrutiny. Both hearts and heads are needed to make this Bill worth the wait.
I am very grateful for the strong consensus that has come through in noble Lords’ speeches on the need to make this Bill law and to do so quickly, and therefore to do our work of scrutiny diligently and speedily. I am grateful for the very generous and public-spirited offer the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has just issued. I, too, would like to make this not a party-political matter; it is not and has not been in the speeches we have heard today. The work of your Lordships’ House is to consider these matters in detail and without party politics intruding, and it would be very good if we could proceed on the basis of collaboration, co-operation and, on occasion, compromise.
In that spirit, I should say at the outset that I share the challenge faced by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson. Given that so many speakers have chosen to contribute, I will not be able to cover or acknowledge everyone who has spoken. I shall undoubtedly have to write on many of the issues to provide the technical detail that the matters they have raised deserve. It is my intention to write to noble Lords and invite them to join a series of meetings to look in depth at some of the themes and areas between now and Committee, so that as a group we can have well-informed discussions in Committee. I shall write with details suggesting some of those themes, and if noble Lords feel that I have missed any, or particular areas they would like to continue to talk about, please let me know and I will be happy to facilitate those.
I want to touch on a few of the issues raised today. I shall not repeat some of the points I made in my opening speech, given the hour. Many noble Lords raised the very troubling issue of children accessing pornography online, and I want to talk about that initially. The Government share the concerns raised about the lack of protections for children from this harmful and deeply unsuitable content. That is why the Bill introduces world-leading protections for children from online pornography. The Bill will cover all online sites offering pornography, including commercial pornography sites, social media, video-sharing platforms and fora, as well as search engines, which play a significant role in enabling children to access harmful and age-inappropriate content online. These companies will have to prevent children accessing pornography or face huge fines. To ensure that children are protected from this content, companies will need to put in place measures such as age verification, or demonstrate that the approach they are taking delivers the same level of protection for children.
While the Bill does not mandate that companies use specific technologies to comply with these new duties, in order to ensure that the Bill is properly future-proofed, we expect Ofcom to take a robust approach to sites which pose the highest risk of harm to children, including sites hosting online pornography. That may include directing the use of age verification technologies. Age verification is also referred to in the Bill. This is to make clear that these are measures that the Government expect to be used for complying with the duties under Part 3 and Part 5 to protect children from online pornography. Our intention is to have the regime operational as soon as possible after Royal Assent, while ensuring that the necessary preparations are completed effectively and that service providers understand what is expected of them. We are working very closely with Ofcom to ensure this.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and others asked about putting age verification in the Bill more clearly, as was the case with the Digital Economy Act. The Online Safety Bill includes references to age assurance and age verification in the way I have just set out. That is to make clear that these are measures which the Government expect to be used for complying with the duties where proportionate to do so. While age assurance and age verification are referred to in the Bill, the Government do not mandate the use of specific approaches or technologies. That is similar to the approach taken in the Digital Economy Act, which did not mandate the use of a particular technology either.
I think my noble friend Lord Bethell prefers the definition of pornography in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. There is already a robust definition of “pornographic content” in this Bill which is more straightforward for providers and Ofcom to apply. That is important. The definition we have used is similar to the definition of pornographic content used in existing legislation such as the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It is also in line with the approach being taken by Ofcom to regulate UK-established video-sharing platforms, meaning that the industry will already have familiarity with this definition and that Ofcom will already have experience in regulating content which meets this definition. That means it can take action more swiftly. However, I have heard the very large number of noble Lords who are inclined to support the work that my noble friend is doing in the amendments he has proposed. I am grateful for the time he has already dedicated to conversations with the Secretary of State and me on this and look forward to discussing it in more detail with him between now and Committee.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, talked about algorithms. All platforms will need to undertake risk assessments for illegal content. Services likely to be accessed by children will need to undertake a children’s risk assessment to ensure they understand the risks associated with their services. That includes taking into account in particular the risk of algorithms used by their service. In addition, the Bill includes powers to ensure that Ofcom is able effectively to assess whether companies are fulfilling their regulatory requirements, including in relation to the operating of their algorithms. Ofcom will have the power to require information from companies about the operation of their algorithms and the power to investigate non-compliance as well as the power to interview employees. It will have the power to require regulated service providers to undergo a skilled persons report and to audit company systems and processes, including in relation to their algorithms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly received many tributes for her years of work in relation to so many aspects of this Bill. She pressed me on bereaved parents’ access to data and, as she knows, it is a complex issue. I am very grateful to her for the time she has given to the meetings that the Secretary of State and I have had with her and with colleagues from the Ministry of Justice on this issue, which we continue to look at very carefully. We acknowledge the distress that some parents have indeed experienced in situations such as this and we will continue to work with her and the Ministry of Justice very carefully to assess this matter, mindful of its complexities which, of course, were something the Joint Committee grappled with as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, my noble friend Lady Wyld and others focused on the new cyberflashing offence and suggested that a consent-based approach would be preferable. The Law Commission looked at that in drawing up its proposals for action in this area. The Law Commission’s report raised concerns about the nature of consent in instant messaging conversations, particularly where there are misjudged attempts at humour or intimacy that could particularly affect young people. There is a risk, which we will want to explore in Committee, of overcriminalising young people. That is why the Government have brought forward proposals based on the Law Commission’s work. If noble Lords are finding it difficult to see the Law Commission’s reports, I am very happy to draw them to their attention so that they can benefit from the consultation and thought it conducted on this difficult issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, talked about the impact on body image of edited images in advertising. Through its work on the online advertising programme, DCMS is considering how the Government should approach advertisements that contribute to body image concerns. A consultation on this programme closed in June 2022. We are currently analysing the responses to the consultation and developing policy. Where there is harmful user-generated content related to body image that risks having an adverse physical or psychological impact on children, the Online Safety Bill will require platforms to take action against that. Under the Bill’s existing risk assessment duties, regulated services are required to consider how media literacy can be used to mitigate harm for child users. That could include using content provenance technology, which can empower people to identify when content has been digitally altered in ways such as the noble Baroness mentioned.
A number of noble Lords focused on the changes made in relation to the so-called “legal but harmful” measures to ensure that adults have the tools they need to curate and control their experience online. In particular, noble Lords suggested that removing the requirement for companies to conduct risk assessments in relation to a list of priority content harmful to adults would reduce protections available for users. I do not agree with that assessment. The new duties will empower adult users to make informed choices about the services they use and to protect themselves on the largest platforms. The new duties will require the largest platforms to enforce all their terms of service regarding the moderation of user-generated content, not just the categories of content covered in a list in secondary legislation. The largest platforms already prohibit the most abusive and harmful content. Under the new duties, platforms will be required to keep their promises to users and take action to remove it.
There was rightly particular focus on vulnerable adult users. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Campbell of Surbiton, and others spoke powerfully about that. The Bill will give vulnerable adult users, including people with disabilities, greater control over their online experience too. When using a category 1 service, they will be able to reduce their exposure to online abuse and hatred by having tools to limit the likelihood of their encountering such content or to alert them to the nature of it. They will also have greater control over content that promotes, encourages or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. User reporting and redress provisions must be easy to access by all users, including people with a disability and adults with caring responsibilities who are providing assistance. Ofcom is of course subject to the public sector equality duty as well, so when performing its duties, including writing its codes of practice, it will need to take into account the ways in which people with protected characteristics, including people with disabilities, can be affected. I would be very happy to meet the noble Baronesses and others on this important matter.
The noble Lords, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick and Lord Londesborough, and others talked about media literacy. The Government fully recognise the importance of that in achieving online safety. As well as ensuring that companies take action to keep users safe through this Bill, we are taking steps to educate and empower them to make safe and informed choices online. First, the Bill strengthens Ofcom’s existing media literacy functions. Media literacy is included in Ofcom’s new transparency reporting and information-gathering powers. In response to recommendations from the Joint Committee, the legislation also now specifies media literacy in the risk-assessment duties. In July 2021, DCMS published the online media literacy strategy, which sets out our ambition to improve national media literacy. We have committed to publishing annual action plans in each financial year until 2024-25, setting out our plans to deliver that. Furthermore, in December of that year, Ofcom published Ofcom’s Approach to Online Media Literacy, which includes an ambitious range of work focusing on media literacy.
Your Lordships’ House is, understandably, not generally enthusiastic about secondary legislation and secondary legislative powers, so I was grateful for the recognition by many tonight of the importance of providing for them in certain specific instances through this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, put it, there may be loopholes that Parliament wishes to close, and quickly. My noble friend Lord Inglewood spoke of the need for “living legislation”, and it is important to stress, as many have, that this Bill seeks to be technology-neutral—not specifying particular technological approaches that may quickly become obsolete—in order to cater for new threats and challenges as yet not envisaged. Some of those threats and challenges were alluded to in the powerful speech of my noble friend Lord Sarfraz. I know noble Lords will scrutinise those secondary powers carefully. I can tell my noble friend that the Bill does apply to companies that enable users to share content online or interact with each other, as well as to search services. That includes a broad range of services, including the metaverse. Where haptics enable user interaction, companies must take action. The Bill is also clear that content generated by bots is in scope where it interacts with user-generated content such as on Twitter, but not if the bot is controlled by or on behalf of the service, such as providing customer services for a particular site.
Given the range of secondary powers and the changing technological landscape, a number of noble Lords understandably focused on the need for post-legislative scrutiny. The Bill has undoubtedly benefited from pre-legislative scrutiny. As I said to my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston in her committee last week, we remain open-minded on the best way of doing that. We must ensure that once this regime is in force, it has the impact we all want it to have. Ongoing parliamentary scrutiny will be vital in ensuring that is the case. We do not intend to legislate for a new committee, not least because it is for Parliament itself to decide what committees it sets up. But I welcome further views on how we ensure that we have effective parliamentary scrutiny, and I look forward to discussing that in Committee. We have also made it very clear that the Secretary of State will undertake a review of the effectiveness of the regime between two and five years after it comes into force, producing a report that will then be laid in Parliament, thus providing a statutory opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the effectiveness of the legislation.
My noble friend and other members of her committee followed up with a letter to me about the Secretary of State’s powers. I shall reply to that letter in detail and make that available to all noble Lords to see ahead of Committee. This is ground-breaking legislation, and we have to balance the need for regulatory independence with the appropriate oversight for Parliament and the Government. In particular, concerns were raised about the Secretary of State’s power of direction in Clause 39. Ofcom’s independence and expertise will be of utmost importance here, but the very broad nature of online harms means that there may be subjects that go beyond its expertise and remit as a regulator. That was echoed by Ofcom itself when giving evidence to the Joint Committee: it noted that there will clearly be some issues in respect of which the Government have access to expertise and information that the regulator does not, such as national security.
The framework in the Bill ensures that Parliament will always have the final say on codes of practice, and the use of the affirmative procedure will further ensure that there is an increased level of scrutiny in the exceptional cases where that element of the power is used. As I said, I know that we will look at that in detail in Committee.
My noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, quoting Stanley Baldwin, talked about the protections for journalistic content. He and others are right that the free press is a cornerstone of British democracy; that is why the Bill has been designed to protect press and media freedom and why it includes robust provisions to ensure that people can continue to access diverse news sources online. Category 1 companies will have a new duty to safeguard all journalistic content shared on their platform, which includes citizen journalism. Platforms will need to put systems and processes in place to protect journalistic content, and they must enforce their terms of service consistently across all moderation and in relation to journalistic content. They will also need to put in place expedited appeals processes for producers of journalistic content.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, spoke powerfully about the appalling abuse and threats of violence she sustained in her democratic duties, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, spoke powerfully of the way in which that is putting off people, particularly women, from going into public life. The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, asked about a specific issue: the automatic deletion of material and the implications for prosecution. We have been mindful of the scenario where malicious users post threatening content which they then delete themselves, and of the burden on services that retaining that information in bulk would cause. We have also been mindful of the imperative to ensure that illegal content cannot be shared and amplified online by being left there. The retention of data for law enforcement purposes is strictly regulated, particularly through the Investigatory Powers Act, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, is reviewing at the request of the Home Secretary. I suggest that the noble Baroness and I meet to speak about that in detail, mindful of that ongoing review and the need to bring people to justice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, asked about sex for rent. Existing offences can be used to prosecute that practice, including Sections 52 and 53 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, both of which are listed as priority offences in Schedule 7 to the Bill. As a result, all in-scope services must take proactive measures to prevent people being exposed to such content.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and others talked about scams. The largest and most popular platforms and search engines—category 1 and category 2A services in the Bill—will have a duty to prevent paid-for fraudulent adverts appearing on their services, making it harder for fraudsters to advertise scams online. We know that that can be a particularly devastating crime. The online advertising programme builds on this duty in the Bill and will look at the role of the whole advertising system in relation to fraud, as well as the full gamut of other harms which are caused.
My noble friend Lady Fraser talked about the devolution aspects, which we will certainly look at. Internet services are a reserved matter for the UK Government. The list of priority offences in Schedule 7 can be updated only by the Secretary of State, subject to approval by this Parliament.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester asked about regulatory co-operation, and we recognise the importance of that. Ofcom has existing and strong relationships with other regulators, such as the ICO and the CMA, which has been supported and strengthened by the establishment of the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum in 2020. We have used the Bill to strengthen Ofcom’s ability to work closely with, and to disclose information to, other regulatory bodies. Clause 104 ensures that Ofcom can do that, and the Bill also requires Ofcom to consult the Information Commissioner.
I do not want to go on at undue length—I am mindful of the fact that we will have detailed debates on all these issues and many more in Committee—but I wish to conclude by reiterating my thanks to all noble Lords, including the many who were not able to speak today but to whom I have already spoken outside the Chamber. They all continue to engage constructively with this legislation to ensure that it meets our shared objectives of protecting children and giving people a safe experience online. I look forward to working with noble Lords in that continued spirit.
My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes admitted to being one of the cavalcade of Secretaries of State who have worked on this Bill; I pay tribute to her work both in and out of office. I am pleased that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was here to observe part of our debate today and, like all noble Lords, I am humbled that Ian Russell has been here to follow our debate in its entirety. The experience of his family and too many others must remain uppermost in our minds as we carry out our duty on the Bill before us; I know that it will be. We have an important task before us, and I look forward to getting to it.
Online Safety Bill
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 4 to 31, Schedule 3, Clauses 32 to 37, Schedule 4, Clauses 38 to 53, Schedules 5 to 7, Clauses 54 to 68, Schedule 8, Clauses 69 to 71, Schedule 9, Clauses 72 to 80, Schedule 10, Clauses 81 to 85, Schedule 11, Clauses 86 to 97, Schedule 12, Clauses 98 to 130, Schedule 13, Clauses 131 to 169, Schedule 14, Clauses 170 to 174, Schedule 15, Clauses 175 to 185, Schedule 16, Clauses 186 to 187, Schedule 17, Clauses 188 to 212, Title.