House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport regularly meets the BBC to discuss a range of issues. Ministers have met the BBC on several occasions since the announcement, where we have expressed the House’s shared concerns about the BBC’s plans to reduce parts of its local radio output. Ministers made clear that the BBC must continue to provide distinctive and genuinely local radio services, with content that represents and serves communities from all corners of the UK.
Dame Diana Johnson
Well, the BBC is not doing that, and I am furious that BBC Radio Humberside is essentially being trashed. Local radio content will end at 2 pm each day. There is no coverage at weekends. Local presenters, including Burnsy, have had to apply for their jobs, and only one was successful. The rest are facing gagging clauses and fear losing their redundancy pay if they speak out. This is basically the end of local public service radio, which is irreplaceable, and the BBC management will not listen. It is easier to get a meeting with the Prime Minister than the director-general. Can I ask Ministers to do what Burnsy would suggest, and get BBC managers to give their heads a wobble and sort this out?
Julia Lopez
I shall do my best to get some heads wobbling. I know that the right hon. Lady is a big supporter of Radio Humberside and her local BBC television service, “Look North”. I know this situation is difficult for the journalists affected. The BBC has told us that these are cost-neutral changes and that it is moving resource into digital and providing some additional resource in relation to original journalism, but this House has said many times and has effectively expressed its collective opinion that these cuts are regrettable, and it is something we will continue to discuss with the BBC.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The Minister is correct that this is in the end a decision for the BBC, but the House will be considering a media Bill in the coming months. Will the Bill do anything to protect the essential BBC local radio services that many people beyond this House—not just in this House—find to be an important part of the broadcasting landscape?
Julia Lopez
I thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution. We are not going to protect specific parts of the BBC by primary legislation, but we have a number of important measures on radio services that we feel strongly about including in that legislation, and that includes measures on smart speakers. We want to reduce the regulatory burden on and costs for radio stations, but we also want to strengthen the protections for local news and content. Hopefully that legislation will help with some of these issues.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
At a time when accountability and scrutiny in public life are more important than ever, the role of the BBC and other media outlets is so important. My local newspaper, for example, will not run any political stories, and has not really done so for many weeks now. Will the Minister consider the role of local media and why local newspapers will not run political stories?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the importance of local news reporting to the health of our democracy, and I met news publishers recently to discuss how we might support a more thriving local newspaper ecosystem. There is a range of challenges in making those publications commercially successful, but as he says, if they do not have that local content, they are fundamentally undermining their own importance in the communities they serve.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I agree with the sentiments expressed so far. We are very well served by BBC Three Counties Radio. If I could pick out one example, Roberto Perrone’s drivetime programme is in danger of being axed, as are many other good programmes. Will the Minister use the Department’s power to have another word with the BBC? Much as I am a big fan of the BBC, I do not think it has got this one right.
Julia Lopez
I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday, as I am sure does the whole House. He asks us to speak again to the BBC about this matter. This issue has been running since the autumn, and the appetite of the House to raise it in the Chamber has not waned. The BBC should take that as a mark of the strength of feeling in this House and a mark of how important we, as representatives of communities across the country, think BBC radio services are.
Mr Speaker
Do tell the BBC how wonderful Radio Lancashire is. I call the shadow Minister.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The BBC’s cuts to local radio services will be a great loss to communities. I know the immense benefit that Radio Sheffield brings to my area. The BBC’s plans to redirect this resource into online local news may place the BBC in direct competition with existing local news sites. Can I press the Minister again on what she is doing to discuss the impact of these cuts with the BBC? What steps are being taken to support local journalism outlets and their employees?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Lady raises an important point about the impact of the BBC, and the care that it needs to take in relation to the impact that it can have on commercial services. We do not want the support that the BBC gets from the licence fee to be seen as something that crowds out market competition. We will consider that in the mid-term review. I thank her for her comments
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The local radio situation must cause stress for hard-working BBC staff across England, and they have my sympathy. The Minister will know about the deep disquiet among BBC staff across the countries of the UK about the fact that they have a chair in Richard Sharp whose tenure is hanging by a thread, and who is resisting calls to resign despite the clear improprieties around being given a job by a Prime Minister for whom he facilitated an £800,000 loan. What reassurances can she give to BBC staff and the general public that her party will not in the future give plum positions to people who have been involved in lavish donations, given the propriety issues that inevitably occur?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the appointment of Richard Sharp is the subject of an Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments report. We do not control the timetable for that, but it will hopefully shed some light on the appointment. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising concerns about the propriety of the appointment. We in DCMS believe that we ran that appointment to the letter and, as he will know as a member of the Select Committee, it was also endorsed by the Committee.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
Many people across the UK will take part in what will be a very special coronation weekend. My Department has worked with local authorities, charities and community groups to ensure that there is something for everyone. There will be street parties and big lunches, and hopefully people can watch it on a big screen, if there is one near them. An interactive map on coronation.gov.uk highlights what is happening in people’s local communities across the weekend.
Mr French
I welcome the Government’s efforts to support this historic event across the UK, and I am deeply honoured to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup, which was recently voted the most patriotic constituency in the country. Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me in encouraging local children to enter my free “A Card for the King” competition, and in thanking all the residents, businesses and volunteers in Bexley who have arranged more than 95 street parties and a range of community events to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III?
Lucy Frazer
I encourage as many people as possible to take part in my hon. Friend’s competition, and I congratulate his constituency. I thank the residents, businesses and volunteers who are truly embodying the spirit of the coronation. I am delighted to hear that so many events will take place, with communities coming together for street parties for the coronation. I hope that all the residents of Old Bexley and Sidcup have a great celebration.
Nickie Aiken
In 10 days’ time, the world will tune in to watch the coronation of King Charles III and Queen Camilla at Westminster Abbey in my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster. The people of the two cities are very proud that we have been involved in the coronation of our monarch since 1066, but it is not just about the ceremony; it is about the work that goes on behind it to make it what it will be, and the procession that we will see across Westminster. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State join me in thanking all those involved in making the coronation what it will be? The street cleaners, the unsung heroes who will tidy up—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we have got the message. Come on, Secretary of State!
Lucy Frazer
I join my hon. Friend in thanking everybody who will make the coronation so special. It will be a world-class event that will be seen across the globe, and that is down to the hard work of many people, including her constituents and the emergency services in the Cities of London and Westminster, which will ensure that the weekend’s celebrations are a safe historic moment. I was also pleased to note that various community projects will take place in her constituency over the weekend, including a range of street parties and a wonderful opportunity to help London zoo care for its animals.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her energy, interest and enthusiasm for this matter. After reports that nationalist-led councils across Northern Ireland have blocked proposals for funding for the King’s coronation, and the welcome recent news that Michelle O’Neill, the leader of nationalism, has now decided to attend the coronation, will the Secretary of State ensure that all councils across Northern Ireland, whether nationalist or Unionist, have the funding required to enable all to celebrate the coronation of our great King Charles?
Lucy Frazer
It is important for the celebrations to take place across the UK. We have funded devolved Administrations, 11 mayoral combined authorities and 10 local authorities to have screens as part of the celebrations. I know that Northern Ireland will be screening the service across nine different locations, so I hope as many people as possible can take part.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
Supporting grassroots sport is a key priority for the Government. Last year, Sport England received almost £350 million to fund grassroots sports projects. We are also supporting community participation, with more than £300 million between 2021 and 2025 to deliver up to 8,000 multi-sport facilities in communities across the UK.
Nicola Richards
I thank my right hon. Friend for the support he has provided to the campaign to confront the ownership of West Bromwich Albion, working with Andy Street and supporters groups. We have seen the huge step of the release of the football governance White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to monitor the situation at clubs such as West Bromwich Albion and Birmingham City, and ensure that the new regulator will have the ability to take action to protect the clubs that support grassroots sport in the west midlands?
Stuart Andrew
May I praise my hon. Friend and her colleagues for the tremendous amount of work she has done in standing up for the fans of the clubs she has worked with so closely? Frankly, too many clubs face financial troubles, and we continue to monitor situations across the football pyramid. We have set out the reforms that will protect football clubs so that they can meet their day-to-day liabilities and preserve the clubs for the future. That will include sanctions, where necessary. We will introduce new owners’ and directors’ tests, including a fitness and propriety test and enhanced due diligence of owners’ sources of wealth, and we will require owners to demonstrate robust financial plans to provide people like her constituents with the assurances they need.
Esther McVey
In Wilmslow in my Tatton constituency, we have a football academy run by Erik Garner, which will be putting on a girls’ world cup for primary age children this summer. That is possible only because town councillors stood in to give funding to ensure the maximum number of girls can participate. Given that women’s football is still growing, will the Minister explain how organisations that do not have parish and town councils that can step in can access financial support from the Football Association for similar events, to help to inspire the next generation of Lionesses?
Stuart Andrew
I congratulate my right hon. Friend’s constituent for the work he is doing. We are all proud of the Lionesses’ success and the inspiration it has given. The majority of funding for grassroots sport is delivered through Sport England. We invested £21 million in 2021-22 and £46 million in 2022-23 in grassroots sports facilities in England. We suggest that organisations hoping to run similar events contact Sport England or the FA, and many community groups that do not have parish councils do so. We are also carrying out an in-depth review of women’s football, chaired by former Lioness Karen Carney, which will report this summer.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I will pop round with a cup of tea later, Mr Speaker.
Over the years, many hundreds of thousands of children up and down the country have learned to swim in their local swimming pool, and the clubs that provide those facilities are quite often very grassroots and local. However, our local swimming baths are under threat. The energy they consume is enormous and they are extremely expensive to run. The £63 million announced in the Budget is welcome, but we have yet to see the detail of how that money will be rolled out. Can the Minister tell us when it will be rolled out and when we will know the criteria?
Stuart Andrew
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I have spent a lot of time listening to local organisations making the exact same points. That is why, as a Department, we lobbied the Treasury heavily to get that £63 million. That will not only help with the current issue of the costs swimming pools are facing, but address some of the long-term issues to make them more sustainable. We are working through the detail and will make an announcement in due course.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
A key element in ensuring the success of grassroots sport is having a good pool of talent and enough participants. However, one problem is that a number of young people, once they leave school, do not continue participating in either team sport or individual sport. What is the Government’s strategy to ensure that as many young people as possible continue to do some sort of sporting activity when they leave school?
Stuart Andrew
Again, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that issue. Participation in sport and physical activity is a key piece of work that we are looking at. It is good to see that it has recovered to pre-pandemic levels, but we need to go even further. We are working on the sports strategy, which will address some of the issues he has raised, and I hope to make an announcement on that in due course.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
My Department regularly engages with the Home Office on supporting international talent to come to the UK. The Government have provided direct support for Ukrainian musicians, including on priority visa applications for orchestras and performers. There are a number of ways to perform in the UK, including the creative worker route, which enables workers to come to the UK for up to 12 months. The UK/Ukraine season of culture and the upcoming Eurovision song contest demonstrate our ongoing support for Ukraine.
Dr Huq
We knew things were bad for UK creatives when, last year, an Andrew Lloyd Webber company chose to take a Chinese production of “The Phantom of the Opera” on European tour rather than a home-grown one, because it was cheaper and less hassle, but last week at Calais, the German punk band Trigger Cut spent three days wrangling over the permitted entry route, only to be told that they were not professional enough musicians. Since when was that kind of judgment part of a customs officer’s duties? Will the Government urgently negotiate friction-free touring? This situation is wrecking livelihoods, our cultural offer and our reputation abroad.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate that a number of cases recently have caused concern; I am happy to take those up with the Home Office, including the case of Trigger Cut. I know there was also an issue in relation to the Khmelnitsky Orchestra from Ukraine, which was unblocked with help from ambassadors. There are creative routes to come here, but if there are any frictions, my Department is eager and happy to resolve them.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Touring musicians from overseas and our home-grown talent need venues in which to perform, yet many brilliant grassroots music venues up and down the country are really struggling. They are so important because they are effectively the research and development department of our music industry, which is our global superpower. The cultural recovery fund enabled many of those venues to survive, but how will we ensure that they are not destroyed by the cost of living crisis?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend has tremendous passion and expertise in this area and I know that, like me, she recently met Mark Davyd from the Music Venue Trust, a grassroots music venue organisation. I discussed with him a range of issues facing the sector, including energy costs and ticketing, and various proposals that involve both Government and the private sector. We are exploring how we can help those critical grassroots music venues to survive because, as my hon. Friend recognises, they are vital to the development of talent in our wider music industry.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for touring musicians right across the UK and within the EU. The international language of song and music is being constrained by a barrage of bureaucracy and opportunities lost across continents for generations. Bands from the EU now say they will boycott the UK because of what they describe as degrading treatment at our borders, and most UK bands have given up trying to enter the EU at all. The all-party parliamentary group on music recommended appointing a touring tsar to fix the problems. Whatever has happened to that, and what is wrong with that suggestion?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight how valuable and life-enhancing UK music is, including the folk rock that he produces, and I know Europe is eager to hear it. He paints a fairly bleak picture of touring, but we have been doing a whole range of work to unblock some of the issues that have been raised with us by touring groups. There is now a range of visa, transport and other arrangements, but it is in our interest to make sure that those music bands can reach their key audiences, and we continue to look at what other frictions there are so that we can try to unblock them.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
A few days ago, a Marks & Spencer store held a minute’s silence for the people of Ukraine and to honour a Ukrainian employee. There is clearly a huge well of feeling in this country for the people of Ukraine and the suffering that they are currently enduring. Can the Minister arrange a tour for the Ukrainian band? Can we do a lot more to promote the Eurovision team?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work of the Marks & Spencer store in his constituency. We are doing a tremendous amount of cultural co-operation to support our Ukrainian friends. We are hosting Eurovision, and that includes £10 million-worth of support to provide a truly collaborative show. We are also providing 3,000 subsidised tickets for displaced Ukrainians in the UK. It will be a tremendous celebration, and it is being ably organised by my dear colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew).
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Despite the Minister’s comments, the truth is that the Home Office failed to issue visas on time to five Ukrainian musicians from the Khmelnitsky orchestra, which was due to perform in the UK. That was despite promoting the concerts on a UK Government website as an example of British-Ukrainian relations. The difficulties have cost that orchestra tens of thousands of pounds. It is important to the war effort in Ukraine that such classical music ensembles can perform here, and this incident has done damage to the UK’s international cultural reputation. Can the Minister tell us what action she can take, working with the Home Office, to avoid such damaging incidents happening again with Ukrainian musicians. A number of orchestras are preparing to tour, and we do not want to leave them high and dry like the Khmelnitsky orchestra.
Julia Lopez
I do not think that anybody in this House should be in any doubt about the Government’s wide-ranging support for Ukraine and its people, across the cultural sphere, into defence, and through other huge forms of co-operation. Obviously, what happened with that orchestra is regrettable, but once the musicians had produced all the information that was required, their visas were fast-tracked and they were able to perform in the UK. If there are ongoing issues with the Home Office that we need to resolve, we shall engage carefully with our colleagues, but I think the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the situation is grossly unfair.
Barbara Keeley
Besides making it hard for touring musicians to enter the UK, the funding cuts affecting classical music and opera are leading to Britain not being attractive to musicians for training or performing. Last Sunday, Sir Simon Rattle denounced the funding decisions of the BBC and Arts Council England, saying:
“When the two largest supporters of classical music in this country cut away at the flesh of our culture…it means that the direction of travel has become deeply alarming.”
All these problems, from visas to funding cuts, now pose a fundamental threat to the future role of our world-leading classical musicians. What future do Ministers see for classical music in this country?
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Lady for raising Sir Simon Rattle’s comments—obviously, he is a tremendously valued performer in this country. But again, she paints an absurdly bleak picture of classical music in this country. It is tremendously valued by this Government and by the people we represent. Obviously, there is an issue with the approach to the BBC Singers and BBC English orchestras, and we are very glad that the BBC has paused its decision on that matter. This Government have put forward a tax relief for the orchestras, which has been extended. Arts Council England is run by somebody who used to run Classic FM. It has given huge amounts of money to orchestras. We are now funding 23 orchestral organisations, up from 19 last year. We are putting forward a music education plan. We have a whole range of interventions to support classical music in this country, so I fundamentally disagree with the way the hon. Lady tries to characterise the Government’s tremendous support for orchestras.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
As announced at the spring Budget, we are providing £100 million for charities and community organisations in England. It will support frontline organisations experiencing increased demand and higher delivery costs, and will provide some investment in energy efficiency measures. Charities and cultural organisations are also receiving support for their energy bills until March 2024 under the energy bills discount scheme.
Mary Kelly Foy
While the Government continue to fail the most vulnerable in our society, the charity sector is left to fill in the gap. In my constituency, we are very fortunate to have the County Durham Community Foundation, which has raised £900,000 through its Poverty Hurts appeal, allowing many fantastic local projects to literally keep their lights on during the cost of living crisis. I welcome the Government’s recent announcement of support for charitable organisations, but what steps is the Department taking to establish a wider and longer-term funding commitment to the sector?
Stuart Andrew
I spent 16 years of my life working in the charity sector, and I cannot praise it enough for the tremendous amount of work it is doing. That is why I spent time speaking to the sector, to listen to its concerns about the cost of living issues, hence why we have announced this £100 million, which I know the sector has warmly welcomed.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
One of the cultural cornerstones in Barrow and Furness is CandoFM, a fantastic local community radio station that I was fortunate enough to bring to Downing Street to meet the Culture Secretary last week. It walks like a charity, talks like a charity and supports the local community, but because of its licensing arrangements, it is not allowed to hold charitable status, unlike hospital radio stations. I wonder whether the Minister might look into that, because it would be a route for funding hard-pressed organisations such as CandoFM.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point, and I would certainly like to praise CandoFM for the work it is doing. Obviously, there are conditions for achieving charitable status, but I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss what might be possible.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
I will shortly be making an oral statement setting out details of a White Paper to bring our gambling regulations into the smartphone age. My Department has recently unveiled landmark reforms to our broadcasting regulation with a new draft Media Bill. We have given 43 youth centres a share of £90 million and backed our outstanding bid to bring Euro 2028 to the UK and Ireland.
With days to go until the historic coronation of King Charles III, I am sure Members across the House will join me in thanking everyone who is working so tirelessly to apply the finishing touches to what will be a magnificent celebration of British national life.
Kevin Brennan
On this business of musicians being turned away at our borders, having tried to enter the UK via the permitted paid engagement route, can the Secretary of State have stronger words with the Home Office? I know that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s job tends to be treated as a bit of a one-off gig by this Government, but she needs to show some heft and really get stuck into the Home Office on this issue. How can we credibly argue with our European neighbours that our musicians should be getting better access to go and play in Europe when we are treating European musicians trying to enter this country to do a few gigs like criminals?
Lucy Frazer
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman highlights that the DCMS has some heft, because we are responsible for some world-leading departments. We are absolutely committed to supporting the creative sector to adapt to requirements for touring in the EU, and actually the vast majority of member states, including the UK’s biggest touring markets, offer visa and work permit-free routes for musicians and creative performers. Of course, there is more we can do, and my Department is looking closely at this. I spoke to the Foreign Secretary about it yesterday, and I know that he raised the challenges faced by touring artists at the Partnership Council at the end of March.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about freedom of speech and thought, and I have great admiration for the work that he does in this wider area. He is right that the ASA is a self-regulating body for the advertising industry, and he is also right that it is at its best when it focuses on its core purpose of making sure that consumers get legal, decent, honest and truthful adverts, rather than value judgments on social issues and pushing a certain world view.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
This week, yet another case of music copyright dominated headlines. Our proud creative industries are facing significant challenges, as we have heard. The role that AI will play in the future is also concerning for many. Exactly what action is the Minister taking to ensure that emerging tech and our world-leading creative industries are supported rather than sidelined?
Lucy Frazer
I am very conscious of this issue. We have fantastic creative industries that do original work, and we need to protect them. That is why I have held roundtables with the music industry to discuss that very issue. The idea is to put together a code of conduct, working closely with industry, to ensure that we protect the original work that they produce.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is very fortunate to represent one of our beautiful coastal communities, and he is right about the importance of promoting non-London destinations. There is a tremendous amount of fantastic things to visit out there beyond our capital. To give a couple of examples, we have a GREAT-funded campaign to see things differently, which includes the Pembrokeshire coast national park, Thorpe Bay beach and Brighton pier. Earlier this year, VisitBritain welcomed more than 120 international trade buyers in the travel industry for a series of educational visits across Britain that focused on coastal communities. I hope that they will take the wonderful things that they saw back to the buyers in their own countries.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
This Government have given significant support to organisations up and down the country to help with cost of living issues. That is on top of the programmes that we are providing, including the ones that I was talking about a moment ago, for grassroots sport. We are putting more money into grassroots sport now than has been put in for probably decades.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
British motorsport, in order to stay at the cutting edge, wishes to transform itself to use synthetic and sustainable fuels, but the taxation regime disincentivises that. Will the Minister work with me and colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that the use of sustainable fuels is incentivised?
Stuart Andrew
I completely agree about the importance of motorsport in this country, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his commitment and hard work in this area. We already support sustainable and synthetic fuels under the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme. Tax policy, as he knows, is a matter for the Treasury, but I will of course work with him and ensure that his ideas are shared across Government.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
As the hon. Member will know, the Commissioner for Public Appointments is looking into this matter, and it would not be appropriate to comment until it has published its full report.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Folkestone library at Grace Hill in the town was one of the early Carnegie libraries, an important cultural hub as well as a working building. It is currently closed because structural repairs are required. Does the Minister agree that the Arts Council strategy should recognise not only the need to support working library facilities, but that they are often important heritage assets that benefit the whole local community?
Lucy Frazer
Library facilities are very important, and I was pleased to visit a library facility recently. We have put more funding into libraries and into communities across the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
BBC Radio York keeps North Yorkshire connected to the local community, but the reforms will remove that vital link. It would be such little cost to keep afternoon programming and “Drive Time” running. Will the Minister look at the real cost of running that programme and ensure that the BBC does not cull BBC local radio?
Lucy Frazer
As the Minister of State has already mentioned, decisions on BBC programming are a matter for the BBC; as she also mentioned, the BBC will have heard the points made today about how strongly Members of this House and people across the country feel about this issue.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Rutland-to-Melton CiCLE Classic—the only international men’s single-day race cycling competition in the whole UK? It was best listened to on Rutland and Stamford Sound, Rutland’s only radio station, but we need three RSL licences to cover all our three towns. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss those urgent needs?
Julia Lopez
Any day now I will be going on maternity leave, but I will be covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), who is an absolutely passionate supporter of the radio industry and who as a Back Bencher spoke to me about radio issues. I am sure that he will be happy to look into the licensing issue that my hon. Friend highlights.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Rugby Football Union has announced groundbreaking policies on maternity, pregnant parent and adoption leave, which have been said to normalise motherhood in sport. Will the Minister encourage more sporting bodies to introduce similar inclusive policies?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this. One of the key elements that we will be looking at in the sporting strategy is how we increase opportunities for women and girls in sport. I am pleased to say that we have made significant announcements about equal provision in our schools—but yes, we absolutely push the governing bodies to do all they can to increase opportunities in the way the hon. Lady suggests.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
In the first three months of this year, seven cases of serious vandalism and antisocial behaviour against churches have been recorded in Israel. That is a sharp increase on the previous year. The Church of England continues to work with the Anglican Archbishop of Jerusalem, the heads of other Churches, other faith leaders and the Jordanian Government, as custodian of the holy sites, to maintain the peace.
Tim Loughton
It was particularly galling to see these scenes in what is supposed to be a liberal democracy in the middle east: the desecration of Christian graves and other Christian sites—something that, I am afraid, we have become used to in other countries. These were effectively religious terrorists and extremists, with no regard for the Christian religion. What measures are taking place to ensure that, in future, Christians can celebrate the Easter fire ceremony at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem without facing undue restrictions as a result of the fear of violent clashes?
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to draw attention to the Easter fire ceremony at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. That 2,000-year-old ceremony has repeatedly taken place without serious incident. It is certainly our view that the restrictions have been overly heavy-handed. As he will know, the Archbishop of Canterbury has called out what has been happening—the attacks on Christian graves and so on —as blasphemous attacks. The UK Chief Rabbi has also spoken out, as we need to do across the House. I hope the Foreign Office will have similar things to say.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Last Thursday, the Minister of State at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), came here and announced a strategic partnership with the Government of Israel. That ought to give us some influence over the level of vandalism and antisocial behaviour to which churchgoers are being subjected, oughtn’t it?
Andrew Selous
As always, my right hon. Friend makes an important point. He may have seen that over Easter the Latin Patriarch said:
“The frequency of these attacks, the aggressions, has become something new. These people feel they are protected…that the cultural and political atmosphere now can justify, or tolerate, actions against Christians.”
Attacks are simply not acceptable, whether against Christians or people of any other faith or no faith. I hope that what my right hon. Friend has said, as a distinguished former International Development Minister, will be heard loudly and clearly at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Andrew Selous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is also the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, for the service she does in bringing this appalling issue back before the House. Since the matter was last raised with me on 9 March there have been further atrocities against Christians in Nigeria, and the issue does not get enough attention in our media, which is why I am extremely grateful to her for raising it. The Archbishop of Canterbury met the candidates in the presidential election, and stressed the need to prioritise ending inter-community and inter-religious violence, and we will continue to speak out.
Fiona Bruce
Open Doors reports that on Good Friday
“32 Christians were killed…in an attack by suspected Fulani militants on an IDP camp in Benue State…while people were asleep”,
and that the camp
“houses nearly 30,000…mostly Christians, mainly women and children, who…fled their villages because of Fulani militant attacks.”
Open Doors described this as part of a number of “widespread attacks” across the state, including an attack on a church in Akenawe village on Palm Sunday, when a boy was killed and three people, including the pastor, kidnapped. Does my hon. Friend agree that stronger measures are needed to protect such vulnerable communities in Nigeria? What can the Church do to call this out?
Andrew Selous
Frankly, words are a rather inadequate response to what we have just heard, but we must not tire of raising our voices with Nigeria, which is, after all, a Commonwealth country with which we have very good relations. As a good friend to Nigeria, I would expect our distress to be heard loudly and clearly. The Foreign Office obviously needs to keep on passing on the message.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I take this opportunity to wish the Church Commissioner a very happy birthday? He, like me, does not count the years but makes the years count; we’re at that age!
Further to the question of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), there are missionaries from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Nigeria, including some from my constituency and across all of Northern Ireland. What discussions have taken place to ensure that support is available for ex-pat and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland missionaries in the regions we are discussing who are isolated and may be in a vulnerable position?
Andrew Selous
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, for his continued interest in it and for the magnificent work he does chairing the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. The Bishop of Guildford was recently in Nigeria, speaking out on behalf of all Christians, not just members of the Anglican communion, in Nigeria. The Church of England will keep on engaging in this issue—sometimes quietly, sometimes behind the scenes, but we will continue to speak truth to power.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The Speaker’s Committee has not held recent discussions on the matter. The Electoral Commission has highlighted that voting by post is a safe and popular method of voting, with safeguards in place to protect against fraud. The voluntary code of conduct makes it clear that political parties and campaigners should not assist in completing a ballot paper or handle completed ballot papers. The commission encourages campaigners to follow this code.
Kevin Brennan
I think the Speaker’s Committee should have discussions about this issue. Has my hon. Friend seen some recent examples of Conservative party leaflets, where people are being encouraged to return postal vote applications to Tory headquarters rather than back to the local authority, and where millions of people are being disenfranchised through lack of voter ID? Leaflets have also gone out—in Norwich, for example—saying that people do not need ID to vote. Should not the Electoral Commission take the view that although such practices may technically be legal, they are in fact harmful to our democracy?
Cat Smith
The code of conduct is of course voluntary, but the code of conduct for campaigners states that parties can provide applications for postal votes but the forms must include the address for the electoral registration officer as the preferred address, even if an alternative address is provided. Campaigners should send on any application forms they receive to the relevant address within two working days, and the commission recommends that any concerns that the code has been breached should be raised first with the candidate, political party or campaigner in question, and any further concerns should be drawn to the attention of the commission. The commission is aware of the Conservative party leaflet in Norwich and has had conversations with the party.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
Grants that would cover kitchens, loos or disability access, basic repairs to rooves and windows and so on are in many cases unavailable to Church of England parish churches because of an inconsistency in the way in which local authorities are applying the law, and the Bishop of Bristol has tabled an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to resolve this so that parish churches can apply for such grants, and I hope the Department will be supportive of it.
Selaine Saxby
I recently visited Meshaw Together near South Molton to discuss plans for its local church, St John the Baptist, reordering the church for wider community use. The project led by Jeff Souch and supported by the vicar was unsuccessful in securing platinum jubilee funding, but might I be able to meet with my hon. Friend to try to find additional funding that may be available for this community initiative that also secures the future of the church?
Andrew Selous
Yes, of course I will meet with my hon. Friend. I have also heard of the good work of St John the Baptist, Meshaw. The Church Commissioners have given £11 million over the next three years to fund specialist support officers to advise on community projects of this nature and to help with fundraising. Small grants are available to help with repairs and towards buildings becoming net zero. Parishresources.org.uk may also provide helpful information. The Exeter diocese recently held a “meet the funders” day, to which more than 100 people turned up, to learn how churches such as St John the Baptist can approach funders such as the Benefact Trust. I encourage Meshaw to follow that up.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend has made reference to the speech of the Bishop of Bristol in the other place highlighting an apparent inconsistency between the Local Government Act 1972 and the 1894 Act, which gives cause for concern as to whether local government funding for Church buildings is legal. Does my hon. Friend recognise that as a serious concern, and if so how does he propose to clarify the issue?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is right about the Bishop of Bristol, whose amendments in the other place have the support of heritage bodies and the National Association of Local Councils, whom I have also met on the issue. All we are asking is for Church of England parish churches to be treated the same as other faith and community buildings, which does not seem a lot to ask for, and I would hope that both my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), are listening hard to what I have said and representations will be made to Ministers about these issues.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Andrew Selous
Parish ministry is at the heart of everything we do in the Church of England. Between 2023 and 2025, to support our mission to tell people the good news about Jesus Christ, we will distribute £1.2 billion—a 30% increase. The largest part of that funding will be used to revitalise parish ministry.
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend will be well aware of concerns in congregations up and down the country about the diminishing number of priests. Will he assure the House that the Church will continue to do all it can to provide funds for the stipendiary ministries?
Andrew Selous
There has been an increase in the number of ordinands between 2016 and 2020, when we had 1,373 in total, including 591 starting training, which was the largest in a generation. There was a slight dip during the pandemic, but we are committed to continuing to train more priests; that is absolutely essential and is exactly what the Church of England wants to see.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Andrew Selous
Since 2014, the Church Commissioners have planted 819 acres of new woodland in the UK. Over the last two years we have bought 438 more acres in south Wales and Angus in Scotland, to plant 350,000 more trees, subject to planning permission. Over the last five years we have planted 11.8 million trees globally.
Mr Hollobone
That is great news for Scotland, Wales and the rest of the world, but what about England’s green and pleasant land? England has, at 10%, the lowest tree coverage in Europe, so can we have more church trees, please, in England?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend speaks so well, not only for Kettering
but for England. He is right to draw attention to the fact that England is among the countries with the least tree cover in Europe. The Church absolutely wants to play its part in changing that. To help achieve that, it participated in the Queen’s green canopy initiative, including through work on an 8,000 mixed-tree plantation in north-west England. We also work with farming tenants across England to explore every possible planting opportunity, including planting trees in hedgerows, agri- forestry and field-scale woodland planting, and will carry on doing so.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood)
The Committee discussed the commission’s work supporting the implementation of the voter ID requirement at its recent public evidence session in March. A transcript of that session is available on the Committee’s website. The commission continues to support voters, campaigners and electoral administrators ahead of the implementation of the voter ID requirement at local elections in England next week. Its research shows that public awareness of the requirement increased from 22% in December to 76% at the end of March. Voter ID will also be required at police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales, UK parliamentary by-elections, and recall petitions from 3 May, and in general elections from October. The commission will run further public awareness activities and provide guidance for electoral administrators ahead of future elections, including in Scotland.
Kirsten Oswald
The SNP has consistently opposed the requirement for voter ID since it was brought in under the Elections Act 2022. The requirement is about to take effect for the first time in England. It will effectively disenfranchise many people, including disabled people and people from minority ethnic backgrounds. Given that only about 50,000 people have applied for the free ID certificate, while the number of voters without the necessary ID is thought to be about 2 million, and given the gulf between the enfranchisement of older and younger voters, what steps will the Electoral Commission take to make sure that all people, even those who do not vote Conservative, can take part in elections?
Cat Smith
The commission has said that voter authority certificate applications were lower than might have been expected. That may reflect the number of people wishing to vote in the elections, the take-up of postal or proxy voting, or some voters not having taken action in time to meet the deadline, as the hon. Lady suggests. The commission will consider the levels of take-up and the reasons for them in its evaluation of the implementation of the requirement for voter ID, and that will include detailed public survey work. The commission has been working with key groups who have been identified as needing additional support to navigate voter ID requirements, including the over-85s; people with sight loss or learning disabilities; Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities; people experiencing homelessness or living in refuges; trans and non-binary people; and anonymous voters.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
May I raise the issue of the immunocompromised—people who are still shielding for fear of catching covid? If they turn up to a polling station next Thursday, they will be asked to remove their mask. What guidance has the Electoral Commission brought forward to protect the immunocompromised?
Cat Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting question. The guidance that the Electoral Commission has given to polling clerks is that face coverings will need to be removed so that identity can be verified. If he wishes to arrange a meeting with the Electoral Commission, I would be happy to co-ordinate that, as I know that this is an issue that he feels passionately about.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The additional voter processing will place more requirements on staff at polling stations. Has that resulted in any problems for local authorities in recruiting polling station staff?
Cat Smith
My hon. Friend is entirely correct: electoral administrators have been reporting difficulties to the Electoral Commission in recruiting polling station staff. That was the case in recent elections, too, but the issue has been exacerbated by the new role that there will be in administering voter ID requirements. Local authorities are working to address recruitment difficulties, including by calling on staff who work in areas that do not have elections in May to work in the areas that do. Of course, there is the additional challenge of needing a woman at every polling station to verify the identity of women who wear face coverings for religious reasons.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
There will be services and events all over the country in cathedrals and parish churches to celebrate the coronation. The one in Lichfield cathedral will be on Sunday 7 May, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will attend if he possibly can.
Michael Fabricant
My hon. Friend has put me on the spot, but I confirm that I will attend. I hope that reassures him. Could he quickly—or even slowly—outline what further work the Church of England is doing to engage people locally in the coronation?
Andrew Selous
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Church is doing a great deal in that area. We are supporting the Big Help Out to promote volunteering, along with many charities and businesses, as well as the Big Lunch to break down barriers and combat loneliness. We also have Sing for the King and Ring for the King to promote choral singing and bell ringing, linked to the coronation. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
You may well like campanology, Mr Fabricant, but I will leave that there.
Voter ID
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities if he will make a statement on arrangements in place to record the number of voters who attend at a polling station and are denied a vote because they are not in possession of valid ID.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
It is vital that we keep our democracy secure. This Government stood on a manifesto commitment not only to protect the integrity of our elections but to enhance it. On that basis, this Government won a majority. We have introduced legislation to implement that commitment and we are now in the process of delivering on our promise. Voter identification is central to protecting our electoral system from the potential for voting fraud. Its implementation at the local elections next week brings the rest of the UK in line with Northern Ireland, where people have had to bring photographic ID to vote in elections since 2003. [Interruption.] I remind the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, that that legislation was introduced by the then Labour Government under direct rule.
The data collection processes for polling stations are set out clearly in the Elections Act 2022 and the Voter Identification Regulations 2022. Polling station staff will record details of any electors turned away—should there be any—for the purposes of complaints or legal challenges and, in the short term, to provide data to evaluate the policy, which will be conducted by the Government and the Electoral Commission in line with the legislation that was voted on, debated and passed by this House.
The Electoral Commission has published suggested templates of the necessary forms and has updated its guidance in the polling station handbook to reflect the new processes. As required by legislation, the Government will publish a number of reports on the impact of the voter identification policy. Our intention is that the first of those reports will be published no later than November 2023. The data collected will be a significant part of that evaluation.
There are few tasks more important in public life, as I am sure every member of a political party represented in this House and the general public would agree, than maintaining the British public’s trust in the sanctity of the ballot box in our democratic processes. We on the Government Benches take that duty very seriously. I look forward to our first experience of the policy in polling stations in Great Britain on 4 May.
Mr Betts
I was not my intention to get into an argument about the appropriateness of the policy. I was trying to recognise that it will be important to know the impact of the voter ID regulations once the elections have taken place. When people go to polling stations and are turned away because do not have the requisite ID, will those numbers be recorded? We know that if someone speaks to a polling clerk and is turned away, the total number of those people—not their names—will be recorded. But because of concerns about the collection of people around polling stations, some authorities will have meeters and greeters outside who will check in advance, perhaps when people are in a queue, whether they have the required ID. We do not know whether people who are turned away at that point will have their numbers recorded—that is the confusion.
At a recent Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee hearing, Peter Stanyon, the chief executive of Association of Electoral Administrators, made this important point:
“The returning officers are required where they have a meeter-greeter to report those they have advised at the door and turned away, and those at the desk as well. They will be reported as two separate things…The base standard is it is at the desk, because that is where the ballot papers will be and that is where the question is asked. Where there is a meeter-greeter, the commission is asking for that statistic and the Government are asking for that statistic as well.”
So two sets of statistics will be collected. That seems fairly clear.
The problem is that this week the Electoral Commission said something very different. It said that when meeter-greeters turn someone away who does not have the voter ID that they should have, those numbers will not be counted. I have a simple question for the Minister: is it the Government’s intention that that information will be collected, so the total number of people who attend a polling station but are denied a vote because they do not have the requisite ID will be counted?
Was the statement made by Peter Stanyon to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee correct? If it was correct, why did the Electoral Commission issue different advice this week? Was that information incorrect? Or, if it was correct, was the information provided by the Electoral Commission this week given with the consent and approval of the Government? If it was, and meeter-greeters are going to turn people away and the numbers are not going to be collected, how can it be said that it is the Government’s intention to collect information that includes the number of people who are turned away? Surely both elements have to be added together in order to get the total numbers correct and to properly assess the impact of the measure.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his forensic scrutiny, as we would expect from the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee. I will make a couple of basic points, but it may be appropriate for me to follow up in writing, because he is referring to some conversations—[Interruption.] I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) would stop chuntering so I can answer the question appropriately, because the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has requested a considerable amount of detail, which I am attempting to give.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will make that decision; that is why I went shush. Carry on, Minister.
Rachel Maclean
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I will make a couple of points. First, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Electoral Commission has been directed by the Government. That is not the case. As he will know, the Electoral Commission is a completely independent body. I was just present in the Chamber to listen to one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), answering questions on behalf of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission is subject to scrutiny and plays a vital role in these processes.
For the avoidance of doubt, I remind the House that we are very concerned to get the process of data collection correct. As set out in the voter identification regulations, data collection will take place in polling stations via two forms: the ballot paper refusal list and the voter identification evaluation form. The first records data in case of a later complaint or legal challenge. The latter records data for the purpose of evaluation of the policy. As has been discussed many times in the House, Cabinet Office research in 2021 showed that 98% of electors already have one of the accepted forms of photographic identification. An expired identification is also to be accepted if the photo remains a good likeness.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Following the remarks made by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the key points are, first, whether people know they need voter ID, and I hope these questions and answers will help to encourage that; secondly, they need to take that ID; and thirdly, that if they go to a polling station without it, they can go home and get it. Will the Electoral Commission be able to tell how many people who were initially unable to vote were able to come back and vote?
Finally, did the Electoral Commission recommend voter ID in England in 2015? And am I right in thinking that it is not only in Northern Ireland that voters require ID, but in the Republic of Ireland as well?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the Father of the House for his comments. He is right in saying that voter ID is required not only in Northern Ireland—introduced by a Labour Government—but in the Republic of Ireland, along with many other European countries and Canada. This country is currently an outlier, and many experts have made that point.
My hon. Friend mentioned the arrangements at polling stations. We all play an important part in raising awareness. All of us who have local elections coming up have certainly been playing our part in reminding voters that ID is essential. There is a free form for which people can apply, as well as the 20 other forms of ID that are acceptable at polling stations. Local authorities have been given additional funds to raise awareness, working with all communities to ensure that voter engagement is as high as it possibly can be.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Colleagues will have been dismayed to learn that fewer than 90,000 of the up to 2 million people without appropriate ID have applied for a voter authority certificate. Voter ID has always been a solution in search of a problem. Millions of pounds have been squandered on this process, and we now find that hundreds of thousands of people have had their votes taken off them. The Minister talks of experts, but all the experts—the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Local Government Association—begged the Government not to introduce voter ID for the May elections because there was not enough time. Ministers did not listen, and this is the consequence. The sole accountability is theirs. We wait to be shown the scale of this travesty; that is rightly a role for the independent review, but the review will work only if it has the correct data.
Last month, during oral questions, I raised the point that many returning officers intended to use greeters outside polling stations to turn away those without ID, and that those turned away would not count as having been denied votes. That is deeply wrong, and not acceptable. The Minister did not address this point in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), so let me press her again. Whose advice is right? Will people who are turned away by someone outside a polling station who asked whether they had appropriate ID count as people who have been denied a vote, or will they not?
Rachel Maclean
I find it interesting that the hon. Gentleman has sought to rehash arguments that we have already had numerous times in this place, and I find it surprising that his party is not committed to protecting the sanctity of the ballot box. The reason we have had to introduce this legislation is the absolute fiasco that we have seen unfolding in Tower Hamlets and Birmingham over the years. We need to protect the sanctity of the ballot box, and that is what we are doing. We are introducing a number of measures to collect the data that will enable us to conduct the detailed analysis that is required by the legislation and by the electorate, and that is the right way of doing things.
May I ask why, if the Labour party is so opposed to voter ID, it requires ID for all its candidate selection meetings? Why have Labour Members stated time and again that they know full well that most people in this country have a valid form of ID? What is good enough for candidate selection in the Labour party should be good enough for our local elections.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I must tell the Minister that I am very uncomfortable with this policy. She is right to say that Tower Hamlets and other parts of the country are having problems, but they are principally about postal votes rather than personation. We have had one conviction in a decade in this context. The Electoral Commission said that the pilot was not big enough for conclusions to be drawn, although there was a reduction of up to 6% in turnout. In Northern Ireland, which the Minister cited, there was, according to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, a 2.3% reduction. I am afraid the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) had a valid point. Will the Minister please write to everyone, not just the hon. Gentleman, giving proper answers to his questions?
Rachel Maclean
Pilots have been conducted on a number of occasions in, I think, Woking and Pendle. A thorough study was carried out, and we found no evidence of turnout being lowered. We also observed very high engagement with the new processes. The forms of ID that were available were very clearly communicated to people. What is more, this policy intervention has served the purpose of raising public confidence in the sanctity of the electoral process, and I think we should all welcome that.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am sure the Minister did not intend to give inaccurate information when she said that all Conservative candidates and campaigns have been giving out correct information. A leaflet went out in Norfolk saying that people do not need photographic ID, so they clearly failed to pass on the correct information there.
We in the SNP have consistently raised our opposition to voter ID, because it disproportionately disenfranchises vulnerable and under-represented groups such as disabled people, young people, trans and non-binary people, and those from ethnic minority backgrounds. Given that local councils, this place and politicians at all levels are disproportionately white, non-disabled, older and non-trans, what assessment have the Government made of the impact that requiring voter ID will have on the representativeness of democracy in these isles?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I would reflect that she and her party are extremely keen to rejoin the European Union and that very similar electoral systems operate in many EU countries, and in many other advanced western democracies. That is what we are seeking to introduce in this country.
Of course, the hon. Lady is right to highlight the need to make sure that various groups of society are not disenfranchised. Research has demonstrated that 99% of black and ethnic minority communities already possess a form of voter ID that is perfectly appropriate for voting. It is also the case that some ethnic communities are more disadvantaged by abuses at the ballot box, which is why we will always fight for all people in our United Kingdom to have trust and confidence in the sanctity of our electoral processes.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Mask wearers are to be required to remove their mask. Will the Government issue reassuring advice, drawing attention to the WhatsApp messages of the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) revealing that masks do not work, have no evidential base and were introduced only as a means of keeping up with the ultras in Scotland?
Rachel Maclean
I am satisfied that the Government are introducing all relevant public health advice, including to people who are clinically vulnerable. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) set out in detail some of the measures that will be taken in local authority polling stations.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
For this set of elections, bearing in mind they are taking place only in England, the Electoral Commission tells me that 250,000 to 350,000 people should have applied for a voter ID certificate. At the deadline, just 85,000 had been issued, despite the estimated £4 million advertising spend. Given that less than a third of voters requiring voter ID applied for this certificate, does the Minister accept that voter suppression has already occurred?
Rachel Maclean
No, I strongly reject that. I can see where this debate is going. Opposition Members are making shrill, hyperbolic and misguided claims that this is somehow voter suppression. I find that quite extraordinary, given that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency Labour party requires and expects its members to turn up with photographic ID when selecting candidates.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is typical flip-flopping from Labour Members, who are now campaigning to repeal laws that they introduced in Northern Ireland in 2003?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. When Labour Ministers introduced voter ID in Northern Ireland, they set out in great detail why the legislation was necessary. Why is it good enough for one valued part of our United Kingdom but not good enough for the electors of Great Britain?
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
As the Local Government Association indicated earlier this month, and as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) has reiterated, there are significant practical problems for polling clerks. Meanwhile, the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators has said that discussions are taking place with the police for extra resources on polling day. With a week to go, can the Minister confirm whether enough polling clerks have been recruited and whether additional police resources have been secured to support the additional burden next Thursday? What strain will this place on police services?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady is right to highlight all the practical work that is going on, and I want to thank local authorities very much for the way they have delivered those additional measures that are going to be needed, backed by £4.75 million of central Government funding through the new burdens process. Of course, the Government will take very seriously all the lessons learned about this exercise, but I return once more to the point: when this process was introduced in Northern Ireland, under a Labour Government, none of the issues that are being raised regularly by Opposition Members were found to have turned out in practice to be the case.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Some elderly constituents have contacted me to say that they know they need voter ID next week and they look forward to their trip to the polling station. Will my hon. Friend confirm what types of voter ID will be acceptable on the day?
Rachel Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for the question and encourage all of her constituents, from whatever age group, to go to the polling station. There is a long list of valid forms of photo ID, and we know that 98% of the population hold one of them. I have the list here and it is available on gov.uk. I will not detain the House by reading them all out, but they include: driving licence; passport; blue badge; PASS—national Proof of Age Standards Scheme—card; the Young Scot card; the Post Office card; and of course the free voter authority certificate.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Let us get back to what is really going on here this morning. One week before these important elections, this Minister has turned up in the House of Commons to answer an urgent question to which she does not know the answer and has offered to write to Members of Parliament. That is utterly unacceptable. Will she return to the House later today, having asked Mr Speaker, to make a statement to this House and turn up with the information that she should have had when she got here, so that she can answer the question to which the House wants the answer?
Rachel Maclean
I firmly rebut that. I have made multiple comments answering the questions that Members have put to me. I also firmly rebut the accusations from Opposition Members suggesting that something is going on here other than protecting our electoral system in this great democracy, in which we are all proud to serve. [Interruption.]
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Let us try to calm things down. In my hand, I have a senior railcard, which allows me to enter a polling station and vote. A young person’s railcard, which is almost identical and carries a photograph, will not give them permission to vote. The Minister will be aware of allegations of vote rigging by this Government against younger people. What does she have against younger people? When a note is taken of who is turned away because they do not have identification, will the person’s demographic characteristics be identified so that we can see whether or not the vote rigging against young people and other groups that has been alleged has taken place?
Rachel Maclean
There is no vote rigging going on here. Under the process that has been set out through regulations, when people who are turned away later return to the polling station with accepted ID, which includes many forms of ID that young people are accustomed to carrying because they need to prove their ID on many occasions, such as when going into pubs and clubs and having an alcoholic drink, legally that can be recorded only by a poll clerk or a presiding officer at the issuing desk. If they go into the polling station, the data would be recorded at that point.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Let me ask a question that was asked earlier. I have grave issues with voter ID, but the Government are going to go ahead in any case, so let me ask a very straightforward question. The people who will be monitoring will perhaps have to turn somebody away, because they have turned up with proof of ID that has an old photograph—the person will think it is representative of them, but it is no longer representative because it is out of date, although apparently still a valid proof of ID. What training will people have had to be able to say to somebody, “You do not have the right to vote here today”?
Rachel Maclean
There has been extensive work and engagement with local authorities by the Electoral Commission, the Government and others to make sure that all possible scenarios and processes are followed properly to protect the sanctity of our electoral system.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
At a time when the majority of people are already not exercising their democratic right to vote in local council elections, this Conservative Government have introduced new voter ID regulations that will remove the right to vote unobstructed for millions of Brits. The Minister is unable to answer the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), but perhaps she can answer this simple question: exactly how many cases of voter impersonation produced enough evidence to lead to a police caution?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman makes a series of points that I do not accept. I do not recognise or accept in any shape or form the statements he has made on the Floor of this House that we are seeking to remove the right to vote. I think those were the words he mentioned. I remind him that 99% of young people already have a valid form of voter identification, and I have answered the question put to me on multiple occasions—it is just that Opposition Members do not like the answer.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Minister has said that people who are turned away at the desk by a qualified voting agent will have that fact recorded. However, if we are looking to understand what is going on as a result of the requirement for ID when voting, surely those people who are turned away by a meeter or greeter at the door must also be recorded, and it is important that the people doing that meeting and greeting are properly trained to do it? Will the Minister go away and give some thought to that point, which she has completely ignored? It will obfuscate any attempt to understand what is going on if people are being turned away at the door and not recorded.
Rachel Maclean
I have not obfuscated or ignored the point. I have been clear that the data on people who are turned away and who later return to the polling station with accepted ID will be recorded by a polling clerk or a presiding officer at the issuing desk. As has been discussed many times in this House, with the arguments rehearsed by many hon. Members, the greeters outside the polling station have an important role to play. However, I am sure that hon. Members can appreciate that, if someone decides not to exercise the right to vote, in a free and democratic society it is not for an agent of a local authority to ask intrusively why that person decides not to vote.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister can help me with this. Will lower turnout in the local elections next month be regarded by Ministers as a success or a failure in terms of what they are trying to achieve?
Rachel Maclean
What the Government are trying to achieve, and what this Conservative Government were elected to do, is to improve public confidence in the process of the exercise of our democracy. I note for the right hon. Lady that, when similar systems have been introduced in other major advanced western democracies, public confidence in the process of voting has gone up. We are an outlier at the moment and we need to bring ourselves into line with accepted practice.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I am a bit puzzled, so let me ask the Minister this: does she actually understand the difference between universal suffrage elections, such as the local elections coming up, and internal party elections?
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Minister simply has not answered the question whether, if people turn up outside and are turned away outside, they will be counted in the data. She has just read out a note that said they will be counted if they later return. If they do not return, will they be counted or not? Will she answer the question?
Rachel Maclean
I refer the hon. Lady to my earlier remarks, where I answered the question clearly.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I think the Minister was in her place when my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) answered my question at Electoral Commission questions. There is only a week left until the local elections, and the Minister knows there are a number of immuno- compromised people for whom catching covid could still be deadly. They will be required to remove their face masks at the polling station. Can she look urgently at getting that changed in time for Thursday, so that those people who can prove they are immunocompromised do not face the requirement to remove their face mask in order to get a ballot paper?
Rachel Maclean
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks I made when questioned on this precise point earlier. I also refer him to the remarks made in great detail by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who was answering for the Electoral Commission, about all the work that has gone on to make sure we protect public health in this situation.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
According to reports this week, it is estimated that only 4% of the 2 million people who do not have valid ID have applied for a voter authority certificate. I am extremely concerned that many of my constituents will not be able to vote on 4 May. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people in Wirral West who will not be able to vote on 4 May because they do not have photo ID?
Rachel Maclean
I say again that it is a shame that Opposition Members are attempting to engage in this hysterical scaremongering. The hon. Lady’s voters in Wirral West, just like voters across Great Britain, have been given all the information they need through the extensive work that this Government have done alongside the Electoral Commission. We know that 98% of her voters in Wirral West will already possess a valid form of voter ID.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It seems that there is considerable anger out there—according to my postbag, anyway—that the desired effect of this Government’s actions seems to be discouraging people from voting. I have two concerns. The first is about what will happen in polling stations when volunteers and local authority officers have to confront disgruntled voters. What safety measures will the Minister put in place? Secondly, in terms of the meet and greet, if data is important, surely the simple solution is to place an additional officer outside the polling station to collect that data.
Rachel Maclean
I do not in any way recognise the statement that the hon. Gentleman made about considerable anger. In fact, nationwide polling indicates precisely the opposite. The public are actually satisfied, and they are pleased that we are taking the necessary steps to increase confidence in the voting system. It is something that this Government were elected to do, and we are getting on and doing it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 96% of people without ID still do not have any ID at all to show when they vote, so the Government’s implementation of their own policy has been completely abysmal. Let us try to be pragmatic. Since it is an electronic process, why can there not be emergency measures at polling stations to enable someone who turns up to vote without ID to create their ID? They would then have the right to vote, and their democracy would not be denied.
Rachel Maclean
The Government simply do not recognise the figures that Members are using or the false voter suppression narrative that they are putting forward. We know that 98% of the electorate already have voter ID. We know that many of the people who have not registered for a free voter authority certificate live in areas that do not have elections, so they do not need to register for a certificate. We also know that turnout is sometimes lower than we would like it to be; that is very disappointing, and we all want turnout to go up. We all know from knocking on doors, as I am sure the hon. Lady does assiduously in her constituency, that sometimes people just do not want to vote. We live in a free country. We cannot compel people to vote. We do not have a compulsory voting system.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
What an absolute and utter mess! I have rarely seen a performance so inept and ill-informed as the Minister’s this morning. The Government cannot even tell us how those they are disenfranchising will be recorded. All I can say is, thank goodness that in Scotland we will have nothing to do with this voter suppression mechanism for elections under our responsibility. Does the example of the Norfolk Tory leaflet not show us that what they are doing is introducing voter fraud where none existed?
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Gentleman’s comments do him no credit. I will directly address the remarks about the Norfolk leaflet. The people responsible apologised straightaway. It went through, I am told, 200 doors. It was a mistake. The leaflet has been withdrawn. If he has been listening to my remarks throughout this session, he will know of the extensive work that has gone on to set out all the ways people can vote, the Government’s position on this, and the way that we have worked with local authorities and the Electoral Commission.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Apologies, Mr Speaker, for missing the start of the urgent question. May I ask the Minister when the data will be published, and will she ensure that it is published within 28 days of 4 May?
Rachel Maclean
Yes. I set that out in the earlier part of my answer to the urgent question, which I am afraid the hon. Lady missed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers. In Northern Ireland, most people know that voter ID is a requirement to vote, unlike in the UK currently. I always try to be helpful and constructive in my comments. We in Northern Ireland accept—this is in reference to what the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) said—out-of-date ID that still has a likeness to the individual. May I ask the Minister to consider that when allowing individuals to vote in England, as I believe that there is a legal right to use the franchise? Any form of photo ID, whether it is out of date or not, should and must be sufficient.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is probably the only Member of this House who has real experience of the system working.
Rachel Maclean
I stand corrected by the hon. Gentleman who is speaking from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is the only such Member I can see in front of me, present in the Chamber and participating, bringing his experience of the system in Northern Ireland. He is right that, as I set out earlier, a photographic ID that is a little out of date but in which the likeness can still be established is a relevant form of ID that will be accepted.
Mr Betts
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just after I started asking my urgent question, I received a letter from the chair of the Electoral Commission John Pullinger, in which he says that the only data recorded will be those recorded by the polling clerks when people get to the desks to try to cast their vote and do not have voter ID. He accepts that the numbers of people met by meeters and greeters and turned away without voter ID cannot be recorded, which will compromise the data that is collected by the polling clerk, so the Electoral Commission will publish two sets of data: one from polling stations without meeters and greeters and one from polling stations with them. How can that be a sensible and co-ordinated information collection to show the actual impact of the measure?
Mr Speaker
Thank you for the point of order. Minister, are you happy to answer that?
Rachel Maclean
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to be able to answer that. This has been referred to many times during the debate. Of course, I have not seen the particular letter to which the hon. Member refers. To answer the substantive points that he has put to me, the greeters will not collect the data, as I have said already from the Dispatch Box. The chair of the Electoral Commission, the former national statistician, has said that that would risk providing inaccurate data in an inconsistent way. Those are important factors that we need to take into account in our deliberations. All poll clerks have been trained to record data accurately, and we have provided new burdens funding. As is right after introducing any new policy, there will of course be a full evaluation of it, of which formal data collection in the polling station will be only one part.
Mr Speaker
As Chair of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, will the Minister write to me as well to clarify whether those data are recorded? Then I have a very clear answer when Members come to me in that role.
Ukraine
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Defence Secretary to make a statement on the war in Ukraine.
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the question. On Friday, the Defence Secretary met his counterparts at Ramstein air base for the 11th meeting of the Ukraine defence contact group. The focus was on accelerating the delivery of military aid packages for Ukraine as they plan to expel Russian forces from illegally occupied Ukrainian territory. The message from Ramstein was clear: international support for Ukraine is growing. More countries than ever are attending; donations are increasing, and their delivery is accelerating.
We are one of the leading providers of military support for Ukraine and were the first country to donate modern main battle tanks. We have now completed delivery of this matériel and training package, which included a squadron of Challenger 2 tanks, along with their ammunition, spares, and armoured recovery vehicles; AS-90 self-propelled guns, sufficient to support two brigades with close support artillery; more than 150 armoured and protected vehicles; and hundreds more of the most urgently needed missiles, including for air defence.
The UK-led international fund for Ukraine encourages donations from around the world and stimulates industrial supply of cutting-edge technologies for Ukraine’s most vital battlefield requirements. The first bidding round raised £520 million-worth of donations, receiving 1,500 expressions of interest from suppliers across 40 countries. The second bidding round opened on 11 April, and the UK is calling for further national donations and is calling on industry to provide its most innovative technologies, especially for air defence.
A total of 14,000 Ukrainian recruits have now returned from the UK to defend their homeland, trained and equipped for operations, including trench clearance, battlefield first aid, crucial law of armed conflict awareness, patrol tactics and rural environment training. In all its dimensions, the higher quality of training for Ukrainian soldiers provided by the UK armed forces and their counterparts from nine other nations has proven battle-winning against Russian forces. The UK will develop the training provided according to Ukraine’s requirements, including the extension to pilots, sailors and marines. It is now expected to reach 20,000 trained recruits this year.
Dr Murrison
The UK will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes, and will spend another £2.3 billion on military support for Ukraine this year. By making that commitment, we will strengthen Ukraine’s position in negotiations, guard its long-term sovereignty and enable Ukraine to deter by denial. The UK people can be proud of their support. We are leading in Europe in providing brave Ukrainians with the training, equipment and ammunition urgently needed to ensure that they prevail.
Mr Speaker
Excellent. I do not have a bad chest; if we can stick to three minutes, that is always helpful.
John Healey
All eyes are on Sudan. We want British nationals to get out during the ceasefire while they can. We pay tribute to the UK armed forces and to Foreign Office and Border Force staff for leading the evacuation. That is why this urgent question is so important: the Government have to be able to do more than one thing at once. The Defence Secretary has 60,000 MOD staff, but I am concerned that the momentum behind our military help is faltering and that our UK commitment to Ukraine is flagging.
The Defence Secretary has made no statements on Ukraine since January. No new weapons have been pledged to Ukraine since February. There has been no 2023 action plan for Ukraine, which was first promised last August. No priorities have been set for the Ukraine recovery conference in London in June. The Prime Minister said in February that:
“The United Kingdom will be the first country to provide Ukraine with longer-range weapons.”
What and when? Like the Minister, the Defence Secretary said on Friday that military aid “delivery is accelerating”. How and what? The UK-led international fund for Ukraine, which the Minister mentioned, was launched last August, but only one contract has been signed so far. Why? The International Criminal Court has put out an arrest warrant for Putin. Where is the UK support for the special tribunal? Some 5,000 Ukrainians were registered homeless last month. Who is sorting this out?
The Minister knows that the Government have had and will continue to have Labour’s fullest support for military aid to Ukraine and for reinforcing NATO allies. We welcomed the £2 billion in the spring Budget for stockpiles, but with no new money for anything else except nuclear, how will the defence Command Paper in June deal with inflation, fill capacity gaps and respond to the increasing threats? Finally, the British public are strongly behind Ukraine. They want to know that the Government are not weakening in their resolve to support Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes.
Dr Murrison
I will do my best to take note of your bad throat, Mr Speaker, and to keep my remarks brief.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being just a little unfair. I am sure that President Zelensky would feel the same way—he certainly did when he came here in February to sign the London accord. It is pretty clear that the UK is leading in Europe. As I said in my opening remarks, the Ukraine recovery conference in June proves that. The UK has been instrumental in this process. We led the instigation of the international fund for Ukraine, and £520 million, of which £300 million has been expended, is really quite an achievement. I think the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, because he is smiling at me, that the UK has been in the van of this. I am proud of the UK people in supporting brave and courageous Ukrainians in their fight against Putin’s aggression.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about war crimes and he is right to do so. He will know that the atrocity crimes advisory group, which again is heavily influenced by the UK, includes input from, for example, the Metropolitan police’s war crimes unit. In every dimension in this country, we are taking a lead. I appreciate his need to attack the Government in this and other areas, but in the specifics of this—in our leadership in Europe and in Ukraine—the UK is more than playing its part. We are leaders. I am really proud of that, and the British people should be too.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What estimate has the Minister made of the continuing ability of Ukraine to deny air superiority to Russia?
Dr Murrison
Ukraine continues to prevail in all dimensions of this conflict. My right hon. Friend will be aware that we have been active, and the international fund that I just referred to is certainly active, in providing air defence. That is crucial in winning this for Ukraine, and we will continue to do so.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The current situation in Bakhmut is dire, with Russian forces pounding the town with rockets, mortars, attack drones and phosphorous incendiary bombs, which are banned under the Geneva convention. Russian forces have occupied the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant since last month, and they are now taking up positions on the roofs of reactor buildings. That raises the concern of damage in future fighting and the threat to the population should that occur. The Wagner mercenary group has admitted to killing hundreds of people who were sheltering in a basement, including 40 children.
What are the UK Government doing to get defensive weapons, in particular ammunition, to Bakhmut as soon as possible? Are the UK Government co-ordinating with producers and European allies with regard to the provision of iodine tablets and radiation treatment? Will the Government step up further the sanctions against the despicable Wagner mercenary group?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I share her sentiments entirely. There is no excuse for nuclear blackmail at Zaporizhzhia or anywhere else. I am appalled by the war of attrition in Bakhmut. It is a most appalling slur on the continent that we call home, and it will be an enduring slur on Putin’s Russia. In terms of protection, I am pleased to say that the International Atomic Energy Agency is monitoring the situation in Ukraine, and the UK obviously stands ready to be of assistance in any way that it can be.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I, too, am surprised at the tone taken by the shadow Secretary of State in this urgent question. The support we have continued to give Ukraine is a great source of pride. Will the Minister say what efforts we are making to replenish our own stocks of weapons? Our generosity has come at a cost, and it is important that Britain continues to keep its own arms ready for any eventuality.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely correct. He will have noted the £5 billion in the integrated review refresh and the spring Budget, some of which will be used for the purpose he has described. However, let us be clear: the munitions we are expending in Ukraine are doing what munitions are meant to do, which is to defend a democratic country that has been the subject of the most appalling aggression against its territorial integrity, against international humanitarian law and every recognisable tenet of international law. I make no apology for using our munitions in that way.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right that it is unacceptable that we have not had a statement since January. In order to hold the Government to account, which is our job, we need to have statements on a regular basis. This is not critical of the Government, in the sense that they have been doing quite a lot to support Ukraine, and this Parliament has been very strong in its support for that. However, we are here to hold the Government to account.
My specific question to the Minister concerns munitions. What is the current situation in terms of stockpiles? I know he will not be able to give actual figures—I get that—but, having identified problems earlier this year, where are we now in being able to build up the stockpiles of munitions not only to supply Ukraine, but to keep our own stockpiles?
Dr Murrison
Plainly, we have to concentrate on the conflict before us, and that is what we are doing in providing munitions to assist Ukraine. The hon. Gentleman will have noted in my comments to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) the reference to the IRR and the spring Budget, which provided a substantial uplift to Treasury funding to enable the UK to replenish what has been expended. However, I do not think that should diminish in any way our support and donations to Ukraine. That would be very foolish and against our interests, not to mention the interests of our brave Ukrainian friends.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the House an update on the position in Ukraine. Clearly, we are going to be involved in providing more and more sophisticated weaponry and support to the Ukrainians. What role will our armed forces play in both this country and Ukraine in delivering those munitions and armaments, and will we get involved in an escalation of the war with Russia?
Dr Murrison
I hope there will not be an escalation in the war between Ukraine and Russia. The whole point is that ultimately we have to come to a diplomatic settlement, and I would urge all parties to dial this down. However, it is about not just munitions and armaments, but training. I have seen for myself our training efforts. Those are vital, as I referred to in my remarks, and will be ongoing. We will have trained 20,000 Ukrainians by the end of this year—a quite extraordinary effort. There is no point in having matériel without the training that goes with it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It will take at least a decade to replenish our depleted ammunition stockpiles, so, besides the £2 billion, what actual action has come from the stockpile review ordered by the Prime Minister back in February, and where on earth is the action plan to grow our defence industrial capacity?
Dr Murrison
Negotiations with our defence partners are ongoing. This conflict is—what?—14 months old. The industry can move at pace, and I pay tribute to the rapidity with which it has provided armaments through the co-ordination cell in Poland and the UK-led international fund. I think the hon. Lady should reflect on how fast that has been put together and its effectiveness in delivering what Ukraine wants to have. This is a Ukraine-led process. We need to provide Ukraine with what it thinks it needs to prosecute this conflict.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I, too, am proud of our nation’s history of defending against despots across the world, and of the way we are taking the lead in this horrific war. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that we will maintain our UK military presence inside Ukraine to look after our diplomatic missions there?
Dr Murrison
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Clearly, diplomacy is what will deal with this situation eventually. For that to happen, we need to ensure that those engaged in that diplomacy are properly protected, which is what our troops, such as they are in Ukraine, will be endeavouring to do.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I absolutely believe that what happened to the Nord Stream gas pipeline in the Baltic is connected with the situation in Ukraine. Yesterday, I raised by point of order the fact that the Admiral Vladimirsky Russian spy ship has been sailing round the Beatrice wind farm, the electrical interconnector to my constituency and other North sea assets that are vital to the UK. What assurance can I have that the UK is doing everything to protect these vital assets?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; it is an issue that probably exercises the minds of policy makers right across northern Europe. He will be aware of an investigation by Sweden, Denmark and Germany on the Nord Stream interdiction. It would be wrong to speculate further on attribution for that at this particular point, but I think we can make some informed guesses about who might be responsible. He is correct about the issue of subsea surveillance; critical national infrastructure needs to be protected. I am more than happy to talk to him at length about where we think this matter is going and what further measures we will take to ensure that there is no maritime interdiction that will attack our critical national infrastructure, particularly that which is subsea.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
With the much-rumoured spring offensive that is likely to come quite soon, we will see an escalation in the conflict and fighting. What consideration has the Minister given to further humanitarian support, particularly through ambulances and 4x4s? From my trips to Ukraine, I know that they are in desperately short supply and are needed.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a short-term humanitarian imperative. There is also the task of rebuilding Ukraine for the longer term, and we are engaged with both those things. He is right about the need for ambulances; I would say armoured ambulances, which have been a big ask from the Ukrainians. We have provided a fleet of CVR(T)—combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked)—Saracen ambulances in particular, which are doing good work in Ukraine. We will continue to provide those, and to note and take action on all requests we get from the Ukrainian surgeon general.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The courage and determination of the Ukrainian people in the face of Putin’s aggression is an inspiration to us all, but it is also a challenge to us to ensure that if we cannot match it, we at least reflect it in the level and consistency of our military and humanitarian support. We cannot do that unless we replenish and backfill our military stockpiles, so can I ask the Minister for a plan or some indication of how our defence procurement is changing or adapting to ensure that our military stockpiles are at the levels that are needed?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The imperative at the moment is to get to Ukraine the munitions that it needs to prosecute what it needs to do, but in the longer term we need a more agile way of ensuring that we can replenish munitions and that the industry can provide us with what we need more quickly. That work is ongoing, but I refer her again to the announcement made in the Budget, which she should welcome, of an uplift of about £5 billion to deal with our nuclear endeavour and with stockpiles. But that is not enough, because we—and all nations—need to be more agile in our provision for conflicts of this sort, and to ensure that in doing this we do not leave ourselves vulnerable. The point is well made. We are all moving at pace to ensure that we can replenish munitions much quicker than we have been able to previously.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
We are all incredibly proud of the support that we have given to Ukraine in terms of kit and training. The key enabler of success in modern warfare is interoperability. Will my right hon. Friend update us on what measures we are taking ahead of the NATO summit in July to enhance and strengthen Ukrainian interoperability with NATO forces?
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is right, and he can be assured that we are working with the Ukrainians to ensure that that interoperability is there. I have to say that historically, even among NATO members, it has often been very difficult to get one system or one country to work with another. That has been a long-standing theme throughout the whole of NATO’s history, so it should not be underestimated. Vilnius will deal with it in some considerable depth and detail, and I hope that in future—as we anticipate the defence of Ukraine for the long term—that interoperability will be greatly enhanced.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his earlier response, but can he say what longer-range weapons the UK will provide to Ukraine and when they will be supplied?
Dr Murrison
The AS-90 is a good artillery piece, and Ukraine will certainly find it a great benefit in doing what it has to do. The aim of our support to Ukraine is to enable it to defend itself; it most certainly is not to go beyond that. It is defensive, which is why ground-to-air is so important. It is also important to consider the UK’s position going forward in terms of the artillery provided to our own military. That piece of work is going on at pace so that we can find a replacement for the AS-90 that is fit to face down the threat we may have from Russia and others in future.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
May I put on record my thanks to the British Government and public for their ongoing support for the people of Ukraine? We are proud to have a number of Ukrainians living in my constituency. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the package of kit and equipment announced by the Secretary of State in January, which included the Challenger 2 tanks and the AS-90s, has now been delivered to Ukraine?
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Can the Minister say when the Defence Secretary last spoke to the NATO Secretary-General about the announcement he has made today and about the Chinese negotiations?
Dr Murrison
I cannot give the right hon. Lady an answer to that, but I am more than happy to write to her.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to match or exceed the £2.3 billion in aid funding to Ukraine this year. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that funding will not come out of the core Defence budget, so that we can keep our troops at home, safe and well equipped, while continuing to support efforts in Ukraine.
Dr Murrison
I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
As we have already heard this morning, the Wagner Group has admitted killing 40 children, and hundreds of civilian adults sheltering them, in a basement in Bakhmut. It is also implicated in destabilising the situation in Sudan. Why are the UK Government dragging their feet on declaring that organisation a trans-national terror organisation?
Dr Murrison
Sanctions have been placed on 1,500 people and 120 entities in connection with this conflict, including the Wagner Group and Yevgeny Progozhin.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I think the Minister was slightly unfair to the shadow Secretary of State in saying that he welcomed and understood his attacking: my hon. Friend was not attacking but doing his proper and constitutional job, as a spokesperson for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, of holding the Government to account. If this war is to drag on for some time, as it seems it will, maintaining the focus of the British Government will be essential. What can the Minister say to us about ensuring that that focus is not lost in Government as we move forward?
Dr Murrison
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not lost. I probably would not trust a member of the Government to make that assertion, but President Zelensky himself has made it plain in his remarks that the UK has played a formidable leadership role in ensuring that his country can repel Putin’s barbarism and the atrocity committed upon the state of Ukraine by Putin’s Russia.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am proud that the UK has taken a lead on Ukraine and has brought together allies from across the world to play their part. One of the ways that we have done that is through the British armed forces training programme, bringing those Ukrainian armed forces personnel up to speed with the latest fighting techniques. Given that the winter lull is now ending on the ground in Ukraine and we are anticipating a major increase in fighting, what are the Government doing with our allies to speed up that programme of training Ukrainian forces once again?
Dr Murrison
I visited the Ukrainians training in the UK and spoke with them and their trainers. They are an extraordinary bunch of people. I am truly humbled to be able to share some of their accounts. By the end of the year we will have trained 20,000 of them. The quality of our training is peerless, right across the domains that one would expect. It is materially contributing to Ukraine’s fighting effectiveness. Importantly, it inculcates the sorts of standards and practices that one would expect of a responsible, civilised country, in stark contrast to Putin’s Russia.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Given the seriousness of the situation, why are Ministers pressing ahead with further cuts to the British Army, with troop numbers estimated to fall by a further 10,000?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady should be careful about what she reads in the press. We have been consistent in our support for the armed forces. I am grateful for the shadow Secretary of State’s support for what the Government are trying to achieve in Ukraine, but it is a pity that Opposition Members are sometimes not similarly supportive of the men and women of our armed forces and defence in the UK.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
What estimate has the Minister made of the number of Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped by Russian forces? What support has been offered to Ukrainian forces to return those children to their parents?
Dr Murrison
The removal of children from Ukraine to Russia is truly shocking and heartrending. The best we can hope for is that Putin sees the reputational damage that it delivers to him and his country and reverses his policy. We have seen some indication in recent times of some children being returned to their parents. It is a truly shocking element of a truly horrendous conflict, and we know precisely who to blame for it.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
We all want the Ukrainian counter-offensive to be successful. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) was right to challenge the Government on whether they are adhering to their commitments. On the point about long-range missiles, which my right hon. Friend and others have pressed the Minister on, can he tell us whether the MOD is now walking back from the Prime Minister’s commitment to offer further long-range missiles? If it is, when will we hear more detail and clarity on how many more long-range missiles, and what sort, will be issued to Ukrainian forces?
Dr Murrison
Our provision of munitions, in concert with others, is driven by the Ukrainian ask and our ability to deliver them. That was discussed at Ramstein and will be discussed further at Vilnius, subject to the second round of the international fund call that opened on 11 April. It is important to understand that a lot of that will be driven by the international fund’s executive panel. Obviously, it will listen closely to what President Zelensky and his advisers feel they need to repel this most awful invasion of his country. However, the hon. Gentleman needs to understand the true extent of what the UK has done. Not only has it led Europe in providing munitions and training, but it has provided the bulk of the £520 million that populates the UK-led international fund for Ukraine. That is a substantial achievement.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In the face of a Russian invasion, we must continue to support and stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people. But this war has exposed how the Conservative Government have underfunded and hollowed out our armed forces over the last 13 years. Six months ago, we were told that we had 227 Challenger 2 tanks. Now the Minister for Armed Forces advises us that, with 14 in Ukraine, we have 157 deployable or deployed tanks. What has happened to the other 56?
Dr Murrison
As the hon. Gentleman should know, we committed to 148 Challenger 3 upgrades in the integrated review refresh. That remains our position. But if he is going to make a defence spending commitment on behalf of his party, I will be delighted to hear it—in particular how much more he would spend beyond what was announced in the spring Budget.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
A few moments ago, the Minister said that we must give to Ukraine what Ukraine tells us it needs. All of us here will have been in Westminster Hall to hear President Zelensky’s impassioned speech. Several weeks later, I and many others had the privilege of listening to the Ukrainian ambassador and the Speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament, who reiterated their needs and demands, which were very clear: they asked for planes and munitions. Can the Minister update us?
Dr Murrison
Yes, I can. Ukraine has had munitions from the international community, and in particular from the United Kingdom. I have just said that the UK is in the lead when it comes to donations to Ukraine. The hon. Gentleman is right to press me about planes. We plan to train pilots to operate jets. That will take a long time—it will not happen overnight—and it is no good in the acute war-fighting phase of this particular conflict. But that training is important to guarantee the long-term integrity of Ukraine, and we remain committed to that.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The demand for prosthetic limbs in Ukraine continues to climb owing to the conflict. The director of the Without Limits mechanical prosthetics clinic in Kyiv has stated that the best prosthetics come from the UK. What steps are Ministers taking to ensure that we continue to support Ukraine in meeting that demand?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that point. Recently, I was pleased to visit the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Stanford Hall, which is recognised internationally as a centre of excellence. Its expertise will undoubtedly influence how Ukraine develops its capacity in prosthetics. I am giving every encouragement to that process. I have also spoken to the Ukrainian surgeon-general about what she feels will be required as we go forward. The hon. Lady is right to point out that we do prosthetics very well, and I am pleased to have been involved with that in the past. I am pleased that, going forward—it will take a long time—the UK will be right at the forefront of the efforts to ensure that those who, sadly, have been injured in this terrible conflict are provided with the prosthetics and rehabilitation that they require.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Is this relevant to the urgent question?
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you advise me whether it is in order for Ministers to suggest that Opposition Members do not support our armed forces when we are doing our job in holding this Government to account? I take strong offence at the words the Minister stated. I am a member of the Royal College of Defence Studies, I completed two of the parliamentary armed forces schemes, and I have served on Labour’s Front Bench as part of the Defence team.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is up to the Minister if he wishes to respond to it; if he does not, I am sure he will consider the points she has made.
Dr Murrison
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for articulating her support to the men and women of our armed forces. I am very pleased she has said that and put it on the record, and I am sure they will be extremely grateful to her.
Gambling Act Review White Paper
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s proposals for gambling reform.
Gambling is a hugely popular pastime, which has been part of our British life for centuries. Ours has always been a freedom-loving democracy where people are entitled to spend their money how they please and where they please, and millions choose to spend some of their hard-earned money on the odd bet on a match or a race without any problems. This popularity has seen our betting companies balloon in size and become big contributors to both our economy and, in the taxes they provide, to our public services.
But, with the advent of the smartphone, gambling has been transformed: it is positively unrecognisable today, in 2023, from when the Gambling Act was introduced in 2005. Temptation to gamble is now everywhere in society, and while the overwhelming majority is done safely and within people’s means, for some the ever-present temptation can lead them to a dangerous path. When gambling becomes addiction, it can wreck lives: shattered families; lost jobs; foreclosed homes; jail time; suicide. These are all the most extreme scenarios, but it is important to acknowledge that, for some families, those worst fears for their loved ones have materialised: parents like Liz and Charles Ritchie, whose son, Jack, took his own life while travelling in Hanoi after years of on-off addiction. Gambling problems in adults have always been measured in terms of money lost, but we cannot put a cost on the loss of dignity, the loss of identity and in some cases the loss of life it can cause.
We need a new approach that recognises that a flutter is one thing, but unchecked addiction is another. Today we are bringing our pre-smartphone regulations into the present day with a gambling White Paper for the digital age.
Before I go into the details of how we remove some of the blind spots in the system, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), as well as my predecessors my right hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) and for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who have all led the work at various stages, and in particular the Minister for sport, gambling and civil society, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who has driven this work in government over recent months. There have also been some outstanding contributions to the debate from individual Members of this House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friends the Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), and the hon. Members for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and from the other place.
The proposals encapsulated in our blueprint draw on that knowledge and combine it with the best available evidence and insights in the 16,000 submissions received in response to our call for evidence. That is what this White Paper will deliver, with proposals for reform that cover six key areas. These proposals build on our strong track record of acting in punters’ interests through measures such as: cutting stakes on fixed odds betting terminals in 2019; banning credit card gambling and reforming online VIP schemes in 2020; introducing new limits to make online slots safer in 2021; and upgrading rules on identifying and intervening to protect people showing signs of harm in 2022.
First, we want to tackle some of the challenges unique to online gambling. Campaigners have told me that one element that differentiates problem gambling from many other forms of addiction is that it often takes place in secret, so we will force companies to step up their checks on when losses are likely to be unaffordable or harmful for punters. Companies must already intervene when they know that a customer is spending vast sums, but this change will better protect those least able to afford even small losses. We also plan to bring online slots games more into line with bricks-and-mortar equivalents by introducing a stake limit on online slots of between £2 and £15, subject to consultation.
Secondly, we know that many addicts find that each time they break free from the temptation to gamble, they are drawn back into the orbit of online companies with the offer of a free bet or some free spins. To help to stop problem gamblers being bombarded, the Gambling Commission has beefed up its rules on online VIP schemes—which has already resulted in a 90% reduction in the number of those schemes—and will now consult on ensuring that bonus offers are not being deployed in ways that only exacerbate harm.
That brings me to the third item, which is our regulator. We can all agree that we need a robust, data-savvy and proactive regulator that can stand up to the giant companies that it regulates, so my Department will ensure that the Gambling Commission has the appropriate resources to support this work and deliver the commitments in the White Paper. No one should be denied an innocent flutter, but the public should not have to bear the cost of treatment when a punter becomes an addict. One important element that will be introduced—backed by campaigners and also by many in the House—is a statutory levy to turn the tables on problem gambling, requiring gambling companies to fund more groundbreaking research, education and treatment.
Fourthly, we need to redress the power imbalance between punters and gambling companies when things go wrong. People who find that they have lost out owing to operator failures need to know that all is not lost. We will work with industry and the Gambling Commission to create a non-statutory ombudsman who will give customers a single point of contact.
I know that the fifth element—doing more to protect children—unites the whole House. Gambling is an adult activity, and it must remain an adult activity. That is one of the main reasons why I applauded the decision taken by the Premier League a fortnight ago to remove gambling sponsorships from players’ shirt fronts in the coming seasons, and it is the reason why we are ensuring children cannot engage in any form of gambling either online or on widely accessible scratchcards.
Finally, we know that the status quo disadvantages casinos, bingo halls and other traditional premises in comparison with their online equivalents. A number of assumptions that prevailed at the time of the 2005 Act now appear increasingly outdated, so we plan to rebalance regulation and remove restrictions that disadvantage the land-based sector.
Nearly every Member of Parliament will have met constituents whose lives have been blighted by gambling harm. The online world has transformed so many parts of life, and gambling is no exception. It is our responsibility to ensure that our rules and regulations keep up with the real world so that we can protect the most vulnerable while also allowing everyone else to enjoy gambling without harm. I look forward to working with every Member of the House to bring our gambling rules into the digital age, and I commend this statement to the House.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for that update, and for advance sight of her statement. I, too, pay tribute to all the campaigners who have long been calling for better regulation and reform of the gambling industry. I should also inform the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the shadow Secretary of State, had given her apologies for her absence today long before we knew of the statement.
What we all know to be true is that updated gambling regulation is long overdue. The most recent legislation is from 2005, long before the huge rise and growth in online and mobile gambling opportunities. As a consequence, people can now gamble constantly and make huge losses in a very short time. I have met many people whose lives, and whose families’ lives, have been devastated by gambling harm. It is because of them that Members of this House are coming together from across the parties to call for better regulation of gambling. Anyone can fall into gambling addiction, so we need a modernised, robust system that is fit for the future.
Some forms of gambling, from bingo to the races, are of course a traditional British pastime. Around half of adults participate in some form of gambling, the vast majority with enjoyment and in moderation. Indeed, bingo halls are important in sustaining our local communities, especially in coastal and rural towns. Let us be clear: bingo halls, adult gaming centres and casinos face pressure as a result of sky-rocketing energy bills, and concerns about the sustainability of their business model in the face of significant online competition. It is therefore welcome that the announcement distinguishes between bricks-and-mortar bingo halls and low-stake adult gaming centres on the one hand, and the unique dangers of the online world on the other.
However, I must push the Secretary of State further. We have waited a long time for the statement, but it is very light on substance. Can she confirm exactly how the levy contributions of land-based and online gambling forums will differ? That is an important point, and I urge her to clarify that for the industry and the 110,000 people employed in it. What is the Treasury’s economic impact assessment of this announcement? The Government have delayed the White Paper many times. Everything that they are announcing today was ready to go a year ago. Six gambling Ministers and four Culture Secretaries have promised to publish this White Paper imminently. That being said, we welcome many of the measures announced; they are things we have long called for, and are a move in the right direction.
The Secretary of State mentioned the Premier League’s voluntary ban on gambling adverts on the front of shirts. That really is quite weak. It does not cover hoardings, or even the side or back of shirts. It also will not come into effect for three years. In that time, what is to stop the Premier League from reversing the voluntary ban once public attention has moved on? Will the Minister press the Premier League to go further?
There are further points arising from today’s announcement on which I must press the Secretary of State. First, as I say, we welcome the levy, but can she tell us exactly what the levy will be? Labour welcomes the new powers for the Gambling Commission, but she must confirm whether it will get extra resources to match the additional responsibilities. The National Audit Office has already found that the Gambling Commission has insufficient capacity to regulate the industry, and now it will have more to regulate. Is she confident that it will have the capacity for the expanded role that it will take on? On affordability checks, further sharing between gambling companies is badly needed, and I await details of the checks after the consultation. However, it is vital that rules on affordability checks be set independently, not by the industry. Will the Secretary of State provide reassurance on that?
The Secretary of State refers to stake limits and “safer by design” mechanisms, which of course we welcome, but will stake limits be based on how dangerous a product is? Who will decide that? It took years, and the resignation of a Minister, to get stake limits for fixed odds betting terminals, so will the Secretary of State reassure the House that the limits will have teeth, and will reduce harm from day one?
Finally, it is clear that we need greater protections for children and under-18s, so will the measures provide for stronger action on loot boxes, and other in-game features that are proven to make young people more likely to experience harms relating to gambling and problem gambling, harm to their mental health, and financial harm? Labour has been clear that we stand ready to work with the Government to tackle problem and harmful gambling; we have been for a long time. We have repeatedly called for updates to the completely outdated legislation. The Government have a real opportunity here to do the right thing, and make positive, real-world change. The Secretary of State must commit to getting these updates over the line in good time. The time for more and more consultation has been and gone. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all the necessary statutory instruments will be passed before the House rises for the summer? She must crack on and make good on these long overdue promises. I look forward to further clarification from her on the points that I have raised, and to working together to tackle gambling at its root.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the shadow Minister for her comments. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), made her apologies to me, for which I am grateful; I understand the reasons for her absence.
I am pleased that the shadow Minister said that we need to update the rules, and that the measures will have cross-party support. I very much look forward to working with the shadow Front Benchers on this matter, which is so important. She mentioned the delay; I would reiterate a number of points, including the fact that we have taken measures over the past few years, including cutting the stakes for fixed odds betting terminals, banning credit card gambling, reforming online VIP schemes and introducing new limits to make online slots safer. She will know that I have been in post only two and a half months, but this has been a priority for me. I have brought this White Paper in with some speed and timeliness, I would say, and she can be confident that we will continue to ensure that these measures make it into the necessary regulations. We are bringing many of them through via statutory instrument, which will speed up the process, and I very much look forward to the co-operation of those on the Opposition Front Bench in ensuring that we can do so as soon as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on finally—finally—getting this White Paper published. I particularly welcome the introduction of the statutory levy, which she will know has great support in all parts of the House. The most disturbing fact I have learned in preparing for the Select Committee’s upcoming investigation into gambling is that at this moment there are something like 50,000 children in this country who are problem gamblers. That is a truly shocking figure. Can she expand more on the essential measures in her proposals that will protect children from this terrible scourge?
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. Friend makes some important points. I think all of us across this House want to ensure that we protect children. That is why, in addition to measures already in place, such as ensuring that there is no advertising targeted towards children, there are a number of new measures in the proposals, including the voluntary ban on gambling advertising on football shirts, but not limited to that. As I mentioned, we are ensuring that monetary gambling is illegal until the age of 18. We will be making it illegal for children to use scratchcards or slots that produce cash. The statutory levy he mentions is also important, because through that levy we can continue to look at research on how gambling affects children and take any necessary measures in due course.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. We have consistently encouraged and pressed the Government for action in this area and, as other right hon. and hon. Members have said, a dozen Ministers responsible for gambling have come and gone since change was first promised. The 2005 Act is clearly out of date and grows less relevant to modern gambling realities by the day. Those vulnerable to harm, especially children, are not well protected under the current legislation.
My party and I will approach this important discussion with constructive dialogue to support evidence-led legislation from the outset. Will the Secretary of State outline the precise role of the ombudsman, especially when it comes to protecting children? I know that hon. Members on all sides are deeply concerned by the huge rise in gambling among children. We know that gambling destroys lives. I pay tribute to the many charity workers and others who have pressed for these changes, including hon. Members across the House—particularly, on the SNP Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who has worked tirelessly on this. We will work constructively with the Government in assessing the right way forward to protect the vulnerable from harm.
Lucy Frazer
I am very grateful for that constructive approach and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on the measures as they progress. He mentioned the non-statutory ombudsman, which is an important measure to redress the balance between punters who feel that their issues have not been addressed sufficiently and the companies involved. That is why we are bringing it forward, and we will be consulting on it in due course.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome this announcement, and I pay tribute to the members of the all-party parliamentary group and its leadership, the hon. Members for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). The hon. Lady is with us today and has driven this with unstoppable power, like a force of nature, so I pay particular tribute to her.
I welcome this announcement because it is at least a start. It is a positive start, and it includes most of the recommendations of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm, which is welcome, but there are a couple of other areas to mention. First, we should recognise that gambling is an online harm, with most of the harm being caused by online companies. Physical betting shops and so on are not part of that process, and the Minister will recognise that the majority of the statutory levy should be borne by those causing online harm.
The second area is advertising and children, on which the announcement simply does not go far enough. I do not mean to be churlish, because I welcome the announcement, but it should not be voluntary for football clubs to take gambling advertising off their shirts. I am a season ticket holder at Tottenham, whose shirts do not advertise betting companies, but many clubs’ shirts do, and children wear these things and sometimes go to school in them. They are therefore advertising gambling companies on their shirt. We need to recognise that this is a permanent process. Even if advertising is moved to the sleeve, in two years’ time, who knows, it might creep from the sleeve to the front. After the consultation, the Government should come back with a decision that we need to take control.
I welcome this announcement. It is a step towards security, safety and common sense, and that has to be welcomed by the House.
Lucy Frazer
I commend my right hon. Friend for all the work that he and others have done in this area. It is because of their tireless campaigning, along with that of people and families who have suffered harm, that I am standing here today to introduce this White Paper.
My right hon. Friend mentions young people, and I share his concern. We must do more, which is why we are taking steps to make gambling illegal, in many forms, for under-18s. I welcome the Premier League’s announcement on banning gambling advertising from the front of shirts. Footballers are role models for our children, and we do not want young people to advertise gambling on the front of their shirts. They like to wear football shirts, so I welcome the Premier League’s voluntary move, which my predecessors and I encouraged.
Of course, we will look carefully at the evidence on the funding from the statutory levy, and we will keep all these matters under review.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I have just managed to get a copy of the White Paper. It was widely reported that it might introduce restrictions on over-18s, but it appears to be more of a commitment to consult on asking gambling companies to think 25, rather than think 21, when verifying people’s age. Given that we are trying to address the real issue of gambling by children, can she explain the thinking behind that provision?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is appropriate to protect people who are aged between 18 and 25. When he reads the whole White Paper, he will see that it proposes a consultation on reducing the amount of money that young adults, aged between 18 and 25, can bet on online slots.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and her officials on their work to produce this review. I agree that the Gambling Commission needs to be a data-savvy regulator. Can she confirm that it will be able to run independent background affordability checks without causing friction in the system? Importantly, many of the industry rules covering the gathering and use of data to target the advertising that drives customers towards loot boxes were written for the pre-smartphone world. The Gambling Commission needs to make sure that vulnerable players are not being data-profiled and targeted.
Lucy Frazer
As always, my hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to discuss these issues with him, given his expertise and knowledge of this area. He mentions player protection checks, which will largely be seamless and frictionless background checks that affect only 20% of people, most of whom will not know they are taking place. These secret checks are important in ensuring that gambling companies are taking their responsibilities seriously.
My hon. Friend will know that the Government are working with companies to ensure there are protections on loot boxes, too.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling related harm, I welcome this long overdue White Paper. In the APPG’s 2019 interim report, we asked for affordability checks, parity between land-based and online stakes, an independent ombudsman, a curb on advertising and, most importantly, a statutory levy. Job done.
The APPG pushed for all the reforms the Secretary of State mentioned earlier against a strong backlash from the industry, not least on fixed-odds betting terminals, VIP schemes and credit cards. Today’s announcement shows progress. It may have taken eight years of campaigning, nine Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and ten changes in my hair colour, but it is progress none the less.
Today is a momentous occasion that many thought, and many wished, would never happen, but now the commitments need to be fulfilled. We do not need more consultation—we have had two and a half years since the review. We need swift action, immediate implementation of the proposals and urgent legislative change where necessary. After 18 years of the gambling industry’s dominance over this agenda, now is the time for levelling up. Will the Secretary of State commit today to ensuring that these changes are brought in as a priority, with no delaying tactics? Let us protect those whose lives have been affected by gambling-related harms and let us stop lining the pockets of an industry that has had it its own way for far too long.
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Lady and commend her hugely for all her work. As she has highlighted, we have listened and taken action. I really do commend and thank her for her work.
I have been in post for two and a half months. I have brought this proposed legislation forward and she can be reassured that I, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), will continue to ensure that action happens swiftly. As she will know, following a White Paper, various technical consultations need to take place. We will bring forward these measures largely through statutory instruments, and she has my utmost commitment that I will ensure that process is done as speedily as possible.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. How many regular punters did the Secretary of State speak to before bringing forward these proposals, particularly in relation to the affordability checks, including the bizarre and arbitrary figures of £1,000 in a day or £2,000 over 90 days, which amounts to £22 a day by my reckoning?
The Conservative party used to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, but that seems to have gone out of the window with these affordability check proposals. Will the Secretary of State tell me who decides whether or not an individual can afford the amount that they are gambling when an affordability check is made? Will it be the Government, the Gambling Commission, the bookmakers or the banks? Do the punters themselves get any say at all about how they spend their own hard-earned money?
Lucy Frazer
I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on this issue. I know that he, like many others, wants to ensure that people—punters—who enjoy a flutter are not prevented from doing so. He asks what engagement we have had. Some 44% of adults gamble, and we have spoken to quite a lot of them. We have had 400 meetings on the issue to ensure we take all perspectives into account.
The White Paper is about balance and ensuring that people can go about their business, doing what they enjoy, without restriction, but at the same time protecting those people who need protection. Most people will not even know that the checks he talks about are happening. They will be frictionless and happen behind the scenes: 80% of people will have to do nothing at all and 20% will have a simple check on whether they have been made bankrupt or have a county court judgment against them. They will not know that that check is taking place. Those sorts of checks take place in a variety of different instances, but they are there to ensure that in the very small percentage of cases where an operator needs to double-check whether somebody might be going down the wrong road, they can do so. I should emphasise that those checks are already taking place; gambling companies already have a responsibility to ensure the protection of those who gamble with them. We are trying to protect to people such as the nurse who spent £245,000 over a few months, when the gambling company knew that she had a salary of £30,000. Those are the sorts of instances that we want to stop with our proposals in the White Paper.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome today’s White Paper, but may I ask a question on the statutory levy? It is all well and good imposing a statutory levy, and I welcome that, but how that money is used is vital and has to be independent of the industry. The researchers must have free and open access to the data, and they have to be free to choose what research they undertake. Those in the gambling industry should not have any sway over what is researched and what is not.
Lucy Frazer
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances he wants that the gambling companies will not have a say in what the money is spent on and that we will ensure that the money is spent appropriately.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I welcome the tone that the Secretary of State is striking today. Tackling problem gambling and, in particular, protecting vulnerable people is, of course, essential. Does she recognise that the gambling industry, whether it is to everyone’s taste or not, has a symbiotic relationship with grassroots sport in this country, and not just horse- racing? What steps is she going to take to ensure that with the regulation that she is rightly taking forward we do not damage grassroots sport in this country?
Lucy Frazer
I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s intervention, because he has made an important point. We have a world-class industry that has revenues of billions of pounds and which is putting in money, through its taxes, to support many of our public services. For the majority of people, it is offering something that they enjoy, so we are trying to strike a balance between allowing that to continue and protecting problem gamblers, of whom we estimate there are 300,000.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I welcome the statement, although I have not had time to read the 250 pages of the White Paper. I am sure that the devil will be in the detail. I am not as enamoured of this statement as other Members seem to be. I am delighted that our hard work has been recognised, and it is important today that we recognise the hard work of the campaigners, the people with lived experience and the people who have lost loved ones who have committed suicide because of their addiction to gambling. We must recognise the hard work they have done to bring me to this place and allow me to express their opinion too.
I was delighted to hear in answer to the question about the levy that the industry is not going to have its fingers in that pie. That money must be ringfenced and channelled through the NHS so that it is used properly. I see one line in the statement reads:
“work with industry and the Gambling Commission”
I urge caution, because they are part of the problem. If we are going to work with them, we have to work with people who have experienced gambling harm in the first place, in order to get a balanced view.
I echo the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who said that we are taking gambling adverts off the front of English Premier League team shirts on a voluntary basis—that should be enshrined in law—but what happens to kids who follow a team in the Championship, League 1, League 2 or the Scottish Premiership? Those children will still be exposed to the adverts, even though we acknowledge that they do harm. If the adverts do harm, they have all got to go: from all shirts; from all around the stadium and all around the pitch; and from in between games on the television and the radio. Advertising does harm, so all advertising has to go.
Lucy Frazer
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done in this area. He rightly recognises the work of a range of gambling campaigners, and I am really pleased to have met many gambling campaign groups to hear their stories and see how they have been affected. He is right to talk about advertising aimed towards young children, which is why such targeting is already prohibited. We must welcome what the Premier League has done and, as I said, the statutory levy will enable us to look at this issue further. If necessary, of course, we can take other steps in the future.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My right hon. and learned Friend said that she wants to protect the vulnerable with this review, which is an aim that everybody in this House shares, but Members will understand my surprise that there was no mention in her statement of the fact that in just under half an hour people can google non-gambling-aware bets and find more than 400 regulated sites with no protection or checks for the vulnerable. There was little or no mention of protecting the vulnerable from the scourge of scratchcards. I also did not hear her mention companies that are for-profit fundraisers, which openly advertise to the vulnerable as well. Does she agree that unless gambling is considered in the round and in a balanced way, the aim of protecting the vulnerable will still be being debated in this place in the next 20 years?
Lucy Frazer
I thank my hon. Friend for his points. This is a very extensive White Paper. Many people have mentioned its 250 pages, within which there are a lot of provisions to protect a lot of people. He rightly mentions that we need to stop punters going to the black market, and strengthen Gambling Commission and local authority power and resources. That is one of the things highlighted in the White Paper, which Members will have an opportunity to read when they have a little more time. The regulator will be able to block or take down black market operators, and where necessary suspend or take away licences from companies that break the rules. As I mentioned, we are also increasing the age for a number of other types of gambling.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for acknowledging the work of my constituents Liz and Charles Ritchie, and for her engagement with them, and indeed that of her predecessors. While warmly welcoming much in the statement, as I do, I know that Charles and Liz will, along with other families bereaved by gambling addiction, be deeply disappointed by the failure to tackle advertising, particularly in football. The Secretary of State rightly highlighted, as have others, the shocking number of children who are addicts or have problems with gambling—those 11 years old and younger. For many, football is the hook. The Premier League recognised in the action that it took that advertising is harmful, but a front-of-shirt ban is not enough. Fans are exposed to an average of 700 ads at every premier league game. Other countries have acted. Will the Secretary of State think again on that issue, because the campaign for comprehensive action on advertising will not stop?
Lucy Frazer
I thank the hon. Member for his points. It has been an honour to speak with the Ritchies, who have articulated their case so well. I know that they and others would like us to go further, as I am sure the gambling companies would like us to go less far. The White Paper seeks a balance between allowing people who are not suffering harm to go about their lives, and protecting those who unfortunately are harmed. It is already the position that advertisements should not target children. We have seen the measures taken by the Premier League. The Government were very firm and made their position very clear to the Premier League regarding the action that it ought to consider taking. As I mentioned, we will look carefully at any further research that comes out, and take action if necessary.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to review the dated and rather severe regulatory regime under which the postcode lottery and hospice lotteries have to operate?
Lucy Frazer
I know that society lotteries bring in valuable revenues that are enjoyed by communities. One of the changes that we are making relates to raising the age to ensure that we protect young people, but I am always happy to continue looking at the work that such lotteries are doing.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Minister read out almost a race card of her predecessors, so let me congratulate her on the short time in which she has managed to get out this White Paper to enable much better public debate. Is there not a danger that any regime will be vulnerable to offshore, out-of-jurisdiction operators, who flout the regulations and undermine legitimate companies? Will she mobilise a whole-of-Government approach—including the crime agencies, the Treasury and the banks—to tackle the gambling black market and ensure the success of her reforms while protecting a major British industry and its workers?
Lucy Frazer
The right hon. Member makes an important point. People have said to me, “If you tighten up the rules in relation to legitimate gambling, all you will do is drive punters offshore.” In this White Paper we are stopping punters going to the black market, because we are strengthening the powers and resources of the Gambling Commission and local authorities. The regulator will now be able to block or take down black market operators and, where necessary, suspend or take away licences from companies that break the rules.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
My question is very much in the same vein. I welcome so much of today’s announcement, and the Secretary of State is quite right that it is with the advent of smartphones that we have seen such a change in gambling behaviour. Some people might choose not to pursue a legitimate operator because they do not want to go through the affordability checks or other elements of the new regime. If that is the case, they can just use Google to find many more options, so will more be done really to clamp down on the black market, particularly when it is so accessible through hand-held devices?
Lucy Frazer
Yes; I can confirm that the regulator will be able to block or take down black market operators or, where necessary, suspend the licences of companies that break the rules.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
About 400 people take their own lives each year owing to gambling harms. It is rather a personal issue for me and my home community, because a much-loved local GP did exactly that in 2007, and is still missed today. We all mourn his passing; there is a very moving memorial to him outside the local health centre. Can I ask the Government to crack on with this as fast as humanly possible? If we had had this legislation some years ago, that gentleman might still be with us.
Lucy Frazer
My thoughts are with all those who have lost family members. I hope that they will look on today as a moment to which they have contributed. I know it has taken some time, but this is the largest reform of the industry since 2005, and it is game changing. It is of course right that we take the time to get the regulations right when we bring them up to the smartphone age.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement and look forward to reading the measures in the White Paper. However, there is a sense of déjà vu in that every time we look to clamp down on an area in which vulnerable people are being exploited and the gambling industry profits from that vulnerability, the sector moves on to find a new platform or new method by which it can exploit. What confidence does the Secretary of State have in the future-proofing of these measures? Will she commit to ensuring that there are constant reviews of the legislation? The gambling industry is powerful, and has a big and very persuasive approach to this place, and it is important that vulnerable people are protected.
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we need to keep matters under review. The statutory levy will help us to do that, ensuring not only that we keep up with what is happening in technology, but that we have the evidence to back up any policy changes that we need to bring forward.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The end of gambling company sponsorship on premier league team shirts is a welcome step, but it will not come until the end of the 2025-26 season—three years hence. It is not good enough; there is not enough urgency in that. Everyone who watches sports coverage, particularly football on TV, is constantly bombarded with images and repetitious advertisements urging them to partake in gambling games, spot bets and betting offers for particular scores or match outcomes. What are children watching those matches on TV meant to do—hide behind the sofa, cover their eyes, put their fingers in their ears? They are being constantly bombarded. It has become far too normalised, and we know it is damaging lives with regularity. Action and urgency are imperative.
Lucy Frazer
I recognise the points that the hon. Member is making, but I would like to congratulate the Premier League on the action it has taken. It has talked about it for a long time, and it has now taken action. The White Paper today brings in a large number of actions that will make a significant difference. We will obviously keep matters under review, but the statutory levy will help us and enable us to do that.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
It was ever thus that when Governments ban or curtail legitimate activities, underground markets bubble up to fill that void. I was struck by some evidence from the Institute of Economic Affairs that shows that even without things such as stake limits, 5% of UK gamblers have used unlicensed and unregulated sites and half could name a site where they could gamble in an unregulated way. While I hear the measures that the Secretary of State has outlined around greater powers for the Gambling Commission to shut down black market operators, what assessment has she made of the volume of current gamblers who could move to underground gambling? Does she think that the Gambling Commission, even with its new powers, would be able to keep up with that?
Lucy Frazer
It is important to ensure that we protect people from legitimate gambling where we have problem gamblers, but also from the black market. I emphasise one important point, because some of the measures we are bringing in today are already in place for some companies. Some responsible companies have already taken the measures we have announced today, and they have punters and successful operations. The issue is that not all companies are doing the right thing, so our measures seek to ensure consistency across the board to ensure that the system is not prejudiced against companies doing the right thing and that we protect those who might become problem gamblers.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State said in her statement that she will ensure that children can “engage in no forms of gambling”, including online gambling. Can she confirm whether that will be through an age verification process, and how exactly will that operate?
Lucy Frazer
It is already the case that it is illegal for children to gamble online, and there are some protections in place. We will continue to ensure that those protections are strengthened.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Clearly there is a delicate balance between addiction and the safe enjoyment of gambling, and as always the devil will be in the detail. What assurances can my right hon. and learned Friend provide that these proposed reforms will not negatively impact people’s enjoyment of a day at the races, a football bet on a Saturday, a night at the bingo or our much-loved British sports, including horse-racing, that employ thousands of people directly and indirectly across the UK?
Lucy Frazer
For those who are betting occasionally and as a matter of enjoyment, these measures will not make any difference—they will still be able to enjoy their leisure activities. These measures are designed to help and protect those who are problem gamblers, whose lives are potentially going to be ruined. I encourage those who want to still to take part in an enjoyable leisure activity, which is what it is for millions of people across the country. We are trying to strike the right balance here.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I welcome a number of the measures that the Secretary of State has set out today, including the statutory levy, but also, importantly, for most if not all of us in this House, the protections for children and young people, particularly in the online sphere. Given that technology moves at great pace, and that many of the technological advances we have seen since 2005 and the problems associated with that when it comes to gambling could not have been foreseen 18 years ago, what assurances can she give that not only the rules she is setting out now will be updated in future, but that the powers, resources and capacity of the new regulator will be kept up to date with the moves in technology?
Lucy Frazer
It is fundamental that we continue to consider this issue as technology changes. The hon. Member mentions the statutory levy. The statutory levy will enable us to have research and make evidence-based policy, but it will also allow, if appropriate, the education of young people, so that even when technology changes, they understand the issues they may face.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for her statement on the Gambling Act review. Many of us feel that there has been positive progress, so I say well done, Secretary of State. I have concerns about the accessibility of gambling on smartphones. Photographic ID proving age is necessary on betting apps, so some under-18s have been buying fake IDs to enable them to bet online. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with large betting organisations about more in-depth scrutiny of the legitimacy of the IDs used for betting?
Lucy Frazer
It is, of course, important that we protect young people and that people under the age of 18 do not gamble. Betting companies have to ensure that people are following their rules.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling-related harm, I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and welcome the long-awaited White Paper. I do not agree with parts of it, but that is for another day. This month saw the opening of the UK’s first women-only residential treatment for gambling addiction. It caters towards women’s needs, including a consideration of childcare demands, which means that, on average, women spend less time in treatment than men. Does the Secretary of State agree that that highlights the need for an intersectional public-health-focused and free-to-access treatment programme offering tailored support to those who require it?
Lucy Frazer
I was very pleased in my engagement to speak with clinicians who are dealing with gambling harm, and I am pleased that the statutory levy will ensure that NHS trusts will take the funding that they have previously turned away because of where the money was coming from. The measures that we are bringing forward will help those people to get the support that they need.
Business of the House
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 1 May will include:
Monday 1 May—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 2 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, followed by general debate on support for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 3 May—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill.
The House will rise for the coronation recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 3 May and return on Tuesday 9 May.
The provisional business for the week commencing 8 May includes:
Monday 8 May—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 9 May—Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 10 May—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill.
Thursday 11 May—Debate on a motion on the future of overseas territories, followed by general debate on no recourse to public funds. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 12 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 15 May includes:
Monday 15 May—Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. First, on behalf of the 43 staff members who have asked me directly because they want to book their holidays, and all the others who have not, please can we have some recess dates? As soon as we get back, perhaps—there are no business questions next week, so maybe the week after.
It is amazing to see that the Leader of the House still has it: the former magician’s assistant can abracadabra a brand-new Illegal Migration Bill just like that. That is what it felt like yesterday, with countless Government amendments to their own Bill. Report stage is the new Second Reading. Can she tell us why they were not in the Bill when it was published two months ago, or debated in Committee? Is piling the Bill with last minute amendments not just another tyrannical Tory tactic to swerve scrutiny?
We can add illusionist to the Leader of the House’s magical talents. She must have conjured up the image in my head of her telling me that she hoped to see the Bill’s impact assessment. After so many times of asking for it, I was hopeful. She seemed so confident. She said that she would ask the Home Secretary directly, yet here we are the day after, and here it is not. Could she magic it up now, so at least the Lords can see it before they debate the Bill? It seems that Home Office Ministers cannot even answer the most basic questions on how the Bill will work. Perhaps the Leader of the House will have a go at just one: does she know how many former RAF bases the Government need to accommodate the tens of thousands of people who will be detained under the new law? I say that she does not, and the Home Secretary will not tell her, either. Has anyone worked it out, or is the Home Secretary just winging it?
The Tory party is in disarray. The highly respected right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), a former Prime Minister rightly respected for her work on modern slavery, attacked this Tory Bill for giving traffickers greater leverage over victims to keep them in slavery. The blue on blue continued, with others concerned about safe and legal routes. We had amendments on both those issues, on tackling terrorism and on any number of things that Government Members could have voted for.
At the end of business yesterday, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) gave his Minister a tough time over a lack of local consultation on asylum seeker accommodation. That reminds me: just an hour before, Labour had given him the opportunity to vote for—wait for it—an amendment on local consultation on asylum seeker accommodation. Where was he when it came to a vote?
Pick a Bill—any Bill—and the Government’s utter disdain for this House, its Members, and by extension the British people, is clear. Bills chopping and changing as they wrangle their Back Benchers into place—that is no way to run a rodeo. Poor policy, lazy lawmaking and a gutless Government who know that their policies cannot withstand proper scrutiny. One of our scrutiny tools is Opposition days. The Leader of the House cannot just wave her magic wand to cut the cost of living—she has to vote for it. Why, then, did she and the rest of the Tories vote against Labour’s plans on Tuesday to cut the cost of living for her constituents? Thirteen years of Tory Governments crashing and mismanaging the economy. Wages squeezed, inflation at more than 10%, soaring mortgages and rents, food prices rising the fastest in 45 years, and the Government’s answer to their own mess is no rabbits out the hat, just 24 Tory tax rises since 2019 and the highest tax burden in 70 years.
On Tuesday, Labour gave the Tories another chance to abolish the non-dom tax loophole, so that the super-rich who live and work here can pay their fair share of taxes. Labour would choose to spend that on more health staff and breakfast clubs for kids, but the Tories voted against it. We also gave the Tories the chance to extend the windfall tax on oil and gas profits. Labour would choose to spend that on easing the cost of living crisis by freezing council tax this year. But no, the Tories voted against it.
Politics is about choices, and the Government are choosing non-doms and oil and gas giants over working people. Labour will not waste valuable time here on performative Bills that only make people’s lives worse, as the Tories are choosing to do. Labour will cut the cost of living, cut waiting lists and cut crime. That is the difference. That is the choice next Thursday. I wish all Labour candidates in the elections the very best of luck.
Penny Mordaunt
I want to start by echoing what the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said earlier with regard to the coronation and thanking all Members who are helping their constituents to prepare for that incredible moment for our country, and everyone working to ensure that the event can go ahead safely, including many members of House staff. I encourage everyone to take part.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) rightly presses me on recess dates. I understand how important that is not just for Members but for staff. I hope to be able to announce those very shortly and will ensure that we do so.
The hon. Lady raised the very important matter of the Illegal Migration Bill. I can only conclude from Labour’s behaviour this week, and from what the hon. Lady has said, that they are happy with the status quo. We are determined to ensure that the finite resource we have is best used to support the most vulnerable and those to whom we have a particular moral obligation. That is the purpose of the Bill. It is difficult stuff that we are doing. That is why we have carefully thought this out. I agree with her that impact assessments are very important. The impact assessment for the Bill will be published today, in advance of its swift progress, hopefully, through the House of Lords.
The hon. Lady has told many jokes at my expense about my former career as a magician’s assistant. It is a little rich, because if there are people in this place who should be accused of illusions and sleight of hand, it is Labour, given its approach to even its own Opposition day debate this week. Her accounts of what happened rival the narratives of Comical Ali for their accuracy and situational awareness. What happened was that Labour, together with the Liberal Democrats and the Green party, passed up the chance to vote for or against a motion this week that would set targets for reducing sewage discharges and financially penalise companies that do not honour their duties. Only the Conservatives voted for that, and only the Conservatives have done something about it—and ditto on the cost of living issue, which she also mentioned.
On sewage, the hon. Lady may know that Labour has pulled all its attack ads on this issue for the local election campaign, because it has been found out. Its campaign has been a deliberate distraction—or perhaps, given the matter under discussion, I should say a stool pigeon—from the reality of ending storm overflows, which is an important matter for our constituents. Labour is being found out. It has been found out on sewage this week. It has been exposed for saying that it will freeze council tax when it more than doubled it in government, and every single one of Labour’s councils covering every single member of the shadow Cabinet have not frozen it; they have hiked it up.
Labour says it wants a compassionate, fair, effective asylum system, but it will not take the tough decisions to deliver one. Labour says it is tough on crime, but it consistently blocks measures to protect the public. The Labour party is supposed to be an alternative Government —that is what it is supposed to look like. This week it has not even looked like an effective protest group.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
This morning, the Center for Countering Digital Hate issued a shocking report on the online activities of Press TV, particularly its use of a video series called “Palestine Declassified”, which focuses its hatred on British Jews. Among other things on social media, Press TV has been promoting claims that Jews were involved in 9/11 and in covid conspiracies, and it has promoted articles claiming that the holocaust is the greatest lie ever told. While Press TV may be banned from our airwaves, this foreign state hate operation is continuing online. May we have a debate at some point on what more we can do to ensure that social media platforms tackle this outrageous content?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important matter. It should be a concern to all Members of the House that these dangerous and, in many cases, antisemitic conspiracy theories can still be promoted and do gain traction. As my hon. Friend will know, I take this matter very seriously and gave a speech on it a couple of months ago. It is an excellent topic for debate. The current Members survey includes questions, among many others, on what further services the Library could provide. I think that ensuring we can all understand what is going on with these kinds of campaigns, and who is behind them, is something we should consider.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Last week, while gleefully celebrating the supposed woes of the SNP, the Leader of the House and her opposite number, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), pitched their tents so high on the moral high ground that it is a wonder they did not get altitude sickness. But my goodness, life comes at you fast! Seven days on and a bullying scandal has claimed the career of a Tory Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), while Labour’s inter-factional warfare continues to spill out into the public domain, with a former shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), following their former party leader out the door. Tempted as I am, given last week’s shenanigans, I will make no further comment, save to say that perhaps we should have a Government-led debate on the UK glazing industry and the benefit it would gain from people in glass houses being addicted to throwing stones.
However, I will add a thank you, because the more hysterical their attacks on us, the more our membership grows—it is up 3,000 in the past couple of weeks to 75,000. How that compares to the number of members of other political parties in Scotland we will never know, because as far as the Unionists are concerned, transparency is strictly for other people. For all we know, there could be literally hundreds of Scottish Tories running around, and we just would not know.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tell you who was transparent this week: Lord Frost. The unelected—indeed, never elected—brains behind Brexit finally said out loud what they have all been thinking when he said
“not only must no more powers be devolved to Scotland, it’s time to reverse the process”.
The emboldened lord doubled down when, on Toytown TV, he said that there had been a lot of private messaging from sympathisers in the party saying, “Keep talking—this needs to be said.” Can we therefore have a debate so that the Leader of the House and her colleagues can rally around the noble Lord Frost and his attempts to quell Scottish democracy?
Penny Mordaunt
Whatever political party people support, I am always encouraged to hear that membership of political parties is growing. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if we do not trust him on the figures.
Penny Mordaunt
I would be happy to. In all honesty, I am really surprised at what the hon. Gentleman has said and his choice of questioning today. There was no humility, no regret and no apology. Whatever our political beliefs and the differences over our ambitions for the Union, there is a common understanding among all of us in this place of the shared values and principles that underpin our democracy—I hope that is the case. I will never share the beliefs of the hon. Gentleman’s party membership on Scottish independence; I may also disagree with Lord Frost, on occasion. However, I think I do understand the ambitions of the SNP membership and what they are based on, because my ambitions for our country are based on the same things: self-determination, agency, moral courage, progress of humanity and love of country.
How devastating it must be for SNP members and supporters to have placed their hopes and trust in the hands of people who have been so reckless with their dreams and the mandate that they have given them. Now they know how many Scottish taxpayers also feel when they look at the SNP’s ruinous sell-off and sell-out of their country. Just when we think the farce that has been going on in Scotland over the past weeks—the SNP’s great closing down sale—cannot get any worse, it has just offered a two-for-one offer of a coalition with Labour. Braveheart has turned out to be Brutus.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
Hundreds—some reports say thousands—of blind and partially sighted people, such as my amazing disability campaigner Jill Allen-King OBE, face long waits of up to 18 months for replacement guide dogs. That is devastating for their mental health and their ability to socialise and, for some, their ability to work. May we have a debate in Government time on ways to improve access to work for blind and partially sighted people, and to guide dogs and modern technology, which make such a difference to their lives?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely question. I know that she and her constituent recently met the Prime Minister, along with her constituent’s companion Jagger, who I understand reluctantly faces retirement shortly. My hon. Friend is right that we want to increase access to that vital means for people to go about and achieve their ambitions in life. She has missed Women and Equalities questions this week, which happened yesterday, but I will follow up on this for her with the Department for Work and Pensions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for announcing Backbench business for the next two weeks. Can she help me with some words of consolation for my good friend Mr Mark Allen, who I took as my guest to St James’s Park last Sunday? Mark is the proprietor of licensed premises known to me in Kennington, but he is also, sadly for him, a Tottenham Hotspur supporter. He is a very stoical supporter but, despite that stoicism, Sunday’s events came as a bit of a shock. Can the Leader of the House say a word of consolation for him?
Tomorrow is Workers Memorial Day, when we commemorate all those killed, injured or made unwell by their work. Can we recognise 28 April every year to remember the dead and fight for the living?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work he does with his Committee and the debates that we were able to announce in the business statement. I will commiserate with his friend and Spurs fans everywhere, who are familiar with coping with Spurs being a bit Spursy but have been tested to their limits. I wish them well for the future.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the important memorial day. As a Portsmouth MP, I have a volume of constituents and family members who have suffered from mesothelioma and other related issues.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I would like to request that time be made available for the House to discuss the growing issue of houses in multiple occupation. In the towns of Beeston and Chilwell in my constituency, a growing number of HMOs are being approved by the Government following initial rejection by the local council. One of those HMOs resulted in contractors damaging a water main and multiple houses being destroyed as a result. Those decisions are having a huge impact on local families and communities and it is essential that time is made to discuss that increasing problem and ensure that such decisions are made for the community and not to its detriment.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point on an issue that will be of concern to many Members, particularly those in constituencies that are already very densely populated. He will know that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, and consultations done as part of its going through this House, looked at how we can ensure that we have the right type of houses in multiple occupation; for example, young professionals who want to share accommodation might want separate bedrooms and bathrooms, but shared living rooms. We want to encourage the right kind of development that will enhance communities. I certainly encourage him, and all other Members who are concerned about the issue, to apply for a debate on the subject in the usual way.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is Lesbian Visibility Week. My alma mater, Edinburgh University, flew the lesbian visibility flag yesterday and advocated for inclusion, but last night it failed for a second time to stop a masked mob preventing the screening of a documentary called “Adult Human Female”. The film features feminists and lesbians, including my friends Dr Shereen Benjamin, Lucy Masoud and Professor Jo Phoenix, talking about how important it is to be heard on the subject of their lesbian identity and experience. Can we have a debate about how we prevent lesbian erasure and the intimidation of lesbians in our civic life, including at our universities?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for raising this important point, and may I say how sorry I am to hear that? It is incredibly important that we allow people to debate and discuss issues, and view films. It is incredibly disappointing to hear of people being presented with a situation that is intimidating, upsetting or violent. This is a particular issue for lesbians, because historically the LGBT movement has given them a lower profile than gay men, for example. It is incredibly important that we be very aware of these sorts of issues. I shall certainly make sure that the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Home Secretary hear her concerns.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I too was at St James’ Park, and I am still getting over it. At least Tottenham are refunding the gate money after that game.
Today is the 64th day that Vahid Beheshti is on hunger strike opposite the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Last week, together with 125 other Members of both Houses, I wrote to the Prime Minister about the hunger strike. The letter was copied to the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary, and drew attention to the plight of the poor people in Iran, and the need to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. I am pleased that Mr Beheshti had a meeting with Lord Ahmad and the Security Minister relatively recently, but there is still no action from the Government. Can we have a debate in Government time on what measures we will take to proscribe the IRGC in its entirety? Let us have a vote on that, so that the Government can support it and then make it actuality.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. We are all extremely worried about the fact that Mr Beheshti is on the 64th day of his hunger strike. I visited him much earlier, in the first month of his strike. He is doing this not just because of the situation in Iran, I think, but also because of the situation that we increasingly face in the UK, with people being intimidated, threatened or worse by the regime and its proxies. I hope that he will soon bring the hunger strike to an end, but I understand why he is doing it. I am glad that Ministers have met him. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise the matter again with the Foreign Secretary on 2 May.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
One of my constituents has been part of the BBC Singers for 15 years and her husband is currently on trial with the BBC Symphony Orchestra, which takes years of training and practice. They were just beginning to get their lives back on track after covid when the BBC announced it was closing the Singers and cutting orchestra jobs by 20%. Although that decision has been paused, their futures, and those of these great cultural institutions, remain uncertain, so may we please have a statement from the Culture Secretary outlining what the Government will do to help save these jobs and protect our rich musical heritage?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady and all Members who have raised the matter particularly of the BBC Singers, which is the BBC’s only choral group; the campaigning and concerns of Members of this House has greatly contributed to the BBC pausing that decision. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to continue to raise her concern about this; she will know we have just had Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions and I will make sure the Secretary of State has heard her continuing concern.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Adrienne Edwards, the Mayor of Holyhead is due to step down soon. She has given many years to Holyhead and has helped raise vital funds for the charity, Holyhead Cancer Support Group. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Adrienne and all those across the UK who go the extra mile to support their communities, and will she say pob lwc—good luck—to Adrienne for the coronation event she is organising in Llaingoch village hall on Sunday 7 May at 2 o’clock?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in saying thank you to Adrienne for all she has done, and also to say pob lwc for her future, particularly the coronation event she is organising. I also note that my hon. Friend has done her constituency a huge service in providing a mile of free bunting to anyone putting on a coronation event. Historically, because of political differences in the area, such bunting has not been readily available, and I am glad she has rectified that and hope everyone has a wonderful time.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Leader of the House’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) was just about as disastrous as her bellyflop in that daft diving contest she was part of, because we do need that debate on the real intentions about devolution, because we know they opposed its creation and we know they tried to undermine it over the past few years and have heard Lord Frost saying it now needs to be reversed. Will the Leader of the House tell me exactly what it is she does not like about a Scottish democratic institution that keeps rejecting Conservatives?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very proud of my bellyflop on “Splash!”: I have a lido to show for it, and although it has a considerable number of views on YouTube, that is dwarfed by the number of views I get for my exchanges with the Scottish National party every Thursday. I have no objection to democratic outcomes; I object to the Scottish National party’s objection to democratic outcomes.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
We in Rutland and Melton were recently successful with our £23 million levelling-up bid. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I know colleagues are very happy for me that that went ahead. As part of that, we will be building a medi-tech hub to build the technologies of the future to support our older loved ones to live safer for longer. Rutland County Council is currently Conservative and is also the No. 1 rated council in the country for social care, despite being a very small council with a significant elderly population. Will my right hon. Friend advise me on how to secure a visit from the Minister for Social Care, because I am very keen that our model is rolled out around the country to improve social care for all?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on all she has secured for her community through the levelling-up fund and her work with her county council leader Lucy Stephenson to bring that £23 million into her constituency. I am very pleased to see that her local community is not resting on its laurels and is pressing forward with further innovation in this area, and she is right that it is wonderful to share best practice; it is one of the strengths we have in this place, and I shall certainly make sure that the Minister for Social Care has heard her invitation.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Monday’s bank holiday will be warmly appreciated by hard-working families in Harrow—and, no doubt, in the rest of the United Kingdom—but 1 May will also be celebrated by many British Gujaratis as the day on which the state of Gujarat came into being in modern India. There are more than 800,000 British Gujaratis in all walks of life and in all parts of the UK. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity, ahead of Gujarat day, to welcome the contribution that they make to our country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for affording me that opportunity, and I am sure that his sentiments will be shared by everyone in the House in advance of this important anniversary. British Gujaratis do make a huge contribution to the nation and their local communities.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Doncaster City Council does not maintain a register of derelict and empty buildings in my constituency or anywhere else, although we have plenty, such as the Old Police Station in Conisbrough, Tyram Hall in Blaxton, and various houses in Prince’s Crescent, Edlington. Surely every council should maintain a register, require the owner of a building to sort it out if it is in disrepair, and then step in if the owner does not do so. How long must a community suffer the eyesore and blight of derelict buildings before the local authority comes to its aid? May we have a debate on this problem, which blights so many neighbourhoods?
Penny Mordaunt
Since 2017 local planning authorities in England have been required to maintain and publish brownfield land registers, and I am very disturbed to hear that that basic requirement is not being adhered to. We are committed to making the most of brownfield land in line with the national planning policy framework, but it is obviously hard to do that if sites are not identified. I shall make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities knows about this, and ask his officials to provide some advice for the hon. Gentleman.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House to imagine the position of a family who are unable to acquire a house, then rent one, and suddenly —having put all their love and money and investment into that house—receive, with less than a month’s notice, a section 21 notice to quit from the landlord? That happened to my constituents Chris and Sandra Taylor, as was highlighted in the television programme ITV Calendar. May I just quietly say to the Leader of the House that Ministers, over the years, have made commitments to end this situation? As she looks to the next parliamentary Session and the King’s Speech, will she give an undertaking to the House that that loophole will finally be closed?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important point. As he will know, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Prime Minister are very focused on ensuring that those who are renting are protected. As well as the circumstances that he has described, there are knock-on effects for kids attending school. It is an incredibly difficult situation, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we are focusing on it, and we will continue to focus on it as we go into the fourth Session.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Manchester ship canal runs right through the middle of my constituency. There are three main A-roads crossing it, in addition to the M6 Thelwall viaduct, which opened 60 years ago this year. Three of the roads that cross the canal via swing bridges are regularly opened and boats pass through, but they are all controlled and owned by the ship canal owner, Peel Ports. This is regulated under the Manchester Ship Canal Act 1885, which set out the original obligations at a time when there were not many cars on the roads.
The bridges need urgent, essential repairs, but because the council and Peel Ports cannot agree on a closure schedule, they frequently break down and are stuck open, so cars cannot cross the canal. May we have a debate on reviewing the 1885 Act to ensure that the highways infrastructure in Warrington is no longer under the control of a business that is not playing its part in minimising delays and disruption in my town?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, and for knocking heads together. It sounds as though the council and Peel Ports need to sit down and work this out for the benefit of all. If my hon. Friend’s question today has not had that result, he will know how to apply for an Adjournment debate, but I hope that that will not be necessary.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I am about to have an “Aw, mum” moment; when I go on about something, my children always use that phrase, and today I am going on about the redundancy modification order again. The Leader of the House very helpfully told me on 9 March that she and her noble Friend Lord True had
“met all the permanent secretaries…to make very clear the level of service we expect from their Departments”—[Official Report, 9 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 424.]
I said on that occasion, “Let’s cut to the chase—it’s 10 years since this was looked at.” The addition of different organisations to the order has still not happened, and there are people all over the country waiting for it to, because it will affect them and—as always happens—their pensions. Please can we get this sorted?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her tenacity and determination on this issue. I will ensure that the relevant Secretary of State and perm sec have heard her concerns, and I shall also ask the Pensions Minister to contact her.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
There have been great strides in the field of low-carbon aviation in recent years, not least the development of hydrogen and electric aircraft. Given those developments, will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate on the role that regional airports such as Blackpool can play in not just improving regional connectivity but doing so while meeting our net zero commitments?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises a matter that is of concern to many people across the House, which is why we have shown our support for regional airports through the £161 million airport and ground operations support scheme that we provided during the pandemic. The Transport Secretary in particular is very focused on ensuring that we are developing and enabling our very important regional connectivity to thrive. My hon. Friend will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Leader of the House might be able to help me. I know, having sat on the Intelligence and Security Committee, that there are some matters that the Government have to keep secret, but could I suggest that my written parliamentary questions to the Cabinet Office, asking how many meetings have been held between different Departments to discuss the infected blood compensation and who chairs those meetings, are of little interest to Vladimir Putin or any other hostile state? Might she be able to help me to get the factual information that I have requested in those written parliamentary questions?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be very happy to assist the right hon. Lady in getting those answers. I am aware of the particular situation and am already making inquiries with the Cabinet Office with regard to it. What the hon. Lady says is true with regard to any issue raised in this place, but I think in particular for those victims—those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal—it is doubly important that we have transparency, and demonstrate focus, pace and determination to get the situation resolved. I will be in touch with her later today.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you and the Leader of the House will join me in wishing everybody in Milton Keynes a happy #LoveMK Day. But is not so rosy for many of my constituents, who are fed up with hitting pothole after pothole on our roads because the Labour-Lib Dem coalition council put just £100,000 aside for fixing potholes. I am pleased to have secured an extra £1.1 million from the Government, on top of the £2.8 million a year that the council already gets from the Government, to fix potholes on MK’s roads. Is it time for yet another debate on potholes in this place, and will my right hon. Friend join me in urging the council to stop wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash and to use this money to end the plague of potholes in Milton Keynes?
Penny Mordaunt
Happy #LoveMK Day to everyone celebrating it. I do not think the residents of Milton Keynes should love their council, though, by the sounds of it. Potholes are a blight on the motorist; that is why we are investing £200 million in maintaining and improving roads and filling in those potholes. I understand that my hon. Friend’s council has spent £11 million on placing moss on the walls of the town hall. That seems a bizarre priority, and it has provided no upside to the public—other than, perhaps, providing an amusing metaphor for the most undynamic council that that place has seen.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
A constituent of mine discovered in November that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had handed over £972 to the company Mortgagesmiths, which took almost half of it in commission fees. As he had not commissioned the company in the first place, he demanded to see the application form. It was such a poor forgery that both his and his wife’s signatures were clearly in the same handwriting. With the Government repeatedly warning the public not to fall for financial scams, it is incredible that HMRC fell for that one. Can we have a Treasury statement so that we can understand the extent of the problem, what is being done to prevent it in future and when constituents such as mine will get their money from HMRC?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case; I am very sorry to hear it. She may wish to raise it at Treasury questions on 9 May but, given that that is a sizeable chunk of money for her constituent to be out of pocket, I will certainly raise it today with HMRC and ask it to contact her about it.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Government committed to bringing forward a consultation on the regulation of rehoming activities for animal sanctuaries and rehoming organisations this year. Dogs Trust, which operates in my constituency, is keen that that should take place. Might my right hon. Friend grant Government time for a debate on the issue, or advise me of other ways to expedite the consultation? I know other colleagues will be as concerned as I am by the possible mistreatment of dogs in non-regulated establishments and the effect they are having on the legitimate rehoming centres that do such fantastic work.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she has done in championing this issue and in supporting Dogs Trust, which does a huge amount of good work in this area. She will know that the action plan for animal welfare includes commitments to pursuing the licensing of animal sanctuaries and rescue and rehoming centres for cats, dogs and horses; I will certainly ensure that the relevant Department hears her concerns.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Residents of Acomb and Westfield were hopeful about York’s £5.8 million shared prosperity fund award for much-needed regeneration, but then horrified to wake up to find that £400,000 of it had been squandered on a half-paved high street barricaded by 136 bollards. Can we have a statement on how the Government are scrutinising that much-needed fund? York residents want to know why York’s Lib Dem and Green councillors have been allowed to waste even more public funding on a barricade of bollards.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear that. The hon. Lady will know that, as well as the checks and balances in place for awarding the funding, there are evaluation works that go on. I am sorry that that is not delivering a better impact for her local residents. I shall ensure that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities hears her concerns, as the next questions are not until 5 June, and I encourage the local authority to ensure that it is doing something worthwhile with the sizeable chunk of money that it has secured.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Yesterday, I attended a very touching moment at the Cenotaph to mark the 108th anniversary of the genocide in Armenia. That poor, benighted country has shrunk over many years and decades. There has been an ongoing fight in the Nagorno-Karabakh region for decades, and the Lachin corridor is being ineffectively policed by Russian so-called peacekeepers. Some 120,000 people in the region are undernourished and not getting supplies. Will it be possible to have a debate on this issue in Government time?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend will not have long to wait to raise this with the Foreign Secretary, as the next Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions are on 2 May. I am pleased he was able to attend the event he mentioned, and Parliament will have an inward visit from Armenia in the not-too-distant future. I will make sure the Department has heard him, and I encourage him to attend on Tuesday.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Not a week goes by without high-profile allegations of workplace sexual harassment hitting the headlines, of which the CBI is just the latest example. My private Member’s Bill to protect workers from harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace has cross-party and, crucially, Government support. It has passed all its Commons stages, and it was expected to pass through the House of Lords unopposed. However, three rebels have tabled amendments and the Bill is now stuck in the other place. The Government have assured me of their continued support, and they are working hard to find a solution. If a solution to the impasse is found, we will need a small amount of extra time in this place to resolve the Bill’s remaining stages. Will the Leader of the House and the Government Whips support me in finding that extra time so that this important Bill to protect workers from harassment and sexual harassment in the workplace can pass into law?
Penny Mordaunt
Yes, we support the Bill, and the hon. Lady will know that discussions are ongoing. Ministers are engaging with their lordships and others who have raised concerns. She has my assurance that the business managers are alive to this matter, and we will do all we can to ensure these important measures are able to be considered.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend facilitate a debate on greater restrictions on off-road motorcycling, which is causing huge problems on rural lanes and in rural communities in my constituency, particularly in the Ceiriog valley? These problems are being caused by people from miles away, and they are leaving the council tax payers of Wrexham to pick up the bill for repairing the roads.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear of that situation. Most issues involving greenlaning stem from illegal use, and they are a matter for enforcement by the local police. We have provided the police, local authorities and other agencies with a number of powers and tools to respond quickly to such antisocial behaviour, and to reduce the environmental impacts that my hon. Friend describes. The next Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions are on 25 May, and the next Home Office questions are on 22 May. I hope he will use both opportunities to raise this case.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
In the two years since this Government recklessly disbanded the Industrial Strategy Council, other economies with a more proactive approach to decarbonisation, artificial intelligence and automation, sciences such as genomics and cyber are fast overtaking us. Not only are we not a world leader in the technologies in which we should and could be a world leader, but we are barely even a world follower at this point. In recent weeks, countries such as Sweden have showcased to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee fully zero-carbon steel and battery gigafactories at commercial scale, on which this country has no realistic pathway even to begin work. When will we see substantial Government time for horizon scanning for an industrial strategy that is fit for the future, instead of tinkering around the edges as we get left further behind?
Penny Mordaunt
I disagree with the hon. Lady’s description of what is happening in those growth sectors. I point her to the machinery of Government changes that the Prime Minister instigated to ensure science and tech are given the right profile in Whitehall. The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation is currently touring the UK, going to the new clusters to see what more we can do to ensure that we make use of every opportunity. As the hon. Lady will know, there are questions to the Department next week; I encourage her to ask for more information from the team.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Local staff at BBC Radio Cumbria are rightly concerned about proposals to slash services. There are plans for hours of content to go, as well as our only full-time journalist. Morale in the team is at rock bottom. At best, the plans put forward by the BBC will mean that the popular drive-time show is more likely to cover Accrington than Askham. At the weekend, when people tune into the breakfast show, it will cover Manchester, Liverpool, Cumbria and Lancashire—I struggle to see what is local about that.
This is the BBC turning its back on local communities such as those in Barrow and Furness. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in Government time so that Members across the House can share their views about the shadow of a service that the BBC seems to want to leave behind?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Local broadcasting is vital not just in strengthening a community, in getting messages and news out, but as an important tool to protect democracy. I understand why my hon. Friend has raised it and why he is working so hard to make sure that the BBC really understands the impact of some of these changes. The issue would be an excellent topic for a debate; the concerns will be shared by many Members. I encourage him to apply for a debate in the usual way.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee rightly highlighted International Workers’ Memorial Day tomorrow, when we will commemorate those who we have lost through injury or death in the workplace or due to their job—including the former, and now late, Member for Halifax, who died from malignant mesothelioma; I do not know whether the Leader of the House knows that the coroner attributed that in part to exposure to asbestos in this very House.
Does the Leader of the House agree with Clydebank Asbestos Group, the West Dunbartonshire joint trade union group, the STUC and TUC that, building on the commemorations tomorrow, there should be Government time to debate and vote to enhance workers’ safety across these islands?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman again for raising this important memorial day and the sad case he referred to. There is obviously huge concern in the House of Commons Commission and the other place while we consider restoration and renewal proposals for this building. I will certainly make sure that the relevant Departments have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will know how to apply for a debate—given that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has also raised the issue, that might be his first port of call.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
A number of constituents have written to me in recent weeks pointing out that fuel prices at forecourts in my constituency seem to be higher than others of the same brands nearby, and that the prices in my constituency seem to drop at a slower rate. I have previously written to Tesco about its forecourt in Clowne; it said that it determines the cost of fuel with reference to the prices set by nearby forecourts. My constituency runs alongside the M1, and there are two service stations within those nearby forecourts; that artificially increases the fuel prices in what is also a rural area. May we have a debate on the cost of fuel and whether fuel providers are passing on the benefits of falling fuel prices—or profiteering in rural and poorer constituencies?
Penny Mordaunt
This incredibly important issue is a concern to many across the country. FairFuelUK is running the PumpWatch campaign, for example—an initiative supported by The Sun and other media. That shows that readers, viewers and listeners are concerned to ensure that there is fairness at the pump.
The Government welcome the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision to investigate this matter, and we will carefully consider any recommendations it makes. It is important to ensure that companies and individual motorists are not being overcharged and that there is fairness in the system.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may well be surprised to learn that her Cabinet colleague the Secretary of State for Transport is named as legally responsible in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for keeping England’s roads on the strategic road network clean from litter and tipping. I say that she might be surprised by that because some of the dirtiest roads in the country are those operated by National Highways, including the M67 and M60, which run through my constituency. I reported the state of cleanliness of those roads to National Highways, only to be told that they were judged to be grade B, which meant that no action was required. They are utterly filthy and would be grade D at best if the local authority had judged them. What is the Secretary of State going to do to reassure Members of this House? May we have a statement on the cleanliness of National Highways’ roads?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter and I shall make sure that that Department has heard his concerns, given that its next questions is not until June. Clearly, there are statutory duties that certain organisations have. These things are also best solved in partnership with local authorities. I know that that is what local councils do, but I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
May I underline the importance of International Workers’ Memorial Day and the need for reflection on those killed, injured, or made disabled or unwell? I will be attending, with the Inverness and District Trades Union Council and others, a memorial event to reflect on those who are killed through their service to others during their work, as well as a rally on Saturday. May we have a debate in Government time on the need for further protection for workers, to give the Government the opportunity to change tack and support such enhancements?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of this important memorial day. He is the third Member to do so, and I certainly hope the event he is attending goes well. As I have said before, I will make sure that the relevant Departments focused on these matters—there are more than one—have heard that Members have raised this matter today.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Daniel Futers from South Shields committed suicide last year while on leave from a mental health hospital in the Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust. Daniel’s inquest found that
“appropriate precautions were not in place to prevent him from doing so.”
The coroner subsequently sent the trust a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, with recommendations for improvement. The trust disagrees with the coroner’s findings and is not obligated to act on them. May we please have an urgent debate on the effectiveness of regulation 28 reports?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady raises a very important matter, and I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her concerns. I have heard other Members raise it with particular regard to that provision. The hon. Lady will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way, perhaps through the auspices of the relevant all-party group.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
This week is the 10th anniversary of the Rana Plaza disaster, where 1,138 garment workers in Bangladesh were killed when the factory collapsed. Union workers had to dig through the rubble to find out what labels were involved, and it was found that brands sourced in UK shops such as Primark, Mango, Matalan and Benetton were but some of them. Many countries are moving to a situation where companies have responsibility for supply chains, so may we have a debate in Government time about the need for legislation to introduce strong legal frameworks for corporate accountability?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing to our attention the 10th anniversary of that terrible and sad event. She will know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has done a huge amount of work to ensure that the likelihood of such events happening again is reduced by having good practices in garment factories across countries that we work with. We have also worked with the UN to introduce a number of measures to strengthen transparency in supply chains, but she is absolutely right: there has to be accountability for that. The Foreign Secretary is sitting on the Front Bench, but I will also ensure that the Department for Business and Trade is focused on the issues that she raises.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Immigration Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the Government inherited a backlog of 460,000 asylum claims from the last Labour Government. Using figures supplied to him by the Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has been able to demonstrate that the figure is fewer than 19,000. Should the Immigration Minister not come back to the Dispatch Box, as required by the ministerial code, to correct the record? What can the Leader of the House do to ensure that the record is corrected, either today or as soon as we return after the weekend?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. He knows that he can raise it in a point of order, but I have to say that I do not recognise the figures that he cites. Ministers do correct the record if they have not given the correct figures at the Dispatch Box, and that is what should happen, but I do not think that that is the situation in this case. What we should all be focused on in this place is ensuring that we can take forward the legislation that this Government are proposing, so that we can strengthen and make more effective the systems that deal with these very vulnerable people.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If the Leader of the House really is keen on debates on the Government’s record on sewage, I hope she will timetable some more in Government time, because then we could point out that after 13 years of Tory government, with falling real wages and the shocking state of our rivers, we have gone from the affluent society under Labour to the effluent society under the Tories.
Penny Mordaunt
How very droll. I am reluctant to have a debate where we could compare the Labour party’s record in government with our record in government on this matter only because I would not be able to take part in it. When I took my seat from Labour in 2010, raw sewage was running through the households and gardens on Portsdown Hill; it was contaminating land that animals grazed on, threatening their health. Despite being the only island city in the UK, we did not have any effective sea defences; we had major flooding. Thanks to the investment that has gone into my constituency, which totals hundreds of millions of pounds, we now have beautiful sea defences that are not just protecting the insurance payers of Portsmouth but promoting biodiversity. We have new pumping stations. We have repaired the damage to the sewerage system. We now have all storm overflows monitored—the figure was just 6% when I took over the seat—and by 2030, we will have eliminated storm overflows from the Solent.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may not know that the Royal Mint, which makes all the coins in circulation across the UK, is proudly located in my constituency. The Royal Mint is a key local employer, and we must ensure a sustainable future for highly skilled jobs in Llantrisant, particularly in our circulating coin industry, given the rapid rise of a cashless society. Can she help me to secure a meeting with her colleague, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to discuss this further?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady’s question affords me the opportunity to thank her constituents. The Royal Mint has been very busy recently, for various reasons, and I thank them for their role in the important events that are coming up. I would be happy to ensure that the Economic Secretary hears her request for a meeting and to do what I can to facilitate that. She will also know that the relevant questions are on 9 May, so she will not have long to wait for that.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
This week, I was to meet the Minister with responsibility for energy consumers and affordability to discuss long-standing green deal casework. Two hours before the meeting, it was cancelled, and no replacement meeting was offered until the Leader of the House promptly stepped in. That was not the first time Ministers have cancelled meetings on this issue. Will she schedule a debate in Government time on the lack of adequate support for unresolved Home Energy and Lifestyle Management green deal cases?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about this situation, although the hon. Lady kindly mentions that I have already intervened on the matter. The Minister cancelled due to votes and a Westminster Hall debate that they were involved in, but they have reiterated today that they are very keen to meet the hon. Lady, and I will ensure that that takes place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On Tuesday past, an orthodox church in Ukraine’s Kherson region was destroyed by a guided bomb. The church became one of hundreds destroyed by recent strikes, but significantly, according to President Zelensky this week, the use of such munitions shows a new development of the deliberate targeting of churches by Russia—an attack by Russia on the right to hold a religious belief. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I take this opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the House, and of the Leader of the House in particular, to see what we can do. Will she help to facilitate a meeting with a Minister to discuss the impact on freedom of religion and belief?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that appalling case. Churches and other places of worship are never legitimate targets in conflict situations. It is further evidence, I am afraid, of the appalling atrocities and war crimes that Russia is waging against civilians in Ukraine. I thank him for drawing the House’s attention to the matter, and will certainly ensure that Ministers have heard what he has said.
Sudan Update
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement to the House on the situation in Sudan.
Thirteen days ago, intense fighting broke out in Khartoum. The conflict quickly spread across the country, and was being waged on residential streets in Omdurman, El Fasher in Darfur, and other Sudanese cities, until a US-led ceasefire was accepted by both sides. I am proud that we contributed to calling for that ceasefire, and we will continue to do our utmost to secure a lasting peace, but I remind the House that we anticipate that the ceasefire will end tonight at midnight local Sudanese time. I commend the hard work of officials from across Government and the military, not only those on the ground in Sudan but those who have been working day and night in our crisis response centre in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Their extraordinary efforts have been an inspiration to me and to all those who have taken the opportunity to visit them over the last few days.
The struggle for power between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces has killed hundreds of Sudanese citizens and threatens to claim the lives, sadly, of many more. This is a monumental tragedy—one with the potential to destabilise not just Sudan but the wider region. It is therefore in our interests, and more importantly those of the people of Sudan, to secure a peaceful and sustainable settlement as quickly as possible. However, our ability, and that of all outside powers, to determine the course of events within Sudan is limited. What is within our power is the safe extraction of as many British nationals as practically possible. I am pleased to confirm to the House that the supported departure of British nationals from Sudan, facilitated by the UK, started on Tuesday. As of yesterday evening, six flights carrying 536 people had landed safely in Cyprus. More flights continue today, so that number is rising, and I will ensure that I find the opportunity to give updates to the House.
A ceasefire is due to elapse at midnight local time, and no one can predict the situation on the ground after that. We are encouraging those who wish to travel to make their way to the airport today. We will continue to engage with our international partners to attempt to extend the ceasefire and bring a permanent end to the violence, and I will of course keep the House updated on developments on that front. For those on the ground, as Members would expect, we are prioritising those in greatest need by allocating seats based on vulnerability, starting with families with children, the elderly, the disabled or people with documented medical conditions. We have been notifying British nationals registered with us about the evacuation flights, as well as announcing them through our travel advice and organic social media networks of British nationals in Sudan.
We are working with the Home Office, UK Border Force and FCDO staff on the ground to facilitate clearances for those boarding the flights, and we will continue to co-ordinate intensively with our international partners. Several countries without a diplomatic presence in Sudan have requested that we assist their nationals. We are energetically exploring options regarding how best to do this without compromising our duty to British nationals.
A ceasefire is not necessarily a prelude to peace and the situation could deteriorate over the coming days. We will continue to support British nationals, which is why we have established a temporary presence in Port Sudan on the Red sea coast and have put consular officials on the border points in Egypt, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia. Sudan is the third largest country in Africa. It is more than 800 miles from the capital to Aswan in Egypt and over 500 miles from Khartoum to the Red sea. Even if there were not a war, Sudan’s vastness makes the logistics of moving large numbers of people extraordinarily challenging. We are aware of a number of British nationals who have now left Sudan by other means, including some who were able to join evacuations led by our international partners. We are working with our diplomatic missions in the countries where they are arriving to provide consular assistance where required.
Although we are making every effort to evacuate our nationals, peace in Sudan will also be a key objective. We call on both sides to end the killing for the sake of the people of Sudan. They have already suffered enough, after decades of civil war. We are pursuing all diplomatic avenues to end the violence and de-escalate tension. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary, the Development Minister and I are in regular touch with our international partners. The role of the African Union, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and our partners in the region, in the Gulf and beyond will of course be critical.
The United Kingdom has profound ties and a historic friendship with the people of Sudan. We stand in solidarity with them and their right to demand a peaceful and democratic future and a return to civilian rule. When conditions allow, the UK is ready to join international efforts to rebuild the Sudanese economy and ease human suffering. That will not be easy, but it is vital for the region, and of course for Sudan, that we try. We will bring as many of our nationals as possible to safety, and we can and will play a pivotal part in rebuilding that great and ancient country. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement, and the briefings that he and his officials have provided. The ceasefire announced on Monday night opened a crucial window in which to evacuate UK nationals and pause the needless bloodshed. I place on record Labour’s sincere thanks to our brave armed forces and tireless FCDO staff. None of us doubts the complexity and very challenging circumstances of this operation. The whole House sincerely hopes for its success.
We welcome the fact that more than 500 UK nationals have now boarded planes out of Sudan, but just hours of the ceasefire remain, and 500 is only a quarter of those who we know have registered with the FCDO. The true number of British citizens in Sudan is closer to 4,000. Amid the very welcome stories of families reunited, there are tales of real concern: there are those unable to reach the airfield because of violence on the route; there are patchy official communications; and there are British citizens travelling hours overland only to find the borders closed.
Yesterday, The Times reported that a British doctor is stuck at home with a bullet wound in his leg and dwindling supplies of antibiotics after the Government rejected his 86-year-old mother’s request for a temporary visa. It is not right that British nationals should be unable to leave because their close Sudanese family members are excluded from safe passage, especially as we know that planes have left the airfield without being full. I urge the Foreign Secretary to take swift action to ensure that British citizens can travel with their family now.
We all hope that the ceasefire will hold, but there is every chance that it will not. How confident is the Foreign Secretary that all who want to be evacuated will be by the time the ceasefire expires at midnight? What are the prospects for an extension? Will flights continue tomorrow anyway? What planning is under way to create alternative routes out of the country, should fighting return to Khartoum?
In the coming weeks, the Government will face legitimate questions about their handling of the crisis. Germany ran the Wadi Saeedna airfield when the UK’s initial diplomatic evacuation operation was completed and stood down. The Germans managed to evacuate 700 people from over 30 countries before our evacuation of UK nationals had properly begun. Why did other countries choose to evacuate nationals straight away when there was no ceasefire in place, while we chose not to? Why were both the ambassador and the deputy ambassador reportedly out of the country when fighting broke out? Why are Hercules aircraft, which have been used in two airlifts in two years, still set to be scrapped? And the elephant in the room: which lessons of the Afghan evacuation have been learned and properly implemented?
The immediate priority of the British Government is rightly to ensure that as many UK nationals as possible can leave quickly and safely, but we must not allow the world’s gaze to turn away from Sudan once foreign nationals have left. Sudan is at risk of lurching into deeper crisis—a crisis that its people did not make or deserve. They face the threat of intense fighting, dwindling supplies of food and water, and a wider humanitarian catastrophe. As I heard at first hand on my visit to Kenya this week, there is real concern that fighting could bubble over and cross borders, amplifying this conflict and human suffering. While we press the Government on their vital efforts to support British nationals abroad, we will continue to press for action to end the bloodshed of the people of Sudan and the wider region.
James Cleverly
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for his kind and thoughtful words about the military and other officials on the ground who are supporting British nationals in their evacuation. I also commend him on the tone that he has taken; he rightly pushes the Government and holds us to account, but is also being constructive and supportive of our first priority: the protection and evacuation of British nationals, where possible.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about communications. Communication with British nationals in Sudan remains a significant challenge. The mobile phone network is inconsistent and often down, the internet likewise. We have used multiple channels, including telephone calls, SMS messaging, and cascading information through organically created WhatsApp groups that existed before the conflict, but communications remain a huge challenge.
That brings me to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions about the total number of British nationals in Sudan. The UK does not routinely request that British nationals inform us when they are overseas. We did so when this conflict started, but just as it is difficult for us to communicate with British nationals in Sudan, it is very difficult in many cases for them to communicate back to us. We know that a number will have made their own arrangements for leaving Sudan. It is not possible for us to have an accurate assessment of how many have done so at this point. We hope to do so as they get in contact with us from third countries. We will continue to push information in whatever ways we can to the people we are seeking to help in country.
On an extension to the ceasefire, we are pushing hard for that. We are amplifying the voices of those in the region and more widely that a ceasefire is in the best interests of Sudan. I say here at the Dispatch Box to either of the generals, who might be watching this statement, that if they aspire to be the leader of Sudan, demonstrating a willingness to protect the people of Sudan would be an important starting point. We will continue to push, but it is almost impossible for us to predict whether there will be an extension and what the circumstances might be like if the extension does not happen. We will endeavour to keep evacuating people through the airhead in Wadi Saeedna, but we cannot guarantee our ability to do so. We are exploring the support to other routes, which is why we have set up a temporary presence at Port Sudan, and it is why we have officials at the border in neighbouring countries.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a couple of specific questions about members of staff who were in the embassy when the conflict started. The head of mission, our ambassador, was out of the country at the time, but we have a well-established chain of command passing-on process, and the formal No. 2 in the embassy was in command and control of the embassy when this initiated. The fact that the ambassador was able to plug in to the crisis response centre in the UK was invaluable. The right hon. Gentleman asked specifically about C-130 Hercules. The simple truth is that they are an old airframe. There are newer and better aircraft that will be replacing their functions.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in parallel with our evacuation operations, we have to work on the immediate and long-term stability of Sudan and make every effort to prevent this conflict from spilling over into neighbouring countries and destabilising the region, and we will continue to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I place on record my gratitude to the Foreign Office staff, those on the rapid deployment teams, those in the crisis centre, our armed forces and Border Force. May I also point out how unacceptable it is that some media have been outside not just the homes of civil servants who are not senior civil servants, but their parents’ homes? That is utterly unacceptable, and I urge the Foreign Office to make clear to the media that that cannot continue.
Moving back to the crisis on the ground, when the ceasefire was agreed, the clock began for how we would make sure that hostilities did not return from midnight tonight. What reassurances can my right hon. Friend give me that we will not see westerners removed and the Sudanese left to face appalling violence? The point was made just now about our criteria for evacuation, and I urge my right hon. Friend to please review them. The reality is that we treat children as dependents, but very elderly, sick parents should also be treated as dependents. On the specific case that was just raised, the family have made their way to the airstrip, after my suggestion that they travelled. The NHS doctor has had to receive emergency medical treatment at the airstrip under local anaesthesia because of how advanced the infection was following his having been shot. He has not been allowed on the flight that departed about three minutes ago, because he wanted to take his mother with him. I urge the Government that we have the ability to change the criteria. I cannot quite determine whether it is the Foreign Office or Home Office who have determined the criteria, but a key recommendation from Afghanistan was to recognise that dependents are also the elderly and not just the young.
James Cleverly
I am grateful to my honourable friend for echoing those words of support for our officials both on the ground and at home. It is completely inappropriate that people who have dedicated their lives to public service and have operated through incredibly intense situations should be hounded by the press in that way, and I call for responsible journalism in all respects.
I recognise that my hon. Friend has personal experience of some of the complexities of consular work from her life before politics and I always listen carefully to her suggestions and recommendations, which I know are all made with a genuine desire to improve the situation. There is a real challenge about extending the criteria for who we evacuate; we instinctively desire to be as generous as possible, but we must ensure that we discharge our primary duty to British nationals and the traditionally recognised dependents. I understand the point she makes about more elderly members of the family and of course we will look at what we can do to be as supportive as possible.
How many others we might be able to take is entirely dependent, as I said to the shadow Foreign Secretary a few moments ago, on whether we can get the ceasefire to stick and on our ability to continue the evacuation if the ceasefire collapses. We will keep all those decisions under review in the regular Cobra meetings that we hold.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement. He is right that we must do everything we can to ensure a lasting peace and he is right to praise the performance of the men and women of the armed forces and others who have facilitated evacuations so far. However, time is of the essence. The Minister for Development and Africa said on TV last night that we cannot guarantee how many further flights will depart once the ceasefire ends, adding that,
“we hope there will be enough capacity to…get them all out”.
With the numbers arriving at evacuation points doubling or even trebling, why are we relying on hope rather than action?
The Minister also admitted on TV, when asked about safe and legal routes for Sudanese refugees, that they “don’t exist”. Will the Foreign Secretary comment on that? What is the current status of people who have fled from Sudan to neighbouring countries to escape the violence? Bordering countries such as Ethiopia, Chad and the Central African Republic have already become politically insecure. What are his plans to ensure that people fleeing here will be safeguarded?
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Development and Africa is right that we will endeavour to continue to support British nationals in their evacuation when, or if, the ceasefire is not extended. We are one of only three nations in the world that have established an airhead in the vicinity of Khartoum to facilitate air evacuations. We, the French and the Germans are the only three countries in the world to have done so and that has allowed our aircraft and the aircraft of a wide number of other countries to airlift their nationals out. However, no one can guarantee what will happen when the ceasefire comes to an end.
With regard to the wider push of refugees because of this conflict, I remind the SNP spokesperson and the House that Sudan is not the only live conflict in the world. I know it is at the forefront of many people’s minds, and it is therefore completely legitimate that he asks questions specifically about it—[Interruption.] If he stops interrupting, he might hear, and I will answer his questions. Now that the Illegal Migration Bill has, despite his attempts to thwart it, gone through its parliamentary stages in the Commons, we will, as we have promised, establish safe and legal routes as part of our plan to control illegal migration. Further details will come through.
With regard to preventing regional instability, we remain closely aligned with the African Union and our partners in the region, with whom I speak regularly, to try to ensure that the conflict does not escalate and spill over into neighbouring countries.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
This country will always play its part in providing sanctuary to those fleeing war, and I thank the Government for their actions in Sudan to date. Is my right hon. Friend able to confirm that the UK is indeed the fourth-largest recipient of individuals from Sudan through those routes operated by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and that those routes will remain open for as long as feasibly possible?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. This country has a long-standing reputation for and tradition of hospitality and generosity to those from around the world who are fleeing individual persecution or violence, and we have demonstrated that time and again. There have been tens of thousands of people who have come to the UK using safe and legal routes over the last few years since we have been in government, and we will continue to establish safe and legal routes. Our ability to do so will be enhanced by the legislation that he, I and our colleagues voted on last night.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I am grateful that constituents have been airlifted out and I thank the teams who have worked so hard on that. Can I raise with the Foreign Secretary the plight of those stuck because they are waiting for visas? A constituent’s partner has been in Khartoum for more than a year now, waiting for UK Visas and Immigration to handle her visa in the east Africa processing centre. She has now had to flee to Uganda, another very dangerous journey. Will the Foreign Secretary impress on the Home Office that its backlog has been pushing people into further dangerous situations?
James Cleverly
I will ensure that I pass on the hon. Lady’s concerns. I pay tribute to the intense work that Border Force and Home Office staff have done in conjunction with officials from my Department, the Ministry of Defence and others to try to ensure that we facilitate as quick a flow of British nationals and their dependants out of war-torn Sudan as we can, and we will continue to do that work.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend on the progress he is making and the calm way in which he is operating in very difficult circumstances. Clearly, we have a large number of UK nationals in Sudan and it is difficult for them to move around, let alone be airlifted out. What actions is he taking to enable our citizens to get away from Sudan by road or sea, if that is what they wish to do?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. One challenge is that our travel advice must enhance the safety of British nationals overseas and not inadvertently put them at greater risk. There is often a lag between our finding out information, broadcasting it and its being acted on. One of the things that we have seen—not directly because of the advice that the UK has given, but the advice that other Governments have given—is that inadvertently people have been called into more dangerous circumstances and come under attack. We have to give general advice. We have given the advice that we have the airhead operating in Wadi Saeedna, and we have officials at Port Sudan and at the border crossing points of nearby countries. We cannot recommend safe routes. We cannot advise at that level of granularity because that advice may be out of date and therefore counterproductive by the time it is acted on.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Can the Foreign Secretary confirm what is happening to those visiting Sudan on refugee travel documents? To echo what the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) said, how long does he estimate it will take to process those people who were waiting for papers from the consulate in Sudan?
James Cleverly
Ultimately, the processing of visas is a Home Office function. We are working closely with the Home Office, but I am not able to give her those details. The prioritisation that we have broadcast is to discharge our duty to support British nationals and their immediate dependants. I will of course make sure that my Home Office colleagues are aware of the hon. Lady’s question.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The FCDO is rightly focusing on the immediate need to evacuate nationals. For that they have my thanks and, I suspect, the thanks of everyone in the Chamber. When that is completed, however, we will leave behind a nation in conflict. What steps will my right hon. Friend take to galvanise international support, perhaps led by the African Union, to help to end the bloodshed?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That action is happening in parallel with our evacuation options. I have spoken directly to one of the generals and spoken through intermediaries to express my views to the other. I know that our action replicates the actions of our international partners, particularly those in the immediate region who have influence. We must push for peace in Sudan. The country has suffered enough, and we must ensure the conflict we are now seeing does not spill over into nearby countries. In particular, we must ensure that malign actors do not interfere in the events in Sudan in order to turn this into a regional conflict.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for updating the House on what he is trying to do to extract British nationals in what is obviously a very difficult situation. In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), I am currently dealing with the case of a constituent. My constituent’s husband, who is in Sudan, has been waiting 15 months for documentation to join her and for the family reunion visa to be processed. His passport is currently with the British embassy, which took it as part of the application process, and he is now stranded in Sudan.
When my office inquired about the situation, it received the standard reply that there is no timescale for dealing with the application. I appreciate that the Home Office is the lead Department in this situation, but surely we should have concern for all the people who are in this predicament. From what we have heard already, I suspect a lot of Members will raise this issue. We should have concern for all these people; we need to know there will be some attention to their situation.
James Cleverly
As I have said in response to previous questions, the issuing of visas is a Home Office function, but its officials work in close co-ordination—often physically close—with officials from my Department. There is the ability to issue temporary travel documents in lieu of a passport. Obviously, I cannot comment on the specific details of the case he raises, but the traditional functions of the Home Office and the FCDO will continue in parallel with the additional function of evacuation. Where appropriate and where they conform to the criteria we have set, we will continue to facilitate the issuing of family reunion visas. That is one of the reasons we have established a diplomatic presence not only in Port Sudan but in nearby countries.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. It is now just under 10 hours 45 minutes until the ceasefire ends, so speed is of the essence. I thank him for the statement about the aircraft that have left, taking so many hundreds out, but surely shipborne evacuation would provide us with volume as well. Will ships be going to Port Sudan and elsewhere to get people out of Sudan?
James Cleverly
The short answer is that we have, as a pre-emptive measure, diverted a Royal Navy vessel towards Port Sudan; that decision was made a number of days ago. We do not envisage that it will be used as a ferry, a relief platform or anything like that, but it will give us command and control capability and a protective platform in the region. We have also put forward a team of officials from across Government to facilitate the onward passage of people who get to Port Sudan. As I say, we already have diplomatic presence, which has been enhanced in Ethiopia, Egypt and across the Red sea in Saudi Arabia.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I just want to put it on record how refreshing it is to see a Secretary of State appear to make a statement himself. I do hope that other Departments can follow his lead.
There has been a puzzling story, put around by German politicians, that in some way our rescue efforts have hampered their own attempts to extract their own citizens. Secondly, there is a story that our soldiers did not have permission to land in Sudan. Could the Secretary of State throw any light on those stories?
James Cleverly
I can assure the House that I have a very productive bilateral relationship with my German opposite number. We speak regularly and have been in pretty constant text communication throughout this. I want to put on the record my huge gratitude to her, and through her the German military, who helped to facilitate the evacuation of British nationals and others. We have been working very well.
I see the concerns raised in the press; none of them have been directly raised with me. From the regular conversations I have with the Defence Secretary, it is not my understanding that at any point we flew without permissions, nor that that had a negative knock-on effect on others. I will, of course, in the near future, have the opportunity to have an extended conversation with my German opposite number. If there are any lessons that we need to learn about the complexity of operations like this, we will do so. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they have not been raised with me.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure we all share the deepest concern for the people of Sudan who are suffering this unfolding tragedy, as they have suffered so much tragedy in the past 20 years. We will have time in the future to debate why we failed to have a transition to civilian government in Sudan, but now we have the immediate issue of UK citizens trying to flee. One question that has not yet been raised is about the British and other international citizens stuck on the land border with Egypt, some of whom are in acute medical need. What is the Foreign Office doing to facilitate and work with the Egyptian Government to ensure that those citizens can traverse that land border and seek safety?
James Cleverly
I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I remain in regular contact with my Egyptian opposite number. I have spoken to him directly a number of times during this operation and, as is the nature of modern diplomacy, we are in pretty regular text communication as well. I know he will have been made aware of the situation at the Sudanese-Egyptian border. I am planning to speak to him again at some point in the near future—either today or early tomorrow—and this will be one of the issues that we discuss. As I say, we have put forward an enhanced consular presence from the FCDO in those neighbouring countries to help to facilitate border crossings, which are always tricky, particularly during times of conflict.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement this afternoon. Like many other Members, I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about friends and close family members who find themselves stuck in this terrible situation out in Sudan. Further to the questions raised by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), can I ask whether the Foreign Office is considering reviewing the eligibility criteria and, in particular, whether any consideration has been given to Sudanese passport holders who have entry clearance to the UK, be they students or other individuals, and whether there is any capacity to evacuate those individuals as well?
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his praise of the work that officials across Government have done on this. I do not want to pre-empt any decisions by Cobra. We will of course look at the criteria, which we have kept constantly under review to ensure we are able to discharge our duty to support British nationals, which is the primary duty of the Government. I would make the broader point that if we were to change the eligibility, we would need to do so in a non-discriminatory way. We would not necessarily be able to say, “Sudanese people who—”; it would just need to be, “Foreign nationals who—”. That could potentially create an unsustainable degree of demand for evacuations that we might not be able to address. However, we always look at these things very carefully. We want to ensure that we not only discharge our duty to British nationals, but remain, as we have been, a generous at heart nation.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On the point about safe and legal routes, there are, of course, no safe and legal routes for people to come to the United Kingdom. In fact, in 2022, Sudanese nationality was among the five highest for the number of people travelling in small boats across the channel. Has the Foreign Secretary had any conversations with the Home Secretary about establishing safe and legal routes in the light of this particular crisis, and in the light of the vote last night on the Illegal Migration Bill, which means that anyone arriving irregularly, in the United Kingdom after 7 March which people in small boats will be counted as, will be detained and sent to a third country, which I assume the Government would say is Rwanda?
James Cleverly
I think the right hon. Lady meant to say that there are no current safe and legal routes established from Sudan. She said in her question that there were no safe and legal routes, but of course there are many specific to Sudan.
Let me also point out that Sudan is not the only conflict zone in the world. The Bill on which the House voted last night contains an explicit commitment to establishing safe and legal routes in parallel with ensuring that the people who come here illegally are administered quickly, fairly and efficiently, and it is right that we do both. Ultimately, establishing those safe and legal routes will be a Government decision, led by the Home Office with input from other Departments such as mine, and that is a discussion that we will of course have.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Reports have shown that people operating fake Twitter accounts are impersonating key players in this conflict, and are being legitimised by the recently introduced subscription service on the platform. One tweet falsely reporting the death of the RSF leader gained more than 1 million views before being removed. What consideration has been given to the role that social media plays in spreading misinformation about this conflict, putting lives and operations at risk as a result?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady has raised an incredibly important point. I cannot express the level of frustration I feel with what seems in many instances to be proactively and intentionally dishonest messaging. As I said to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) earlier, the passage of information to British nationals and others is extremely difficult, and if it goes wrong or is manipulated by bad faith actors, it could put British nationals and others in enhanced danger.
I do not have an answer for the hon. Lady here and now, but she is right to raise this issue. It is a classic example of why we have to be very careful and check the provenance of information, and I would advise all people to do that, particularly if they are about to make life-and-death decisions based on it.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I have some real clarity from the Foreign Secretary about people who are not British nationals but who are nevertheless in the position of one of my constituents? My constituent has been working for Public Health Wales for the last two years and living in my constituency, and they went to Sudan to celebrate Eid with their family. They are now trapped there and, I understand, are being told that they will not get help from the British Government enabling them to return to their home and workplace in my constituency. Is that the Foreign Secretary’s policy, and if it is, can he change it forthwith?
James Cleverly
The eligibility criteria have been part of our travel advice throughout this situation. I completely understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but, as I said earlier, we cannot expand the criteria just for those mentioned by Members. To do so could substantially and unsustainably increase the number of people to whom we have given the implication that we could evacuate them. As I have said, the window is limited, the ability to evacuate beyond that is completely unpredictable, and we have a duty to ensure that we do everything we can to evacuate British nationals and dependants as per the criteria already published.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
We have all watched Sudan’s descent into civil war with horror, but for the Sudanese diaspora in Britain and British nationals in Sudan this is a time of immense trauma and suffering, recalling the trauma and suffering involved in the evacuation of Kabul. The situation is different, but the casework that I am seeing and what we are hearing today are very familiar. The Secretary of State says that visas are not his responsibility. Will he confirm that he is working with the Home Office, as a matter of urgency, to establish a consistent and humane approach to those who do not have the requisite travel documents? That includes babies born recently, spouses in the process of applying for visas, and, as we have heard, people who live here and are on holiday in Sudan.
James Cleverly
It is inevitable that comparisons will be made between this operation and the evacuation from Kabul, but they are fundamentally different. The operation we have conducted—both the initial military operation to evacuate our diplomatic staff and those of other nations, and then the ongoing airlift of British nationals and their dependants from Wadi Saeedna—is fundamentally different from the situation in Kabul. As I have said, I am very proud of the fact that we are one of the three framework nations who have facilitated the operation from Wadi Saeedna, which has allowed the French, German, British and others to airlift people out. We will of course always make sure we protect the vulnerable where we can; I have said that in my statement and it is reflected in the travel advice. Ultimately our duty is towards British nationals and their dependants, and we have of course facilitated the evacuation of Sudanese nationals who are dependants of British nationals.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his determination and leadership at a time when we look to him for that. Some 512 people have died and thousands have been injured since the power struggle began two weeks ago. The Foreign Secretary has urged all UK nationals to leave before the ceasefire ends at 12 o’clock tonight. I understand, and the Secretary of State can of course confirm this, that a number of UK nationals could still be left behind due to poor mobile phone contact or due to embassy staff not being available—that is not their fault, by the way; it is just about contact for people. I believe we have a duty to ensure protection for each and every one, and I know the Secretary of State also believes that, so what will he do to protect those UK nationals who were not fortunate enough to get out in time?
James Cleverly
The airhead at Wadi Saeedna is one of our preferred options; that is why we made the commitment to be one of the three framework nations to facilitate the use of that airbase. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify the fact that it is very difficult for us to make any kind of commitment beyond the ceasefire. One of the best things we can do to protect British nationals in Sudan is try to make sure the ceasefire continues, and we work incredibly hard, both directly and with partners and regional powerbases, to facilitate that and bring a lasting peace. Even if the airhead is no longer operational, there will be other routes out, and our presence at the borders and at Port Sudan will be to facilitate that. We will keep communicating best advice on evacuation and keep-safe options through all channels, notwithstanding the point I made earlier that communication remains incredibly difficult.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I have been reading reports about two NHS doctors who have been denied passage on planes evacuating from Sudan, and that struck me, because I have constituents who are NHS doctors themselves who are in Sudan with their young children. I am therefore very keen to hear what the plan is in relation to NHS doctors. I do not believe for one minute that the general public would expect that they will be abandoned by this Government to their peril in Sudan. How many children who are British nationals are in Sudan and not yet on one of the planes? What will the Foreign Secretary do to maintain proper food and water supplies for British nationals, and how does he plan to get these children home?
James Cleverly
As I said in response to the initial question from the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), it is not possible for the UK, or indeed any other country, to know exactly how many of their nationals are in Sudan, or any other country. We do not demand that British nationals register with the Government when they are overseas. We have put out a “register your presence” website, which gives us some idea, but no Government in the world can say what the numbers are with certainty. Indeed, people who have registered on that “register your presence” website may well have already left. That is why no one can give a complete figure on the number of nationals in Sudan. We have pumped out messages across a wide range of channels letting people know that the airhead exists and we have called them forward. We will make sure that British national children, and of course dependants of British nationals, are airlifted out. Even if we are not able to maintain that airlift capability from Wadi Saeedna, we have a presence at the borders; we have a presence in Saudi Arabia and in Port Sudan.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their presence. Will anybody who wishes to leave the Chamber please do so quietly?
Point of Order
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have asked the Speaker’s Office for clarity on this matter, which relates to the voter ID and electoral fraud question this morning. When nominations closed for the Northern Ireland local government elections, I became aware that a man listed as one of the proposers of Gerard Magee in Ballyclare was the victim of identity fraud by Sinn Féin. The victim met the chief executive officer of Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, and established that his identity had been stolen; he was fraudulently listed as a proposer on the nomination papers of Sinn Féin’s Gerard Magee, and this purportedly included the act of forging the victim’s signature on official nomination papers. For clarity, the victim does not know Gerard Magee and did not sign his nomination papers. The problem occurs because this matter cannot be investigated until the election is over. Can you advise me on how best I can stand up for democracy in this case in advance of polling day?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for informing the Chair that he wished to raise this matter as a point of order but, as he is fully aware, it is not in fact a matter for the Chair. More importantly, given that the actions he describes are potentially criminal, it would be inappropriate for me or anybody else in the Chair to seek to pre-empt or interfere with what might become a judicial inquiry. I am afraid I cannot help the hon. Gentleman further.
Bill Presented
Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Michael Gove, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T. C. Davies, John Glen, and Mr Steve Baker, presented a Bill to extend the period during which departmental functions may be exercised in the absence of Ministers to cover the whole of the current period in which there is no Executive; to give the Secretary of State power, during that period, to commission advice and information for the purpose of developing options for raising more public revenue in Northern Ireland or otherwise improving the sustainability of public finances in Northern Ireland; and to require certain accounts and related documents to be laid before the House of Commons in periods in which the Northern Ireland Assembly is not functioning.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 300).
Backbench Business
Reforms to NHS Dentistry
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered progress on reforms to NHS dentistry.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for once again granting this important debate, and my co-sponsor, the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for all his work in helping to secure it.
When preparing for the debate, I thought it was useful to consider and reflect on the foundations of our NHS in the Beveridge report, which was published 80 years ago last November. Although it would be an understatement to say that the world has changed since its publication, the identity of this country is still proudly centred around our national health service—an idea so powerfully contained in the pages of the report. For the great British social reformers of the 20th century, dentistry was not some Cinderella service of secondary importance. Beveridge concluded that no one could seriously doubt that a free dental service should become as universal as a free medical service. Eighty years after the report’s publication, it is time that the House reaffirmed our commitment to universal dental care in this country.
It is worth noting that the Beveridge report, in its proposition for universal access to NHS dentistry, was published by a multi-party coalition Government. As I stand here today, Members on both sides of the Chamber will agree that the crisis in NHS dentistry deserves the same cross-party attention that it was afforded 80 years ago, because the system has decayed: access has fallen to an historic low, and inaction over the past 13 years has caused untold damage. There can be no more half measures or excuses. Now is the time to establish a new preventive dental contract that is fit for the 21st century.
The words of my campaigning over the past eight years now serve as a compendium of forecasting doom. In 2016, I warned of a mounting crisis and drew the Government’s attention to a digital report warning that half of dentists were thinking of leaving the profession. Between 2017 and 2019, I warned that 60% of dentists were planning to leave NHS dentistry. In 2020, after years of repeated warnings, I once again informed the Government that 58% of the UK’s remaining dentists were planning on moving away from NHS dentistry within five years. The Government once again fudged and ignored, and more than 1,000 dentists left the NHS.
This NHS dental crisis has been a devastating slow-motion car crash of the Government’s own making, yet year after year, Minister after Minister, they have assured me of their commitment to reform. Last year, when I pressed the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), for action on this matter, she informed me that she had started work on a dental contract reform. However, just yesterday, we became aware that after 13 years in power, the Government are once again starting with an announcement of a plan to publish a new plan to improve access to NHS dentistry—a plan for a plan.
We would all welcome further clarification on what that plan might involve. I can only hope that sustained campaigning on this issue by me and other Members will mean that the plan will result in positive change for my Bradford South constituents.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this excellent and incredibly important debate. In Newcastle, where NHS dentistry access has become almost impossible for so many of my constituents, a whole generation of young people and children are growing up without access to an NHS dentist. Does she agree that that is causing immense suffering now and storing up not only pain and suffering but additional costs for the future?
Judith Cummins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will specifically cover access to NHS dentistry for children later in my remarks.
On the Government’s plan for a plan, experience suggests that positive change for my constituents may well be wishful thinking. My constituents are suffering and take no solace whatever from the Government’s commitment to plan for a plan for reform. The contract has been in place since 2006, and the Government have been undertaking a review of the process since 2011. After 12 years, it is still a work in progress.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The British Dental Association has shown that over half of dentists have reduced their NHS work since the start of the pandemic. Official workforce data counts people, not how much NHS work they do compared with private work. Does she agree that it is important that the Government collect that data?
Judith Cummins
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s important remarks. Collection of data is paramount for solving the issue.
The dodging of responsibility for more than 12 years is nothing short of a disgrace. Now, we all bear witness to the human consequences of this crisis. The victims of Government negligence are—as they almost always have been—the most vulnerable people in our society. In Bradford, 98% of dentists are now closed to NHS patients. As I informed the Prime Minister just last month, 80% of practices are now refusing to accept children as new NHS patients.
The lack of access is having crushing consequences. In the financial year of 2021-22, 42,000 NHS hospital tooth extractions were carried out for 0 to 19-year-olds—an 83% rise on the previous financial year. A dental nurse has recently spoken of routinely extracting up to 10 teeth from a single child, so children are routinely losing half their teeth. This dental crisis is now ultimately a crisis of inequality. The rate of tooth extraction is more than three times higher in Yorkshire and the Humber than in the south-east of England. Children living in our country’s most deprived communities face an extraction rate three and a half times greater than those living in the most affluent areas.
In care homes for the elderly, the access crisis has been just as devastating. In 2019, 6% of care homes reported that they were unable to access NHS dental care services, but by 2022, that figure had risen more than four times to 25%—a quarter of all care homes.
As this Conservative Government continue to mull over minor reforms, they fail entire generations of people, who deserve a reasonable standard of care. No more are the cradle-to-grave principles of the NHS.
A 21st-century Britain requires a 21st-century approach. We need more than mere revision of the contract. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has spoken of the need for a new healthcare system that is just as much about prevention as about cure. It is a concrete fact that no dental treatment is stronger than protecting a healthy and original tooth, but in 2021-22 tooth decay was again the most common reason for hospital admission of children between six and 10 years old. For zero to 19-year-olds, hospital tooth extractions cost our NHS a shocking £81 million a year. In 2022, instead of children visiting the dentist on a regular basis, it cost our NHS an average of more than £700 for a single minor extraction of a child’s tooth in hospital.
We are paying for the cost of catch-up with our failure to prevent tooth decay, so prevention should be at the heart of our Government’s agenda for dental reform. We owe that to the generations of people currently being let down by the system. This country once had a strong school dental service. With the current shocking rates of tooth decay among children, now is the time to resurrect that policy as an interim prevention measure. It is not only the right thing to do but a sensible option for the country’s finances. Care homes would benefit from a dental contract that commissions stronger community dental services, as used to happen.
By using integrated care systems, upskilling care workers, and further involving local authorities, access can be increased and the pressure on dental services reduced. Prevention really is better than cure. We have a duty to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively in areas right across the country. A decade of savage cuts by the Tory Government has left long-term damage. An estimated £880 million a year is now required just to restore to 2010 levels of resources. There will be no escaping the need for more investment, but it must be thoughtful investment. One answer could be the introduction of a prevention-focused capitation-type system, where lump sums are provided to NHS dental teams to treat sections of the population.
Successful targeted investment is possible, and in 2017 I developed a project in Bradford with the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). I thank the hon. Member, who is now the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee and who is present in the Chamber. He worked with me on the pilot scheme, which invested over £250,000 of unused clawback over three years into my constituency of Bradford South. That went straight back into local services and ensured that patients were able to access roughly 3,000 new NHS dental appointments in an area with high dental deprivation—targeting extra resources straight into an area where they were needed.
Although that was never meant to be a long-term solution, it proved that targeted investment is possible. Where there is a will, there is a way. With a staggering 10% of this year’s £3 billion national budget for NHS dentistry set to be returned, the system is clearly broken. Taxpayers’ money is returned not because people are not desperate for NHS dentists, but because the Government continue to push an underfunded and unworkable system. They lack the will to act and to find a way forward to protect dental health in this country. Now is the time to put “national” back into NHS dentistry.
The Government may once again list the challenges that stand in the way of re-establishing a truly universal dental care system. We are in a time of extraordinary change, with unprecedented cost of living crises, war on the European continent, and a society impacted by a deadly virus. Our health system is undoubtedly challenged, but 80 years ago the Conservative-Labour coalition Government published a guiding principle of NHS dental reform, just as this country fought for its very freedom and independence. In Sir William Beveridge’s own words:
“A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.”
It is time for real change, not empty promises. This is the time for a Government dedicated to acting in the public good, to revitalise and resurrect NHS dentistry once again, ending the shoddy record of this Government’s patching of our NHS dental services.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chairman of the Select Committee.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the opening speech of the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who has brought back many happy memories of our time together when I was public health Minister. She has been consistent on this issue over many years.
Today’s debate is timely; it comes in a week when the Health and Social Care Committee, which, as you rightly say, I am privileged to chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, held a crucial oral evidence session with the Minister, who is in his place on the Front Bench.
Dentistry is a subject close to my heart from my time serving as public health Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care. It is also one of the Select Committee’s top priorities. We launched our inquiry on the subject shortly after I became Chair in November last year. We are looking at what steps the Government and NHS England should take to improve access to NHS dental services, and at further reform of the NHS dental contract. Rarely has an inquiry been more needed or welcome. It is clear that there are huge problems facing NHS dentistry. I am sure that every colleague, whether in the Chamber today or not, is familiar with stories of constituents having trouble accessing NHS dentistry. I am no exception to that, as a constituency MP; neither are my family, as patients.
One of the many submissions that the Committee received talked about people extracting their own teeth with pliers, something that should not happen in the 21st century. The problem is particularly acute in some areas of the country—we will hear talk today about dental deserts, I am sure—and among some groups of people, but challenges and capacity issues are experienced across the board. Our inquiry received a wide range of written evidence, including from nearly 30 local Healthwatch groups. We also held two detailed oral evidence sessions examining the problem and, of course, potential solutions. We heard from Healthwatch that the majority of complaints that it receives at the moment are about dentistry. Day in, day out, local Healthwatch groups receive emails and calls about problems accessing an NHS dentist. That is reflected in other evidence that we received; I know it is not easy for some to hear this, but as a Select Committee Chair, I can only follow the evidence that I receive. We have also heard again and again about the challenge of recruiting and retaining NHS dentists.
The Government have, I am pleased to say, started to act, and to pick up where some of the previous tinkering reforms left off—reforms for which I take some of the credit, and some of the responsibility; I did not fundamentally reform the dental contract during my time as dental Minister, either. In July last year, the Government announced several changes to the 2006 dental contract, including a change to the way that units of dental activity are awarded. They also advised longer recall intervals for adults with good oral health, in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines.
In our first evidence session, we heard from Shawn Charlwood from the British Dental Association, who told us that the reforms to the dental contract represented tweaks, rather than the fundamental reform that is needed. He said:
“In essence, what we are doing at the moment is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic while the service slowly slips into the sea.”
To be fair to the Minister, for whom I have a lot of respect, and who spoke really well before the Select Committee earlier this week, I was delighted to hear him acknowledge in that session that he wants “quite fundamental reform” to the dental contract; that has to be right. He argued that the existing reforms were “welcomed”, but noted that they were “only a start”. That was good to hear, and it was well covered by the media on Tuesday evening. I worry, though, that even if significant reforms to the NHS dental contract were made tomorrow, it would be too late, or an extreme challenge, to bring back those dentists who have already left the NHS dental workforce. It is really hard for people to make that decision; they came into dentistry to work in public service. I fear that once they have made the change, it will be final for them, and it will be very difficult to get them to change their mind. I touched on that with the Minister earlier this week. Perhaps he can tell us a bit more about what he will do to address that issue of return.
In our session, I asked the Minister about his ambition for NHS dentistry. Tony Blair famously said in his 1999 conference speech that his ambition was for everybody to have access to an NHS dentist within two years. It never happened, but it was a clear ambition; I give him credit for that. The Minister said that “the No. 1 thing” on his mind was improving access to a dentist for those who do not currently have that access—quite right. But when I pressed him on whether that meant that everyone would have access to an NHS dentist, he said that he wanted everyone who needed an NHS dentist to be able to access one. That is welcome; it is a repeat of that ambition. It is good that the Government have that ambition—although the key, obviously, is whether and when they deliver on it. I will ask him to expand on that when he sums up.
The Minister also talked about making NHS dentistry more attractive to dentists, which is clearly crucial. He said that the problem is not a shortage of dentists per se, but a shortage of dentists undertaking NHS dentistry. The figures certainly bear that out. Our work has highlighted the point that there is a problem with data as well. There are headcounts for the number of NHS dentists, but we do not know whether they are part-time or full-time and how much NHS activity they do. That gap needs closing.
We need to know about the workforce available to deliver the Minister’s ambition; until then, it is unlikely to be achieved. The Minister reminded us this week that the Government are in the final throes of drawing up their workforce plan, which I understand will include dentistry. That is good. I hope that that plan will be published in the not-too-distant future—maybe once we get past a certain electoral event next Thursday.
I also want to touch on overseas recruitment. According to the General Dental Council, almost a quarter of dentists registered in the UK gained their dentistry qualifications overseas. That is fine, but for those dentists the primary means of assessment is the overseas registration examination, or ORE. The pandemic created a backlog in the number of overseas dentists waiting to take their exams—that is the good part. The ORE is subject to practical and legal constraints that make it difficult to adapt capacity to meet changing demands for places. A recent list of changes should help ease the problems, but are unlikely to make a significant difference in the short term; the Minister can correct me if I am wrong.
One of my constituents, Christopher Hilling of SpaDental Group, who has spoken to me about the subject on several occasions, has outlined the difficulties he is facing. He has a number of dentists waiting for the opportunity to sit the ORE exam, but he has struggled in the past to get accurate information about when the exams will even take place. He is concerned that he might lose more of his overseas dentists due to a lack of exam opportunities and of General Dental Council communication about when those dentists might be able to practise in the UK. Given the delay in the taking effect of changes to overseas registration, what are the Government doing to support the GDC, especially with regard to clearing the backlog of applications?
I was encouraged to hear this week the Minister and chief dental officer Sara Hurley talk in our evidence session about the importance of driving forward work on prevention. That is a passion of mine, and colleagues will know that it is a major inquiry that the Select Committee is undertaking. One of our witnesses at this week’s session talked about the importance of early prevention work, focusing on young children. The expression she used was “getting gums on seats”, and that is a great place to focus. We must get more gums on seats, Mr Deputy Speaker—that is the catchphrase for today’s debate.
Finally, I want to talk about integrated care systems, on which the Select Committee has also done a lot of work. We heard in our session about some of the changes that have come into effect as a result of integrated care boards taking responsibility for commissioning dental services. Some were early adopters, including the Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB that looks after my constituency. But the boards do not include dentistry. I asked the Hampshire ICB representative, who appeared as one of our witnesses this week, about that. They said that they do not want to make their boards too big. I find that disappointing, surprising and unhelpful. To be fair, some ICBs have managed to include dentistry on their boards without any problems; if they can do it, all should. It sends a strange message to the dental profession if it is not included on integrated care boards. It is a great opportunity for flexibility in commissioning, which is why we created the boards. Dentistry needs to be within them.
To conclude, the picture is bleak, but it does not have to be—it is also improving and there are grounds for optimism. We have a Minister who understands this subject inside out and is committed to providing access to NHS dentists for everyone who needs it and a thorough overhaul of the current system and the contract, as he confirmed to us this week. In integrated care boards, we have the possibility of being able to target local services to local needs. But the time for action is running out. I hope the Minister can outline in his response to the debate that he recognises the urgency of the situation, and that, when my Committee produces its report on dentistry, he will read it and act promptly on our recommendations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I do not intend to put a time limit on the debate at this stage. Colleagues will have noticed that the Chairman of the Select Committee was commendably brief; if everyone emulates that, it should be possible for everybody to have their say without putting a time limit on. However, there is another debate that it is intended should follow this, and I hope that that will have a hearing as well.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Sadly we have been here before, time and again, and this Conservative Government still refuse to act, consigning yet another public service to the scrapheap. Once again my constituents are paying more and getting less under this Tory Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this very important debate. We need this crisis to be urgently addressed.
It cannot be denied any longer: we face an existential crisis in NHS dentistry. It really is at breaking point. The latest area in my constituency to be affected is Pennywell in Sunderland, where the Bupa branch will close its doors in June, affecting 7,800 NHS patients. Not a week goes by without correspondence from a constituent in dire need, in despair and often in acute pain, unable to find an NHS dentist and unable to afford a private one. The nearest NHS practice accepting new patients for those constituents is in South Shields, nearly an hour away from Pennywell on public transport. That is completely unacceptable.
We cannot accept dental care becoming a luxury available only to those who can afford it. To add insult to injury, during this Conservative cost of living crisis the Government have hiked dental care prices by 8.5%. Those choices are being made by the Prime Minister and his billionaire buddies, who have never had to worry about the cost of anything such as this and do not understand the effect that that record increase will have on the cost of living pressures facing ordinary people in my constituency and across the north-east. The hike will not put a penny into NHS dentistry, either; it will just force millions to reconsider whether they can afford necessary dental treatment. We risk the horror of DIY dentistry becoming the norm.
Across 13 years, the Conservatives have chosen millions of pounds of short-term cuts, but the long-term cost of health inequalities is a price my constituents will pay for generations. The Government chose not to listen to dentists and they knew that the woefully inadequate NHS dentistry contract was not fit for purpose. That is not a new problem. Make no mistake, not only are the Conservatives allowing this crisis to worsen, but their inaction suggests to me that this is actually the result they desire.
My constituents are furious, as am I. They are either forced to pay over £100 more for the exact same NHS care they could get under a Labour Government in Wales or they are left unable to access any treatment at all. We need a Labour Government who will prioritise healthcare access for all, clear up 13 years of Tory underfunding and mismanagement, and abolish the Prime Minister’s precious non-dom status in order to provide the treatment and dental care that the British people deserve. The people of Sunderland and Washington should not have to suffer because of Tory chaos and managed decline that leave dental care a luxury for the few.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. It is the third in a trilogy that the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and I have secured, and that in itself tells a sad and sorry story. Complaints about access to NHS dentistry have been the No. 1 item in my inbox for getting on for two years and, while there is a particular challenge in Suffolk and Norfolk, I am conscious that this is very much a national crisis.
The fundamental causes of the collapse of NHS dentistry go back over 25 years, with a gradual withdrawal of funding by successive Governments and the poorly thought-through 2006 NHS contract. Covid was the final straw that brought the edifice crashing down. The challenge now in front of us is to put NHS dentistry on a secured long-term footing, but in a way that enables our constituents, many of whom are in acute agony, to see a dentist straight away.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his part in securing successive debates. On emergency dentistry, in my constituency people are asked to travel an hour and a half by public transport for emergency treatment. Great changes have happened in the last three months, but we must improve on that in the next three months so that that no longer happens.
Peter Aldous
I think we all have tales of constituents who have had to go a long way to see an NHS dentist, if they can find one at all. In Lowestoft, people have had to travel to Basildon, which is not straightforward by public transport.
The task of delivering the plan for NHS dentistry is on the shoulders of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien). From my perspective, the purpose of the debate is to be constructive and to provide him with ideas and suggestions that could be included in his plan. It should be ambitious, visionary and innovative, not just a sticking plaster to get us through the immediate crisis.
To achieve that, and to ensure that our constituents are able to see a truly local NHS dentist quickly, three immediate short-term challenges need to be addressed. First, the up to £500 million due to be clawed back into the main NHS budget should remain available exclusively for NHS dentistry this year. Secondly in the short term, there is a need to recruit more dentists from overseas to address the acute shortage of NHS dentists. I acknowledge the measures that the Government put in place, as the Minister set out in his answer to my question on Tuesday, but more needs to be done to eliminate the queue as quickly as possible. Thirdly in the short term, the 2006 NHS contract needs replacing, and we must move completely away from the discredited UDA system.
In the longer term, the ingredients for rebuilding NHS dentistry and transforming it into a system fit for the 21st century of which we can justifiably be proud, are as follows: first, as I mentioned, we need to put in place that new contract, and address the current contract’s fatal flaw. It should facilitate a focus on prevention and should motivate dentists and dental practitioners to work in rural and coastal areas such as Suffolk and Norfolk. Secondly, a long-term fair funding system should be put in place. I acknowledge that Governments do not like ringfencing, but NHS dentistry must be provided with an assurance that the funds are available to make the long-term strategic investment that ensures that service will be both resilient and robust.
Thirdly, the recruitment and retention arrangements need to be significantly improved. Dentistry must feature prominently in the Government’s forthcoming NHS and social care workforce plan. Many colleagues, including myself, have highlighted the need for dentistry schools in their areas. Locally, both the University of East Anglia and the University of Suffolk have come forward with proposals. In East Anglia, my sense is that a vacuum must be filled, but I am mindful that a strategic approach right across the country needs to be pursued on where dentistry schools are best located. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could commit to carrying out such an assessment. In the meantime, I urge him to immediately support the University of Suffolk’s dental community interest company, which has the twin benefits of providing much needed NHS dental treatments and training in such areas as dental therapy and hygiene.
There is also a need to improve the accountability and transparency of NHS dentistry. The move to integrated care boards that happened throughout much of the country on 1 April, including locally with the Norfolk and Waveney integrated care board, is very much a step in the right direction. In our local area it is taking steps to put in place a long-term plan and to ensure proper representation from dentists.
Finally, at the heart of any health strategy must be prevention. Such an approach will help spare people from hours of agony and ultimately impose less of a burden on the public purse. I will briefly outline three possible strands to intervention. First, the Government must press ahead with plans to fluoridate the water supply. All the evidence is that that will bring significant results. Secondly, we must come up with a strategy for promoting better oral healthcare for children. In 2021, with support from local councillors, Lowestoft Rising provided free toothbrushes and toothpaste to the under-sevens. The take-up was high and the feedback was extremely positive, and it recommended that such products should be exempted from VAT. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to promote that policy with the Treasury. Thirdly, as we have heard, we must not forget the elderly, particularly those in care homes, and that must be covered in the new dental contract.
In conclusion, the emergence of dental deserts across the country, which are now joining up to create an area of Saharan proportions, is a crisis that must be tackled head-on with proper funding, root-and-branch reform and bold and imaginative policies. My sense and my hope is that the Minister is up for the challenge, and I look forward to the publication of the Government’s NHS dentistry plan. As I have said, this is the third Backbench Business Committee debate that the hon. Member for Bradford South and I have secured, and I hope that a fourth will not be necessary.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on their persistence. Let us hope it starts to pay off and they do not need that fourth debate on the subject.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South has said, NHS dentistry is in crisis. There is a recruitment and retention crisis, which the Government have allowed to develop and grow to the point that many of my constituents in Hull North have been left with no access to an NHS dentist. We all know what needs to be done to fix the problem, but the Government have continued to drag their feet over the need for a new dental contract, for new dental schools and for expanding the number of dentists that we have in this country. It is almost like they have hoped that those who can afford to do so will go private, and those who cannot will just sit and let their teeth rot.
Right now, people in Hull North are paying for the Government’s time wasting with their dental health. One constituent has told me of waiting lists at a local NHS dentist of more than 1,500 people, and another has tried to call every NHS dentist within 30 miles, but the earliest appointment they have available is January 2025. A concerned parent tells me that their 11-year-old has not seen a dentist since they were six years of age, and their four-year-old has never seen a dentist, despite being on several waiting lists across Hull since they were a baby. I have had headteachers tell me that children do not go to school because of dental pain and being unable to get access to a dentist.
In Yorkshire and the Humber, as my hon. Friend referred to, in the year ending 2022, 4,560 children under the age of 10 were hospitalised for tooth extractions. That shocking figure includes more than 1,500 babies and toddlers under five with cavities so bad that they have had to have their teeth removed. The situation is shocking and considerably worse in Yorkshire, the Humber and the north-east than elsewhere in England.
What we need are more NHS dentists. We need to recruit more NHS dentists, and if we want to tackle the dental recruitment problems, we obviously need to train more NHS dentists. Years ago, the University of Hull, in partnership with the University of York—I am very pleased to see in her place my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who represents that university—put in a joint bid for a dental school.
It was to go alongside the brilliant Hull York Medical School, which had been established under the Labour Government when there was a real need for more doctors to be trained. The idea was that we would “grow” our own doctors from the area where the medical school was based. Let us imagine what would have happened and the situation we would be in today if we had been allowed to have that Hull York dental school.
After all the dither and delay that we have been talking about, we can correct our course today. There is plenty of existing support and the capability to deliver a high-quality training facility in the Humber area, which could directly serve one of the worst affected regions in the country, but we need the Government to step up to give us the resources and provide the funding for places.
I am, however, grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), for agreeing to meet me after I raised this issue in Tuesday’s Health questions. I also commend him for the speed with which his office contacted mine to arrange that meeting. Getting a ministerial meeting that quickly is unusual these days, so I thank him for that. A Hull dental school could be part of a long-promised workforce plan for the NHS. It could mean that we have sufficient UK-trained, highly qualified dentists and, with the necessary changes to the dental contract, a decent reward for their hard work. We also need to remember that we are competing in a global market for dentists. I was struck by the fact that if a dentist goes to Canada, they receive a £63,000 golden hello and the offer of residence. That is clearly tempting for many dentists who train in this country and feel they are overworked and get too little pay.
To date, the Government have been missing in action, dentists have been voting with their feet and patients in Hull have been paying with their teeth. We need more NHS dentists. Let us train them. Let us get on with it and do it now, and let us do it in Hull.
Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
I, too, thank everyone involved in securing this important debate, including the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who so eloquently laid out the terrible state of NHS dental services in this country today and the desperate need for reform of that terrible Labour 2006 contract, which, in effect, destroyed NHS dental services in the UK. That is why I welcome the general direction of the Government’s plans for NHS dental reform, as outlined in the statement on 19 July last year. It is a good start, but we must do more. We must take this opportunity to not only put NHS dentistry back on track after disruptions during covid, but ensure we create a long-term sustainable plan to enable good NHS dentistry for all who want it.
I wholeheartedly agreed with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), when she said that
“the contract is the nub of the problem; it is currently a perverse disincentive for dentists to take on NHS work.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2022; Vol. 716, c. 135.]
That contract is the primary structural issue in NHS dentistry at the moment and has been since 2006. I have spoken to a dentist who owns 17 NHS practices across England, including two in my constituency. They are struggling financially to keep those practices going, but are totally committed to providing NHS dental services to my constituents and so push on despite the difficult environment.
Jill Mortimer
No, I want to make progress.
That dentist’s many problems include the unfair way UDA rates are calculated, which ironically disadvantages areas such as Hartlepool, which have severe health deprivation. That has knock-on effects on their ability to employ staff at competitive rates and leads to a reliance on expensive locum dentists, further stretching the viability of the business. Dentists find a way to make their practices work with access contracts, but the lack of certainty they face because of the difference in competences between different integrated care boards adds further issues. For example, under one ICB’s access contract they were provided with clarity for a two-year period, but under our ICB they were still waiting to hear at the end of the month whether a contract would be renewed four days later. Not only did the survival of the practice and the jobs of 30 staff depend on that contract, but the dental care of 20,000 patients also depended on it. Thankfully it was renewed, but it is unacceptable that the ICB provided them with no indication of whether the contract would be renewed so close to its end. No business can run like that.
For areas such as mine that have a desperate need of NHS dental services, we should be fully valuing and supporting good dentists like that to ensure the survival of their essential services. I urge the Minister to consider radical reform of the way in which NHS dental service contracts are remunerated, so that established NHS dentists continue to offer NHS services to new patients. I would also like to see changes to stop newly qualified dentists being tempted into private work. It costs the taxpayer a significant amount of money to train a dentist, but they are not then required to work in the NHS. It is only fair on working people who have subsidised these professionals to train in their chosen career to expect a degree of payback. I would therefore welcome the Minister looking into the possibility of a staggered mandatory amount of NHS work per year for the first few years after qualification.
Good dental care starts with good preventive care, and I want to see a day when everyone who wants it can access NHS dental services for all routine procedures and check-ups, not just emergencies, without the difficulties that my constituents are currently facing.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Across Durham and the whole country, dentistry is in crisis. It is a system in need of urgent reconstruction, not tinkering. To be clear, the problem has not been caused by NHS workers or dentists. It has been caused by the Conservative Government, who have ignored the concept of prevention rather than cure. Dentists have told me that the key issue is the chronic underfunding of NHS dentistry. Let us not forget that it has been subject to cuts unparalleled elsewhere in the NHS.
There is a real recruitment and retention crisis in the workforce, but the situation cannot be improved by simply recruiting more dentists. The fact is that NHS dentists are made to work in a fundamentally flawed system that does not have prevention at its heart. I fear that if NHS dentistry continues down this road, England may have an entirely private dental provision, and the facts speak to that. In August last year, the BBC showed that eight in 10 NHS practices were not taking on children as patients, nine in 10 practices were not accepting adult patients, and a third of council areas were not taking on adult NHS patients. How can we have a preventive approach if my constituents cannot get to see a dentist? In addition, tooth decay is the most common reason for A&E hospital admissions in young children. That is a disgrace.
Nothing could reflect the current crisis more than DIY dentistry. People are fitting their own fillings and extracting their own teeth without anaesthetic or professional training. This week alone, I have been contacted by eight constituents who have performed DIY dentistry. The situation is compounded by the cost of living crisis, which is blighting the lives of ordinary people. If someone needs to choose between eating and heating, they will probably not want to fork out for an expensive root canal; they will probably choose to have an extraction instead or do it themselves. This is a stark example of health inequalities.
I have some questions for the Minister. When will the Government adopt a preventive approach to health and social care, particularly to dentistry? When will the Government provide NHS dentistry with the funding it desperately needs? Has the Department had meetings recently with the Treasury to discuss funding? When will the Government work with the British Dental Association to reform the current dental contract, to stop the exodus of staff from the NHS?
In 1948, Labour recognised that it was vital to integrate dentistry within the NHS and that oral health is not an optional luxury but integral to our national health and key to the NHS. How we tackle it must therefore be a priority, not an afterthought. Only a Labour Government can save dentistry from the rot and decay that has set in under the Tories’ watch.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Like many colleagues, I have received a large volume of communications from constituents in Broxtowe regarding the ongoing problems with securing an NHS dentist appointment. Polling conducted by YouGov on behalf of the British Dental Association has shown that one in four adults in England have already delayed or avoided much-needed care due to cost. I am aware that improving access to NHS dentistry is one of the Government’s key priorities for our health service. It is evident that waiting times have been affected by the infection control measures required during the pandemic. Despite these pressures, dental services in many parts of England have been slowly recovering, which is good to see. However, much more must be done to reduce waiting times and ensure that appointments are available. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, we need more gums on seats.
The BBC recently contacted every NHS dental practice in England and found that 91% were not able to accept new adult patients and 80% were not able to accept new child patients. This is not acceptable. Oral health inequality is rising, and we must act now to ensure that we focus on retaining current dentists, recruiting new ones and ensuring that adequate funding is in place.
My constituent Sacha told me about the difficulty she has had. Not being able to book a dentist appointment has caused her great stress and anxiety. She will potentially lose her teeth if a dentist is not found. Sacha has gum disease and is supposed to see a dentist four times a year. She faces great pain and does not have the option of visiting a private dentist. I have heard many cases like hers, and a private dentist is often not an option. People should not have to turn to private dentists. Sacha is currently waiting for a response from NHS England.
Another constituent, Joan from Toton, recently shared her difficulties with me. She rang multiple practices in her area but was told there are no NHS dentists available. Joan is 70 this year and should not be unable to get basic dental care. It is essential that we fix this problem by ensuring that new NHS dentists are entering the workforce and that we retain the ones we currently have.
The Government have rightly been holding talks since 2021-22 with the British Dental Association and other stakeholders on reforming dental contracts. Through these talks, a number of steps have been and are being taken, including improving financial incentives for dental practices, supporting new practices to take on patients and supporting people with dental costs, but more must be done.
The Department of Health and Social Care has stated that it will publish a plan for dentistry in the coming months. I welcome that announcement and look forward to receiving the plan. In the meantime, I implore the Minister to do all he can for those, such as Sacha and Joan, who face not being able to access dental treatment.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate, and I thank other hon. and right hon. Member for their persistence in pursuing this matter and ensuring it remains a priority. It is worth repeating that this debate is about the progress on reforming NHS dentistry. The two colleagues I mentioned made the case for this debate:
“Underfunding and the current NHS dental contract are to blame for long-standing problems with burnout, recruitment and retention in NHS dental services. Morale amongst NHS dentists is at an all-time low and we are facing an exodus of dentists from the NHS. Reform of the dysfunctional NHS dental contract is a matter of urgency—a reformed service won’t work if there is no workforce left by the time it’s finally introduced.”
To solve the problem, it is crucial to accept that there actually is a problem, and it is important to recognise the extent of that problem. The first question I want to ask the Minister is whether he accepts that there is a problem with access to NHS dental services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O'Brien)
indicated assent.
Peter Dowd
I am pleased that the Minister nods and recognises that. The second is whether he acknowledges the extent of the problem with access to dental services. What progress has actually been made—that is what the debate is about—and has it been significant enough? The Minister accepts that there is a problem, but I am still not convinced, on the evidence we have, that the progress has gone far enough. That is my view. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) talked about the 2006 contract, which we all know needs to be redesigned. The Labour Government recognised, in good faith, as early as 2009 that it had to change. We are now 13 years on, so we have to get to grips with it now. I do not point the finger in that regard, but that is the context for the debate today. Actions speak louder than words. Have there been sufficient actions to resolve the problem that the Minister recognises? I am not convinced there have been.
We had a debate in Westminster Hall on 10 February last year—over 12 months ago—in which I asked Conservative Members to
“press the Minister and ask the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—their colleagues—to listen to the facts, because, unless Members opposite can get that message across to an indurate Government, things can only get worse.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 473WH.]
Let us take a rain-check a year or so on. Have things stayed the same? Have they got better? Have they got worse? In my view, and that of many others, things have not stayed the same and they have not improved substantially, so it does not take Hercule Poirot to work out that things have deteriorated. I accept, in good faith, that Conservative Members have lobbied the Government, but I am sorry to say that, looking at the situation on the ground in my constituency—and, no doubt, in other Members’ constituencies—their exhortations have fallen on nearly deaf ears, or at least have not been listened to sufficiently.
From Monday gone, there has been an 8.5% increase in NHS patient charges for dentistry in England—during a cost of living crisis. That increase will hit millions of people on modest incomes, including patients in my constituency, and that is those who can actually get to see a dentist. Many statistics have been mentioned today and I could rehearse them, but I will not do so for purposes of brevity. Everybody gets the gist that things are in a grim state.
One statistic I will mention is that dentistry is now the No. 1 issue raised with Healthwatch, with four in five people—79%—who contact it saying they found it difficult to access timely dental care. The British Dental Association has said:
“The Government’s support package for NHS dentistry launched in November consists of marginal changes that will do little to arrest the exodus of dentists from the service or address the crisis in patient access.”
On top of that, we have low morale in the service and dentists quitting in great numbers. I do not think it goes too far to say that we are facing meltdown. The BDA sees an existential threat; I say meltdown—we all get the gist.
Despite the £3 billion dentistry budget, some 10% of the money allocated will be returned, not because of lack of demand but because of dentist shortages. That is the irony. The money is returned, but that must be set in the context of underfunding over many years, on top of which is the poor contract. Retention issues are borne out of burn-out and consequent recruitment issues in NHS dental services. The BDA is right to say that marginal changes will not sort out the problem. I am pleased that the Chair of the Select Committee is on board on that.
First, fundamental reform of the contract is needed. Despite discussions between the BDA and NHS England, the fact remains that unless there is a substantive and substantial change to the contract, matters will continue to deteriorate. Second is the question of resources. It will take up to half a billion pounds annually to restore the funding of NHS dental services to 2010 levels. After a decade of attrition, that is the situation. In real terms, net Government spending on NHS dental services was cut by a quarter between 2010 and 2020. Again, I am not finger-pointing; it is just something that we have to factor in as we try to resolve the problem. Of course, as has been mentioned, the question of prevention has a crucial role to play, as it always does in health services. That, too, must be a priority for the Government.
Having heard what hon. Members, the British Dental Association and the NHS Confederation have said, and what constituents in their droves are telling us, I really hope that the Minister will take action and get to grips with this major problem with provision in this crucial part of the NHS. I started with the issue of progress being made. The question is: can we really say that we have made sufficient progress after three Backbench Business debates? Alas, at this stage, I do not think that we have done.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), and of course the Backbench Business Committee, for securing this important and necessary debate—the third in this trilogy of dentistry debates; and, we hope, the last.
My constituents tell me that dental care in Milton Keynes is failing to meet demand and the complex needs of many families dealing with challenging circumstances. That is, quite frankly, unacceptable. For instance, an unpaid carer with three disabled children told me that her local NHS dentist would no longer be able see children for NHS treatment. In her case, the alternative is to pay £4.75 a month per child for their dental plans; doing the maths, that works out at £171 a year. The only other option for her family is an NHS dentist over 12 miles away from their home. She explained how the children require one-to-one support and can therefore not access family appointments, so in effect this option would mean going to and from the dentist three times every six months. Factoring in fuel costs and other things, is either option more favourable than the other? The last thing that people caring for three children with disabilities need is further pressure on the family budget and schedule. Many families such as hers are faced with similar difficult choices.
Access to NHS dental care should not be determined by a postcode lottery. Another constituent told me a similar story. They moved to Milton Keynes recently and inquired as to their nearest NHS dentist, but were told that the closest NHS dentist was in Bedford. Once again, their only alternative would be private dental care.
Dental care in Milton Keynes, not for a lack of policy and plans from the Government, is on the rocks—mainly, as Members have said, due to the contractual situation dating back decades. For too many, dental care is out of reach and too difficult to access. Without serious change, the consequences for patients and our health system are severe. In fact, when we talk about policy reform, we often forget to pair the reform of the material improvements with our infrastructure and capacity. As a result, the good work that we in Parliament do to reform the system can fail to have an impact on the situation on the ground in the way that we want. What makes this debate so important for me is that it speaks to that wider, broader constellation of dental care reform issues that remain overlooked. I have touched on that previously with the Minister in regard to a different healthcare area.
In my constituency, the Labour-Lib Dem coalition that runs Milton Keynes City Council has given developers permission to build thousands of extra houses as part of the MK East development. Those in surrounding towns such as Newport Pagnell and Olney are already seeing more traffic and more pressure on their public services, including GP surgeries and dentists. I will continue to hammer away at that issue. Who thought about the impact on local services and on people who struggle even now to get dentist appointments for themselves and their children? That level of incompetence makes it difficult for Government reforms to have the desired impact. Let me be clear: it is always expansion before infrastructure when it comes to Milton Keynes City Council—short-term wins instead of planning for the longer term. This is why we plan and have planning departments. We should always put infrastructure before expansion.
I am convinced that there was little to no foresight of the effect on vital public services such as dental care, which are already spread dangerously thin. Ultimately, the knock-on effect of that ill-thought-out planning and reckless over-expansion is a significant and long-term problem for my constituents. We are already seeing the consequences. Yet by getting the infrastructure right, we can make dental reform far more effective.
I welcome the fact that the Department of Health and Social Care will publish a plan for dentistry in the coming months, and I look forward to seeing how it will help my Milton Keynes constituents. I hope that, with the right changes, we can create a system to ensure that the most vulnerable families can access dental care without having to make costly travel arrangements. I am keen to see dental care access improve across my constituency and across England, and I am in no doubt that many others across the House feel the same.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The ever-growing despair has left York and North Yorkshire a dental desert. Thousands of my constituents cannot even get on a waiting list. If they are lucky as they phone around, they may be put on a list, but they then have to wait a minimum of five years to see a dentist. Children are having their teeth pulled out, and adults are getting the pliers out. Although this Government have to own the last 13 years, I want to look forward, not back, because we have a crisis to solve.
Dentistry being left like this is a reminder of what things were like before the NHS was created, and before Labour stepped in and demanded equality of health for all. The model does not work; the system of payment does not work. We need radical reform—not tweaking of the system of units of dental activity. In my constituency, three dental practices have withdrawn from NHS contracts and, over the past four years, 126,130 UDAs have gone. We know that that crisis is deepening. In fact, by the coming June, Bupa NHS—an oxymoron in itself—will have seen a loss of 6,000 more NHS dental spaces. My community cannot get dental healthcare, and they are suffering and struggling because of that.
I, too, sit on the Health and Social Care Committee, and I listened carefully to the Minister, as well as to the chief dental officer, who I thank for her candour and for restoring my hope. She set out a programme of how it can be possible to deliver a future NHS dental service creatively through the integrated care boards, as did the chair of my local dental committee and the associate postgraduate dental dean for primary care dental foundation training in my constituency. They set out a vision which is practical, with purpose and can deliver. If I mesh that with my dental charter, which I have given to my ICB, starting with the ambition to have a children’s dental service within a year, we can start building back. The second year could aim to help older people and those in care homes, as well as those who live in the greatest deprivation. In years 3, 4 and 5, we could build back for the rest of the adult population so that people can get their timely oral health appointments.
However, we need co-operation from the Government, who have now become the servants, with the ICBs as masters. In particular, we need Government support to train more professionals. I too welcome the meeting with the Minister about the proposed York dental school, and I have met the University of York to prepare the way for that. It is important that we train more dentists, but it is also an opportunity to embed a centre of dental development in our city. The ambition is there and the vision has been created.
In addition, we need to ensure that we have good foundation training. I recognise what the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) said about having a training bond, because if we are spending £100,000 on dental training, we need to see a return on that investment. A foundation training programme that consolidates practice will upskill dentists in a more coherent way, with supervision and mentoring to ensure that they are the very best professionals. I have to challenge the GDC about its oversight of the dental profession particularly in primary care, and say “Up your game.”
On top of that, we need to ensure that our whole communities can have confidence in what is being created. Through prioritising our young people and ensuring that we take a preventive and proactive approach to dental healthcare, we will start to see other people taking on those competencies and drive that through a public health agenda.
Listening to the opportunities set out by our chief dental officer, the professional on the pitch, it is clear that the Government are not up to the job, and in some places they have been an active block. She has the ideas and the formula, and, my goodness, she has the drive and the energy. Just meeting her and hearing her set out that vision gave me hope that I can go back to my constituents in York and say that there are some people who can really deliver the national dental health service that we need for the future.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this timely debate. Hopefully, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) said, this is the end of the trilogy. I am glad to see the Minister in his place; I asked him about the issue only a few days ago at Health and Social Care questions.
To set this in context, in Barrow and Furness we are not well served by our dental provision. We have excellent dentists, but we do not have enough of them. We also have a problem with practices closing. Bupa in Barrow has announced its closure, as has mydentist in Dalton. One dental practice in Millom, just outside my constituency but serving my constituents, has closed, and Avondale in Grange-over-Sands has handed back its NHS list. So I now have constituents who have not seen a dentist in years and who are in a very poor situation. There are pregnant mothers who are unable to make their appointments, constituents who are self-medicating every night because they cannot find care, seven-year-olds who have never seen a dentist and constituents performing their own dental care with packs they buy from Boots the Chemist. That simply is not good enough.
Before the first of the practices in Furness closed, because of the volume of constituents who came to see me to discuss their frustrations at being placed on waiting lists for waiting lists, or not being able to be seen at all, I hosted a couple of roundtables with local dentists. They were candid with me about their concerns—candidly frustrated, to be honest. I also met the senior management at Bupa and mydentist and spoke to local healthcare leaders, before our ICB came into force.
In those discussions, two issues came up repeatedly. They have been well rehearsed in the debate already, so I will not labour the points. First, there was the inability to recruit the dentists we need to deliver NHS care. Bupa told me that half of its 85 practices currently have vacancies that have been open for over 6 months. It needs over 150 dentists nationwide to provide the kind of NHS care that it would like to provide. In rural, isolated areas such as mine, recruitment is compounded by the additional challenge of trying to draw people into those areas.
Dentists also raised the issue of recruitment from abroad. I fully recognise that we would like to be sustainable and grow our own. I have heard a few pitches for dental colleges in the debate, although I am not asking for one. When demand is outstripping supply, we have to be realistic. I am told that the overseas registration examination does not meet demand, while the process for registering performer numbers is long-winded and overly complex, which puts off some dentists who might be attracted to the UK. We have to look at reforming that.
The second issue raised is that dentists are often put off from practising NHS care in more deprived areas, where the work is more complex and more expensive to deliver. I know we have all seen this. It leads to ever-decreasing circles of care: poor dental health leads to worse provision, which leads to a lack of appointments, which leads to even worse dental care and dental health. I could go on and on, but I am sure Members get the picture. There was hope that the reforms to the UDA system would address this, but practices are telling me that they do not go far enough, certainly in rural and isolated areas such as mine, to address the disparity in the system. The fact is that since the announcement of these changes, I have seen a further two practices close, which I think is testament to the challenges that these issues are throwing up. Following the most recent announcement of closure, I wrote to the Minister, who kindly responded very quickly, saying:
“We are aware that we need to go further in improving the NHS dental system. We are planning further reforms…and discussions are underway with dental stakeholder groups, including the BDA and patients, to improve NHS dental services further.”
I would welcome an update from the Minister on those plans and details as to how my remaining dentists can feed into that process, because they certainly have things to say.
Before I draw to a close, I must say that it is not all doom and gloom. I am incredibly grateful to the current Minister and his predecessors for engaging so openly and actively seeking to find solutions. The movements on UDA pricing are welcome—although they can go further, as can contract reform—and the aspiration to make visa schemes more workable is music to my ears. I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
However, as I said at the start, what was a bad situation is now a dire one for my constituents in Barrow. We need to act quickly, improving UDAs, streamlining the visa process and working on recruitment as priorities. It is not an unreasonable expectation to hope for dental care to be available closer to where we live. We often chance our arm in here and ask for big projects to come to our constituencies. This is a minor but crucial ask, and it is one that I very much hope we will soon be able to deliver.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to speak and give a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate, as I do in every debate I attend? The Minister has no responsibility for Northern Ireland—he knows that; I know that. Nonetheless, I would like to add a Northern Ireland perspective, which will back up the comments that others have made.
This is a matter of increasing concern as more and more dentists are refusing NHS clients and leaving a wide number of people without access to basic dental care. I will give two examples. One constituent came to see me after her front teeth bridge had fallen out, and we could get her a dentist only outside of the constituency, because there are no NHS dentists prepared or able to take that work on. It took one of my staff more than an hour to find someone accepting NHS dental charges, as all dentists have switched to a pay monthly plan. It is clear that covid-19, Ukraine and the rising prices are all taking their toll as the pressure lines up against dentists as well. Another lady come to see me who was in her 80s. She told me that because she does not do online banking, she had to pay a year in advance to stay on her dentist’s books. I find that reprehensible to say the least. While that lady did have the wherewithal to do so, not everyone does. With this happening, I believe that we can see the end of free NHS dental care. It cannot be that those on a low income ignore a loose filling until they lose a tooth, and yet that is what is happening.
Having said that, I have to make it clear that I am not saying that the dental industry is greedy. I am saying that I believe the Government must step in and devise a new scheme that will adequately compensate dental practices and allow people to access the dental service they so desperately need.
I received an interesting briefing from Denplan that highlighted the fact that more than 19 million dental appointments were lost over the course of 2020. Some 70% of Denplan member dentists reported concerns about the future financial stability of their practice, while
“the pandemic also exacerbated issues with mental health and wellbeing.”
The surveys included in the briefing
“indicated that dentists believe there is a misunderstanding of the industry in general”
—this is what the industry itself is saying—
“which has manifested into a relatively poor relationship between policymakers and the dental profession over the years. Member dentists who responded to the October 2020 survey, indicated dental services are often treated as an afterthought, with the government’s communication with the sector considered to be lacking.”
If I were to take one ask from today’s debate, that would be it. I know that this is a Minister who understands: he is always easy to speak to and engage with, and he understands things very well. May I ask him now to engage with the dentistry sector to come up with some ideas about how to move forward? That is what they desperately need.
The briefing states that
“67.52% of respondents to the 2020 survey, said they ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement ‘the government understands the dental sector’.”
It is clear that the Government do not understand it. Moreover,
“36% of respondents said the pandemic had affected their oral health—with 50% of those who had seen a decline in their oral health, saying that they had had appointments delayed, or were unable to book any dental appointments with their dentists… According to our data, the pandemic also changed…attitudes towards dental treatment, with 29% saying that following issues during Covid-19, they now value their oral health more and are more likely to visit a dentist.”
That, at least, has been a plus factor. However, the briefing continues:
“Nonetheless, existing backlogs and an exodus of staff is preventing patients from accessing the dental care they need”.
Others have mentioned that.
I am very conscious of the timescale that is expected of me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want to make a very quick comment. On Tuesday morning, I saw a television programme—we probably all saw it—about a lady who, because she could not access a dentist, removed 12 of her teeth. That had all sorts of impacts, affecting her social engagement and causing her anxiety. A dental charity then stepped in and restored all her teeth. Today she is engaging with people again, and is back at work.
Sometimes people resort to doing things that they really should not do, and would not normally do. According to the briefing, some 41% of people in Britain said that they
“would be willing to undertake DIY dentistry”.
That worries me as well. Among younger people the figure was 48%, and among seniors it was some 28%.
Let me end by quoting Ciara Gallagher, chair of the Northern Ireland Dental Practice Committee. She has said this:
“In the meantime, practices need help, they need hope, and they need urgent action from the department to know that they have a future. They need support so that they are not being financially starved out of the NHS.”
I join all my colleagues who are present today, on both sides of the Chamber, in asking for better liaison with the dental industry, and increased funding to shore up NHS dental access throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the debate. Together they have acted like a veritable tag team, securing debate after debate, this being the third.
The problem we are discussing is obviously not getting better, and it is not going away. It is clear from what we have heard from Members today that it is becoming a bigger issue in our casework, and that is certainly my experience. I have taken some desperate phone calls from constituents, and have been shocked by what I have heard. It has led me to get on the phone straight away to beg dentists nearby to see some of those constituents. One, an elderly resident of Wilmslow, was losing his teeth and had abscesses. He needed to have his teeth removed and dentures fitted, but he could not find a dentist. When he rang the emergency dentist, there was a recording saying “No appointments”, and then the phone was just ringing out. He was pointed in the direction of a practice in Buxton, but found that it was no longer taking NHS patients, and one in Northwich which had a two-year waiting list. Other constituents who thought that they were fortunate enough to have an NHS dentist found that the Mobberley Road practice in Knutsford was no longer taking NHS patients either, and that they were no longer registered there.
Healthwatch, the independent statutory body, says that this is the No. 1 issue raised with it by NHS patients, and that four out of 10 people who contact it say that they are having difficulty accessing dental care, which is exactly what I am hearing from my constituents. The system is bad and decaying, and has been for some time. Lockdown made things significantly worse. With dentists shut down for the first few months of the pandemic, 50 million appointments were lost, and 3,000 dentists stopped providing NHS dentistry because the restrictions through lockdown made it financially unviable for practices, meaning NHS dentists are disappearing at a rate of knots. Some 90% of practices are closed to new patients, 80% will not even accept children, and in 37% of local authorities there are no practices accepting new adult NHS patients. Reform needs to be radical.
Tatton dentists have reached out to me and told me the current payment system of units of dental activity, introduced by a Labour Government back in 2006, has never worked and subsequent tinkering has not worked either. The Minister will probably know how it works, but others might not: a check-up with X-rays counts as one unit; adding a filling or several could count as another two units; and providing a full set of dentures is seven. It does not pay: the formula does not work, which means that dentists lose money, particularly when treating the neediest patients—those who really need their care and attention. Those figures never have stacked up and tweaks will not make a difference. In a nutshell, the business case is broken and a new one needs to be brought forward.
NHS dentistry is not attractive; we need to make it appealing. Interestingly, the number of qualified dentists is at an all-time high, but the number doing NHS work has fallen significantly. Last year, a British Dental Association poll found that 45% of dentists in England were doing an average of 25% less NHS work since the start of the pandemic. The poll also shows that 75% of dentists are thinking of reducing their NHS commitment this year, with almost half considering either a change of career, early retirement or turning fully private.
Bupa, which provides both NHS and private services, recently reinforced these figures, stating that it intends to merge or sell 85 of its 450 practices across the UK because of rising running costs and lack of dentists willing to deliver NHS care. This means nearly half a million more patients could lose their dentist.
Making NHS dentistry appealing is, therefore, a matter of high importance. Some suggestions have been handed to me and I will put them forward—and I know the Minister will be coming forward with bold plans. One suggestion was getting rid of student debt for newly trained dentists; might we remove that if they move into NHS provision? Also, what extra funding will be given and how will we move away from units of dental activity? We all want this to work; it is vital that it works and I certainly do not want to be taking calls from desperate constituents who need urgent dental medical care.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I, too, extend my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for this debate. A number of speakers have covered the general points around dentistry and the issues many of our constituencies are facing and have outlined many of the things that need to happen and need to be in the forthcoming action plan from the Government, so, rather than labour the point on those, I will focus on the matter facing my constituency.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) have mentioned the situation regarding Bupa and the 75 practices it is either closing or selling at present. One of them is in Bolsover town centre and the closure of this practice was announced with absolutely no consultation whatsoever. They were kind enough to give me 12 hours’ notice, which they seemed to be very proud of when I met them, but that is a completely insubstantial amount of time for people to prepare, and although the practice is not due to close until 23 June the situation has been exacerbated.
I had already been to see the Secretary of State last year about dentistry and my concerns about provision in Bolsover; I have spoken to Ministers about this on a number of occasions, and indeed raised it at Health questions previously with the Minister, as I did this week. The situation is now of great urgency, because Bolsover was already bottom of the regional league tables for dentistry provision, the worst in Derbyshire and one of the worst in the east midlands, and we will have no NHS practices accepting new adult patients once the Bupa practice is closed. The Minister is aware of that situation, because we have had a number of conversations this week, but I do not want Bolsover to be a dental desert.
I have already met the integrated care board for my region to start having conversations about what can be done for patients locally. The first port of call is to look at dispersal and see whether other practices can take patients on, perhaps using a different UDA figure and pricing structure for those patients. However, the BUPA practice is quite a large one and dispersal will be difficult, since a number of the other practices, as I have already alluded to, are not taking on patients. I have encouraged my ICB to look at all the options available to it and perhaps to be bold. My request to the Minister is that he commit to working with the ICB, with me, to ensure that we get some sort of solution quickly.
I will end with a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) alluded to earlier. Bolsover is very lucky to have new housing coming into the area, and it is helping the area, but the question mark for many who have lived there for a long time is this: what are the benefits of that new housing? What comes alongside it? We cannot have new housing without the appropriate infrastructure, whether that is roads—we have had plenty of questions about roads—school places, GP practices and additional GPs, or dentistry. One difficulty I have in justifying the development is that we are losing a dentist practice while gaining several thousand new homes. I strongly encourage the Government and my local authority to look at that situation in a more holistic way.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I will try to keep my contribution short, as many points have been covered already by hon. Members on both sides. The simple problem is that the dentists do not feel that they can function on their current contract, so asking them to do 110% of their contract when they do not want to do the initial 100% of their contract is not a way forward.
We need to look at the UDA contract to make it more financially viable, because at the moment dentists are taking on private work to subsidise their NHS work. The UDA contract is a problem across the board. If there were one or two dentists across doing it, we could say, “Well, maybe that’s their business plan.”, but it is not. It is happening across the board, and we need to look at the contract.
We also have a problem with dentists coming through. We need more dental places. As colleagues have mentioned, we ought, maybe, to look at a bursary for dentists who commit to stay in the NHS for at least five or 10 years, so that we have the dentists within the system to cope with the demand that is out there.
I am not 100% certain about taking dentists in from abroad. I always think when we pull the lever of immigration it goes against the grain of a Conservative Brexit MP such as myself, but there is also the fact that we are taking skilled people from other countries. If that is what we need to do to cover the backlog, then fair enough; I can understand a certain amount, but I always believe in training our own people and training them well, and I think that is what we should do.
Finally, I thank the dentists in my constituency. John Gatus is a fantastic chap and he has explained a lot about what we are dealing with now. I know the Minister is a good Minister. I know he has listened to everything that has been said in this debate and I know he wants to get this sorted out, but I ask him and everyone in this House to remember what it is like to have toothache.
We all need to remember that. Let us all cast our minds back to those 24 hours when we could get no sleep and we were in pain. It is dreadful, and an awful lot of my constituents are in that position now—or, what is worse, seeing their children go through it. We need to jump on this problem and we need to jump on it now. I am hopeful that the Minister will deal with this today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As more people want to speak, and we have the wind-ups to come, it is sensible to continue with this debate. We will try to reposition the debate that should have followed.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Access to dentists in North Devon is an issue that I was aware of before I became an MP. When I moved there, it took me over 18 months to find a local NHS dentist. Since I was elected, the issue has topped the casework league in my inbox most weeks. I have constituents in dire need. A recent case concerns a lady who is recovering from bowel cancer and a full hysterectomy. She had chemotherapy that made her teeth rot. She managed to see a dentist, but unfortunately is unable to afford what was supposed to be the “affordable” private treatment, because due to her other treatment, she is unable to work.
Another constituent, having phoned almost all the dentists in North Devon, has been told that there is a seven-year wait list to even see an NHS dentist. Many surgeries state in their recorded message that they cannot help anyone who is looking for NHS assistance. My constituent found a dentist, only to be told that the work needed was close to £2,000. They say:
“I am entitled to free NHS dental treatment which means absolutely nothing if it is not available. I cannot express how distressing and painful this is for me.”
The changes to dentistry contracts to allow more flexibility in who performs certain procedures are important and welcome steps, but unfortunately, in North Devon, we just do not have enough dentists. I have spoken before about the need to facilitate more international dentists’ coming to the UK. Recent legislation allowing the General Dental Council to amend its registration processes for international dentists is a step in the right direction, but we need to look at why we have dental deserts—and at how the practice of naming them “dental deserts” exacerbates the problem; it is not worth dentists taking on work when it is clear that each patient is likely to have significant issues, as the remuneration structure then does not reflect the work involved.
One key reason why we struggle to recruit more dentists to North Devon is the lack of affordable housing; that affects recruitment across all our health services. As we work to bring more dentists to North Devon, I hope that the Department will look at more creative solutions, such as including accommodation in employment packages. Alternatively, the Department might consider expediting our hospital redevelopment—it is one of 40 hospital redevelopments—the next phase of which involves nurses’ housing. Given that dental issues are the No. 1 reason why under-18s in North Devon end up in our hospital, it must be possible to join some of the dots together.
I am most concerned about the availability of dental care for our children. Good dental habits can set them up for a lifetime of healthy teeth. In the year up to June 2022, only 44% of children in Devon had seen a dentist in the last year. While the Department works to improve access to dental care in the long term, will the Minister look in the short term at the possibility of bringing dental buses or temporary dentists into areas such as North Devon, so that people can have their problems dealt with sooner, and the next generation can get their teeth checked before any issues cause them long-term harm?
My first constituency surgery appointment after being elected to this place was on dentistry. I want to get things done for North Devon. I have raised this matter with every dentistry Minister, every Health Secretary, my integrated care board and my council, yet nothing seems to change. Even the suggestion that charitable dentists be used is given a “Computer says no” response. There is immeasurable frustration at the fact that, three and a half years later, the situation with dentistry in my constituency is worse, not better. Please can an urgent solution be found that gets the excess dentists in some parts of the world to North Devon, and can some compassion be shown to those who desperately need dental treatment now?
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
We have had a full debate today. This is the third Backbench Business debate on the subject, but not the third debate on dentistry; I have had an Adjournment debate on dentistry, for example. The subject is well rehearsed. The reason why so many people are keen to speak today is that the issue affects areas right across the country. We all know that there is a problem with NHS dentistry, that the Government are focusing on it, and that they are coming up with a dental plan. We anxiously look forward to its publication in the next two to three months. In the few minutes available to me, I will not focus on the national problem so much as recognise that within the national difficulties, there are regional crises. In rural areas such as North Devon, but also in the east of England and Norfolk in particular, we can see that what is already a challenging picture nationally is exacerbated. To identify the issue, we have only to follow the money. I will look at funding for the east of England, then I will talk about recruitment and retention.
I know that funding has been impacted by covid, and the ability to undertake units of dental activity was restricted because of the covid pandemic and the aerosol activity of much of dentistry. I also know that funding has subsequently been increased because of the catch-up bid, so the numbers for the year 2018-19 give a more accurate reflection of the level of investment by the Government in dentistry in the region. The national average gross spending per mouth in England was £66 in that period. The best performing region was the midlands, which received £78 of expenditure per mouth. The figure for the east of England was £39 per mouth. That is exactly half the amount of money spent on dentistry per head of the population in the midlands. Now, there are many unconfirmed rumours about the number of fingers and toes that we have in Norfolk, but we do not have half as many teeth as those in the midlands—not yet, anyway.
My request to the Minister is to follow the numbers, to look at where the expenditure has been taking place and, more importantly, to look at the places where the expenditure has not taken place, and then to ask the question of his officials, “Why is that?” Why is it that even though in many parts of the east of England we have the worst dental health, the expenditure by the Government is fully half what it is in the midlands, and £20 less than the national average per person?
Looking to recruitment and retention, a potential answer to my first question is that there are physically not enough dentists in the east of England to carry out the work. The national average number of dentists per 100,000 of the population is 43. In the east of England, we have just 39. That compares to Devon, where there is a dental training school, which has 49. Why is it that people do not want to be dentists in Norfolk? The answer is because it is rural, and for those who grow up there, the nearest place they can train is Birmingham.
People cannot train to be a dental technician or a dentist anywhere in the east of England. It is the only region of the country, other than the south-east, which is next door to London, that has no dental school at all. People can go either to London or Birmingham. Is it surprising, then, that we do not have an indigenous population of would-be dentists growing up, training to be dentists in Norfolk and then staying there for their working life? We are reliant entirely on people relocating to the east, and to Norfolk in particular, to supply our dental needs.
When people qualify as a dentist in their mid-20s, the overwhelming majority do not wish to move to a rural location. Even though it is without question the best place in the country in which to live, to grow up, to learn and to bring up a family, it is not immediately attractive. A policy that relies on importing foreign-qualified dentists does not satisfy the need in rural locations either, because overwhelmingly the data tells us that when we import, say, South African or Australian dentists, they relocate to the cities. They set up their new life where there are already expat communities. They do not move to Fakenham, and the problem is very real in Fakenham. I persuaded the NHS to write a wholly new NHS dental contract for Fakenham. That contract went out, and not a single organisation bid for it. The money is there, but there is physically no supply of NHS dentists.
The issue goes further than that, because the lack of dentistry spreads out into the private sector as well. There are many examples right across the county of where private dental practices, whether in my constituency or in those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for North West Norfolk (James Wild), have been advertising for years—in one case I am familiar with, for a decade—and are yet to fill the place. While the short-term answer to the national issue may well be to improve access to international dentists, the medium and longer-term solution for the east of England, and Norfolk in particular, surely is to establish dental training in the county. There are two ways to do that.
There are two ways to do that. In the short term—the very short term, I hope—there is a bid by the University of East Anglia to create a centre for dental development: a postgraduate training establishment that would help to draw in newly qualified dentists from other parts of the country. The hope is that if they do their postgraduate training in the east, a percentage of them will remain. There is also what I hope is not a competing but a complementary application from the University of Suffolk in Ipswich. Those bids should not be in competition; they should be working together to improve access in both Suffolk and Norfolk.
However, the real solution in the medium term is to unite with the University of East Anglia and its existing medical school to create a dental school at UEA, which already has the Quadram Institute—the world’s leading centre for the study of the gut biome, which of course begins with the mouth. The Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital is right next door. We would then have the ability to bring people in and train them in the city of Norwich; as evidence from the medical school demonstrates, a percentage of them would remain thereafter to develop their careers.
The hybrid nature of the UEA bid would mean that even in the first year of the five-year training period, people would be spending at least a day a week working in practices, helping work through the dentistry backlog, and developing community relationships that will make them more sticky to the region once they qualify. All that will go towards the long-term solution to the dental desert in Norfolk.
I very much look forward to the publication of the dental plan in the next few months, but it would be the most monumental wasted opportunity if that plan did not include training for dentistry in Norfolk.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Last but not least from the Back Benches, I call Robbie Moore.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I am pleased that this Backbench Business debate has been allowed time; I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing it. I almost feel that I am about to sum up all the issues that have been discussed, but I want to pick out some of the challenges that I have faced as a constituency MP.
I am sure that all in the House agree that toothache and tooth-related issues can be extremely painful—for our constituents, unfortunately, getting to see an NHS dentist can itself feel like pulling teeth. I am pleased that one of the Government’s immediate priorities is to deal with the backlog, but I cannot stress enough how important it is that we pick up the pace and go even faster. Like many in the House, I was pleased to welcome last year’s announcement that the Government would provide £50 million for up to 350 additional dentist appointments in England. I am also pleased that they are continuing to have talks with the British Dental Association and other stakeholders to reform dental contracts, increase the incentives for dental practices to take on more NHS work, and help get on top of the backlog in dental treatment.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) identified, the contract originally established back in 2006 is the real nub of the issue that all our constituents are facing today: simply not enough NHS dental work is being carried out. That is a huge issue in my constituency.
Over the past year, there has been a significant increase in the number of constituents writing to me in frustration because they cannot secure an NHS dentist appointment. Only last week, one constituent had to make an appointment 50 miles away in Sheffield, as she could not get a local NHS appointment and could not afford a private one. Another constituent kindly contacted me, dismayed at the fact that they had been contacting local dentists listed on the NHS website as available and taking patients—it turned out that they were not. My constituent tried to contact another dentist, which was only accepting children. My constituent ended up having to pay up to £80 up front for them and their three-year-old to see a local dentist. That is not acceptable. I checked it out for myself. The NHS England website said that the dentist was accepting patients, but when I clicked on the link and followed it, it said that
“this dentist surgery has not given an update on whether they’re still taking NHS patients. Please contact them directly to ask.”
That is simply not acceptable, because it instilled a false sense of hope in my constituent who has dental pain and needs to see a dentist as soon as possible.
As we all do, I recently held a surgery. A lady came and explained that she had been an NHS patient all her life with a particular practice in Keighley, as had her partner and her children, only to receive a letter to say that it would now only accept private appointments for her family. Again, that is not acceptable.
The Government are well aware of the issues and the scenarios that we have put forward today, but I urge them to look at some key points. Demand is there, but we are not recruiting enough dentists and we are not allowing those dentists enough space to support the demand. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) said, it is important to focus on early prevention work, particularly for younger people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said, recruitment, retention and training in the early years are incredibly important. I want to pick up on the point that all integrated care boards must have dentistry represented on them, to ensure on a geographical basis that contracts are awarded for NHS providers and can be delivered on the ground.
The big issue is the contract reform that must take place. As we have all identified, units of dental activity are not keeping up to speed with demand. That is my constituents’ No. 1 priority. I hope that the Minister will ensure that appropriate action is taken to alleviate the pressures on NHS dentists and the dental pain that my constituents are suffering.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We have had a full and thorough debate this afternoon on NHS dentistry—something that really matters not just to us as Members of Parliament, irrespective of the party we represent, but more importantly to our constituents. I, too, commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for securing this debate along with the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous). The way that they both put the case before the House has been compelling. It is incumbent on us all to try to find a way through the morass that is NHS dentistry. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for their contributions.
I also thank the hon. Members for Winchester (Steve Brine), for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) and for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for setting out their own perspectives and the issues that their constituents have raised about NHS dentistry, which are not that dissimilar from the issues that my constituents raise.
It is not a party political point to say that NHS dentistry has been in crisis for a very long time. As we have heard today, patients are being failed on an unprecedented scale. Many are having to suffer through unending pain and misery because they cannot access the care that they so desperately need.
In preparation for this debate, I spoke with people right across the country, and I will share some of the cases that highlight the sheer scale of the crisis. In Darlington, local people have been told that it will take two years for the current backlog in dental care to be cleared, and some are being forced to wait over three years to access treatments. Some residents are being forced into removing their own teeth, in what has been dubbed “DIY” tooth extraction. I shudder to think what state someone’s dentistry services are in when they have to extract their own teeth. Reports have exposed gums becoming infected and individuals becoming addicted to opiates, and unintentionally overdosing on pain relief.
We heard from the hon. Member for Bolsover, but somebody I spoke to raised the fact that local Bupa practices in Bolsover are closing due to a lack of NHS dentists, and patients are being told to glue crowns back on themselves with denture paste because there is no other way of accessing care. The same is true in Corby, where patients are being left stranded after the closure of the Oakley Vale Bupa dental care centre. I could go on. In Loughborough, one resident said that they have been unable to register with an NHS dentist since moving to that part of the country in 2019, and nationally tooth extraction is now the biggest single reason for hospital admissions of under-10s, with 73 children a day having to receive emergency care to remove rotting teeth. When parents try to get appointments for their children, they are turned away.
In Bassetlaw, one resident told local councillors that when she tried to sign her son up to a local NHS dentist she was informed that there was a waiting list of 2,000 people, and that they would have to go private—something that she cannot afford. Local people in Ilkeston have been told to sign up to dentists in Derby because no local surgeries are taking on new patients. The same is true in Darwen, where people are being told that the nearest dentist they can see is in Salford. In Swindon, one parent looking for a dentist for her two-year-old was directed to the only practice that she could find that was taking patients. The problem was that it was 90 miles away in Birmingham. Such stories are commonplace. We have heard them in contributions from Members on both sides of the House.
It would be wrong to pretend that there was a golden age of NHS dentistry in recent years. There was no utopia. There is a reason my teeth, and I hazard a guess those of many Members in the Chamber, are full of fillings. It is not because we failed to brush our teeth as well as our children brush theirs, or because we ate more sweets than our children; it is because the financial incentive in the past was to drill and fill, whether someone required that filling or not. The contract, which is a big part of the problem today, was brought in with the right intention: to move NHS dentistry more towards prevention. However, it did not work. As the right hon. Member for Tatton set out, the issue of funding through units meant that many dentists were just not incentivised to take on NHS care. Tinkering will not work either. It is incumbent on us all to work out a system that will both work and put the capacity back into NHS dentistry, so that patients get the care that they need and deserve, and dentists get the appropriate financial recompense.
I will pose a few questions to the Minister, because we know that a plan is coming. Will he set out, first and foremost, what steps the Government will take in that plan to immediately improve access to dental treatment in the so-called dental deserts? Additionally, given that a recent BDA member survey showed that more than nine in 10 owners of dental practices with a high NHS commitment found it difficult to recruit a dentist, what is he doing to fill the widespread vacancies across the sector? I assume this information exists in the NHS workforce plan, which is still sitting on the Secretary of State’s desk. Will the Minister update the House on why the plan is yet to be published and when we can expect the Government to release it?
We know that NHS dentistry has not worked for a very long time. Governments of all colours are responsible for where NHS dentistry is today. I am not bothered about the past. People with toothache or oral health issues want help today, so it is incumbent on all Members to make sure NHS dentistry is fit for the future, because the stories and statistics that Members on both sides of the House and I have communicated in this debate are simply not acceptable. The Opposition stand ready and willing to help the Government to build the NHS dental services this country needs and, when the time comes under the next Labour Government, to make those NHS dental services the best they can be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for securing this important and timely debate as we work on our dental plan and the NHS workforce plan. We have had some excellent and useful contributions, and all the ideas that have been put forward are extremely timely.
The hon. Lady said it is time for real change, not patching, and I completely agree. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), made too many important points to list, but he made an important point about the need for greater transparency on data and delivery, and I completely agree.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) listed some of the problems that are firing our ambition to fundamentally change the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made a series of important points, and I am grateful for his contribution not only today and in previous debates but outside the Chamber. He has many thoughtful observations to make about ringfencing, changing the UDA system, fluoridation and so on, and all those ideas are flowing into our work. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) was the first in this debate, but not the last, to emphasise the importance of where dentists do their training and foundation training to getting more dentists into under-served places, which we are looking at.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), like my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, talked about the perverse effect of the contract bands. That was brought home to me by the conversation she engineered for me with some of her local dentists. I found that conversation incredibly useful. Their passion for NHS work and dentistry shone forth, and it brought home the central role of local commissioners in making the choices of the kind she raised in this debate.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) talked about the importance of prevention, not just treatment, and we are thinking about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) raised the important issues for Sacha and Joan, and I am happy to meet him and his local ICB to talk about how we can address those cases.
The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) asked whether we have gone far enough. No, we have not, hence the need for a dental plan. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) emphasised the need for housing plans to take better account of the need for primary care facilities and dentists, which we have discussed outside the Chamber. Some places do it well, but that does not happen everywhere, including in his local authority.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), as always, made interesting comments about prevention among young people, which we are certainly looking at. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) was the first person to mention that the overseas registration exam is much too long-winded, and that it takes people much too long at the moment. The legislation to enable that to change came into force last month, and we now need the GDC to move quickly to address the backlog and those problems.
It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speak in a debate to bring a UK-wide perspective, and he asked a straight question about how we are engaging with the profession. We are generating these ideas by talking directly to dentists. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said that dentists had told her that the 2006 contract had never worked, and I have certainly heard that from many dentists.
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and his ICB to discuss the recommissioning of services. He raised the issue of Bupa, and I agree that having a three-way meeting would be useful. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) got to the nub of the issue when he talked about basic incentives.
When I visited my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), I was once again reminded of the particular challenges of coastal communities, and that is especially true in dentistry. We have talked about this before and are thinking about how to get dentists to go places that are historically under-served.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) raised the same point, as well as a deep question about the historical allocation of funding in dentistry. We are certainly looking at that. I reassure him that we are also looking at the whole issue of centres for dental development, and the proposals emerging in his area are extremely interesting.
Last but not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) mentioned our new requirement for dentists to keep their records on the NHS website up to date. We are keen to drive that forward and to ensure that records are accurate for exactly the reasons that he mentioned.
Dentistry was hit much harder than most other health services because of its fundamental nature: dentists are looking down people’s throats and creating a lot of aerosols, so of course during the covid pandemic the sector was particularly hard hit. We allocated £1.7 billion of funding to carry NHS dentists through the pandemic, which enabled many to survive, but dentistry was clearly hard hit, and it is a hugely important part of the NHS, as many Members have said.
The package of changes that we brought in last July were an important first step—only a first step—in addressing the challenges facing the sector. We have started to reform the contract, with the first significant changes since 2006, to make NHS dentistry more attractive. We have created more UDA bands to better reflect the fair cost of work and to incentivise NHS work. We introduced for the first time a minimum UDA value to help sustain practices where values are lower, and to address unfair and unjustified inequalities in UDA rates, which are now based on quite historical data. We have enabled and allowed dentists to deliver 110% of their UDAs for the first time to encourage more activity and to allow those who want to deliver more NHS dentistry to do so. We have also made it a requirement for the first time for dentists to keep their availability up to date on the NHS website.
We have also made it easier—a number of hon. Members have made this point today—for dentists to come to the UK. The legislation came into force last month to enable the GDC to increase the capacity of the overseas registration exam. As of 1 April, people will no longer have to pay the charges that they used to pay. The Chair of the Select Committee stressed how important it was for the GDC to respond to those increased flexibilities and to work at pace to get through the backlog, and we are actively in discussions with it about how best to do that. Plans are advancing for centres for dental development, as a couple of different hon. Members have mentioned, not just in Suffolk or Norfolk, but further afield, such as in Cumbria. We are watching those plans closely and working with local partners to see what is possible.
Hon. Members raised the matter of prevention. We have already started the process of expanding fluoridation across the entirety of the north-east, which would—subject to consultation—encompass about 1.6 million more people. We will be launching that consultation this year in order to provide the benefits of fluoridation to a large new area for the first time since the 1960s.
All these changes are starting to have some positive effects. In the year to March, about a fifth more patients were seen compared to a year earlier. In total there are about 6.5% more dentists doing NHS work now than in 2010, and UDA delivery is going up from that huge hit it took in the covid pandemic, but of course we must go further; I am the first person to say that. I can see that some of the reforms are working. The proportion of dentists making the new band 2b claims is increasing and it is great to see that practices are prioritising those with higher needs. But this is absolutely just the start and I know that we must go further.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister set out with great clarity the data that is required, so that we do not just measure how many people are working in NHS dentistry, but we understand the number of sessions they are providing, and we marry that up with need and demand in order to understand what gap is there?
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady is right; in dentistry, not only do we have headcount measures showing that six and a bit per cent. more dentists are doing NHS work, but we can see the amount they are delivering and we can see those UDA rates starting to go back up again. Of course, we want them to go up further, and I am keen to start publishing more data so that there is greater transparency about what is being delivered where.
There are further changes we must make. We are trying to drive activity back up to at least pre-pandemic levels and to address the fundamental shortfalls that were there even before the pandemic. When I speak to dentists, they have a keen sense of whether the payments they are offered under the 2006 contract make work profitable or unprofitable. Often, for some of those bands, they feel that they are not being fairly remunerated for the cost of the work they are doing. We need to make sure that they do feel fairly remunerated so that they are more attracted to doing NHS work. We could go further in addressing some of those historical, and potentially now unjustified, variations in UDA rates. In particular, the move to ICBs and away from regional commissioning provides an opportunity for not just more transparency, but much more accountability. Instead of a remote regional body, hon. Members will be able to talk to their local ICB about what it is doing to drive up delivery. When we arm Members of this House with greater transparency and greater data, they will be able to have those conversations about what we are doing collectively to drive up the levels of delivery.
Mrs Hodgson
I am listening intently to what the Minister is saying. When I go back to speak to my local dentists, what do I tell them about the “when”? He is saying all the things that we would like to do and the Government would like to do. We want to see all that happen, but when will this contract that has needed changing since 2010—[Hon. Members: “2006!”.] We had changing it in our 2010 manifesto; we said we would update it in 2010. The Government have had 13 years to fix this, so when is it going to happen?
Neil O’Brien
I have mentioned some things that are already changing—some of the first reforms to the contract since 2006 that we have started to bring in. We are working on the plan at pace. There is no date for its publication yet, but we are working on it at pace because we are conscious of the urgency.
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South and my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for securing this important debate. I hope they have been assured that we have started to reform dentistry, that we are seized of the importance of the issue, and that we recognise that we can and must go further to further strengthen NHS dentistry.
Judith Cummins
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all 19 Members for their contributions and interventions, for which both I and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) are immensely grateful. Although the contributions are too numerous to mention, I will highlight the one from the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), the Chair of the Select Committee, which encapsulated many of the common themes. He spoke on a wide range of issues, including the lack of access to NHS dentistry and the problems, not only in his constituency, but right across the country, of the retention of NHS dentists and the lack of transparent data. He also talked about the need to have dentists represented on ICBs.
Many Members raised those common issues of access, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who spoke of a lack of funding. He posed two crucial questions: does the Minister accept that there is a problem?; and, if so, what progress has he made in resolving it? My hon. Friend then concluded that the situation has worsened since last year. Clearly, the need for full-scale reform has been recognised right across the House today, as we all know that change is needed. The fact that 90% of NHS dentists are no longer accepting new adult patients reflects the severity of this crisis. We have reached the point where the patching of our services is no longer possible and many of our constituents are simply suffering with the inadequacies of the current system. We need fundamental NHS dental reform now, not a plan for a plan. Minister, the promise of reform and this plan must come with real action and a firm date of publication.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered progress on reforms to NHS dentistry.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We were going to come to the debate on reducing plastic pollution in the oceans. I said that it would be repositioned, but that is clearly not the right word, because it will still be here. “Rescheduled” is what I was grasping for, and I have now finally found the word. We hope that it will be rescheduled in the not-too-distant future, because it is a very important debate, and it was right not to truncate it in the way that was going to happen.
Georgia
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
While Russia’s war in Ukraine has rightly been the object of our attention for the last year and a half, Ukraine is not the only country in the region that is vulnerable to Russian aggression. The current governing party in Georgia, the Georgian Dream party, is a pro-Putin, pro-Russian group whose leadership risks Georgia becoming a Russian puppet in this critical area for global security.
The Georgian Dream party has, from its beginning, been an organisation sympathetic to and increasingly controlled by Russian authorities, all while claiming to be western and democratic. Its founder, Bidzina Ivanishvili, the former Prime Minister of Georgia, is an oligarch who reportedly made his money from Russian dealings. It is alleged that he has used his immense wealth to buy votes and place his loyalists throughout the Georgian Government. Though he currently holds no elected office, he exerts great control over Georgia’s institutions.
The rampant corruption in Georgia’s political system has begun to be brought into the light. Just recently, the United States placed personal sanctions on four judges appointed by the current Government. Meanwhile, Mr Ivanishvili’s one-time rival, Mikheil Saakashvili, is currently dying in hospital after being tried in absentia and jailed on what his supporters say are fabricated charges. He reports from his hospital bed that he has been regularly tortured throughout his imprisonment, and independent doctors have confirmed that traces of heavy metal poisoning have been found in his blood.
When Mr Saakashvili was President of Georgia in 2008, Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia, and Russian troops occupied large parts of the country. At the time, Mr Saakashvili warned that this was the first step in Putin’s quest to rebuild Russia’s sphere of influence and, ultimately, empire in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. He also warned that after Georgia, Putin would turn his eye towards Crimea. Those were then viewed by the international community as rather fringe opinions, but it is now apparent that he was absolutely right.
The 2008 invasion led to continued anti-Russian sentiment in Georgia, with many looking toward European integration and NATO membership. Under the Georgian Dream party, the country has changed direction. European and NATO integration remain popular objectives among the Georgian people, with opinion polls showing nearly universal support. Those objectives are also written into Georgia’s constitution, but the Georgian Dream Government, though purporting to be pro-European and western-friendly, intentionally sabotage the fulfilment of EU entry criteria. The party has also sabotaged support for the Ukrainian war effort, while Georgian citizens have signed up in huge numbers to fight against the Russian invasion.
Even as most European countries imposed sanctions on Russia in the wake of the Ukrainian invasion, the Georgian Government saw a business opportunity and expanded trade with Russia. In the first quarter of this year, Russian imports to Georgia increased by 79% compared with 2022. Georgia has in particular provided a market for Russian energy exports, which the west has avoided—as all our constituents know, that has come at great personal cost. That increase in trade threatens to undermine the sanctions that we have imposed, and will only draw Tbilisi into closer ties with Moscow.
Most recently, in March of this year, Georgian Dream announced plans for a new foreign agent Act that would label society groups critical of the Government as “foreign agents”, risking censorship of anti-Government opinion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I recognise that he is coming to a critical point. This is about the suppression not just of human rights, but of freedom of religious belief. They walk hand in hand: if someone’s human rights are taken away, so is their opportunity to worship their God in the way that they wish to. Does he agree that, when it comes to the Act that he refers to, human rights and the freedom of religious belief will be under immense pressure?
Adam Holloway
Actually, that had not occurred to me, and it is a valuable and relevant point.
That foreign agent law in Georgia almost exactly mimics the one that Putin’s Government brought in domestically at the beginning of the war in Ukraine, but it has now been shelved following massive demonstrations in the streets. The trend is none the less pretty troubling. I believe that the British Government must continue to act to support political freedoms for the people of Georgia, and to ensure that Georgia does not provide a way for Russia to circumvent the sanctions that the west has imposed. The Government should join the Americans in imposing sanctions not only on corrupt judges, but on Mr Ivanishvili and other oligarchs responsible. The Foreign Ministry of Ukraine and other European voices have already called for such sanctions.
Oligarchs must not be able to exert control over Georgia without holding any democratically elected office. By preventing those oligarchs from accessing their assets, we would be able to curtail their ability to buy influence and allies in Georgian institutions. It is also time for the UK to lead a diplomatic campaign for Georgia to return to democratic norms. We must decry the inhumane and extrajudicial treatment of former President Saakashvili and demand that his health be placed in the care of independent experts. We must also ensure that Georgia’s next elections are held on time in 2024 and monitored by impartial observers.
Those measures, along with other steps to safeguard the independence of political institutions and media from oligarchical influence, are essential to allow Georgia to proceed to EU membership—a move that as much as 80% of the Georgian population agree with. NATO members must also invite Georgia to enter, as the Georgian Dream Government claim they intend to do. If the west stalls on NATO integration for Georgia, it will only play into the long-term ambitions of Russia.
Indeed, we have seen the result of abandoning Georgia once before. Many people do not know that in 1920, at the beginning of the 20th century, the British Army was stationed in Georgia, guaranteeing its independence after Bolshevik invasion attempts. British troops left in 1920, and only six months later, Tbilisi fell to the 11th Russian army, and the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic was established. The Georgian people remember that abandonment, and we must not make the same mistakes today.
The Georgian people have also stood alongside us and spilled blood in support of our causes. Not only are they the largest source of foreign volunteers in Ukraine, but they were the third largest contributor to the NATO force in Iraq, and the largest contributor per capita in Afghanistan. The Georgian people are proud of that, and we should stand with them. As one mighty Georgian friend puts it:
“Britain’s support is very important for Georgia. There are patriotic people in the Georgian government and parliament, but the pro-Russian groups are getting stronger at their expense.”
With our support, those Georgian patriots can re-establish democracy and maintain peace in their country while furthering the cause of westernisation. Just as we know we cannot allow Ukraine to fall into Russian hands as a result of invasion, we cannot allow Georgia to become a Russian client state as a result of subtle political manipulation.
Adam Holloway
If duplicitous groups can covertly transform a westernising, democratising state into a Russian satellite without being challenged, then what will stop similar actors throughout that region from following their lead?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) for securing the debate. I note his first-hand experience in Georgia and I am grateful for his characteristically eloquent speech, based on that first-hand knowledge. I am sure all colleagues would agree.
The United Kingdom and Georgia have a strong and enduring relationship, which was illustrated very ably by my hon. Friend. Diplomatic relations between our countries are the strongest they have been since they resumed some 30 years ago, as was demonstrated when the Foreign Secretary visited that country in March. As he highlighted during his meeting with Prime Minister Gharibashvili, the UK remains a steadfast supporter of Georgia’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and Euro-Atlantic aspirations.
Prior to that, in January this year, the Foreign Secretary and I were very pleased to host Georgian Foreign Minister Darchiashvili for the Wardrop strategic dialogue. At that dialogue, we agreed to increase co-operation, including to counter Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, and support Georgia’s aspirations for much closer ties with NATO. That was in the very changed context of last year, because Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has confirmed Georgia’s view that it will never be safe until it joins the EU and NATO.
For decades, Russia has tried to exert control over Georgia and the region, fuelling conflict and division. Following the 2008 war, which resulted in Russia’s recognition of the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Russian pressure on Georgia has been relentless. Today, roughly 20% of Georgia’s territory is under Russian control, with Russian troops in South Ossetia just 30 minutes from Tbilisi.
Russia is applying economic and political pressure to try to break the will of the people of Georgia, including through restrictions on travel and trade. We should not forget that together with the UK, Georgia has sent more than 5,000 tonnes of vital humanitarian aid and 25 high-powered generators to Ukraine, while supporting Ukrainian refugees in Georgia, and has implemented international sanctions against Russia. That unity sends a strong signal to Putin. We will continue to deepen our partnership with Georgia to increase the pressure on Russia to end its outrageous and illegal war in Ukraine.
Let me briefly make a remark about the breakaway regions. We will continue to use our influential role within the Council of Europe, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the United Nations to call on Russia to withdraw its troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Like the overwhelming majority of the international community, the UK does not recognise the so-called independence of those breakaway regions. We consistently call upon the Russian Federation to fulfil its clear obligations under the EU-mediated ceasefire agreement of 2008. It must withdraw its forces to pre-conflict positions and meet its other commitments to dialogue under the ceasefire agreement.
Turning to the Euro-Atlantic aspirations of Georgia, despite Russia’s constant threat and interference, the people of Georgia have bravely chosen the path towards Euro-Atlantic integration, as my hon. Friend alluded to. Such membership is a sovereign choice for Georgia and the member states of those organisations, and no third country, including Russia should have a veto.
We believe that further integration with the EU and NATO for Georgia will deliver greater prosperity and security. The UK will continue to support Georgia in its implementation of the EU association agreement and its NATO commitments. We continue to lead calls in NATO to step up practical and political support to Georgia as a matter of urgency.
We have heard concerns during this debate that actions of the current Government of Georgia appear to align with Russian interests, and my hon. Friend was eloquent in laying those out. We fully recognise, however, the Georgian Government’s steadfast commitment to NATO and the EU, which was reinforced during the Foreign Secretary’s visit in meetings with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.
As a long-standing friend, we have stressed the importance of matching words to actions. At this crucial moment, we must recognise that Georgia has consistently supported Ukraine multilaterally, has sent humanitarian supplies, including generators, and has supported Ukrainian refugees in Georgia. We continue to work with Georgia to build resilience against Russian aggression, including through the tailored support package announced at the 2022 NATO summit in Madrid, in line with the will of the Georgian people.
We have also heard concerns about polarisation in Georgian politics, which would threaten its progress on democratic reforms and risks undermining its Euro-Atlantic aspirations. We share some of those concerns, and we have made that clear to our Georgian allies. We continue to encourage the Georgian Government to accelerate genuine, far-reaching reforms, which will anchor Georgia’s democracy against those who would seek to undermine it, and assist it to build its institutions. That includes meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive, an independent judiciary, free media and a system of fully functioning checks and balances.
As the Foreign Secretary outlined to the Georgian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister during his visit in March, recent actions in these areas have been detrimental to progress, and threaten to tarnish Georgia’s hard-won international reputation. As mentioned, the proposed introduction of a Russian-style foreign agents law was a counterproductive step, particularly as it comes on the back of a marked increase in aggressive rhetoric against Georgian civil society organisations supporting media freedoms, human rights and democracy, which my hon. Friend referred to. We were very pleased to see that draft law withdrawn.
The ongoing incarceration of media owner Nika Gvaramia is another counterproductive step, coming on the back of Georgia’s marked decline in the world press freedom rankings. We also continue to raise the detention of former President Saakashvili, including the need for due process and proper treatment in line with international norms, with the Government of Georgia. We will continue to monitor developments closely in that case and keep it under review. We are determined to work in partnership with Georgia to overcome those challenges and will continue to engage with the Georgian Government as a critical friend to support progress and the Georgian journey of reform.
I should briefly mention some of our projects. Through our embassy in Tbilisi, we are supporting Georgian reforms, as well as wider peace-building, administrative and judicial reform initiatives, through the conflict, stability and security fund and the good governance fund. A total of £4.5 million was allocated to that work in the last financial year. On top of that, last year we announced more than £5 million in additional funding to help Georgia to identify and repel threats to its cyber- security, something that is only becoming more relevant and important.
Let me conclude by reaffirming the UK’s unwavering support for Georgia. With our international partners, we will continue to work to boost its security, strengthen its democratic institutions and increase its prosperity. That includes engaging through the United Nations, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, while working to support domestic reforms in Georgia.
Together with Georgia we will continue to resist Russian aggression and support Ukraine, including through defence and security co-operation and sanctions enforcement, and we will work together in the spirit of collaboration that has defined our relationship for the last 30 years.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Science, Innovation and Technology
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
… May I take the Minister back to the subject of compliance costs? I understand that the projected simplification will result in a reduction in those costs, but does she acknowledge that a new regime, or changes to the current regime, will kick off an enormous retraining exercise for businesses, many of which have already been through that process recently and reached a settled state of understanding of how they should be managing data? Even a modest amount of tinkering instils a sense among British businesses, particularly small businesses, that they must put everyone back through the system, at enormous cost. Unless the Minister is very careful and very clear about the changes being made, she will create a whole new industry for the next two or three years, as every data controller in a small business—often doing this part time alongside their main job—has to be retrained.
Julia Lopez
We have been very cognisant of that risk in developing our proposals. As I said in my opening remarks, we do not wish to upset the apple cart and create a compliance headache for businesses, which would be entirely contrary to the aims of the Bill. A small business that is currently compliant with the GDPR will continue to be compliant under the new regime. However, we want to give businesses flexibility in regard to how they deliver that compliance, so that, for instance, they do not have to employ a data protection officer.
[Official Report, 17 April 2023, Vol. 731, c. 70.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Data and Digital Infrastructure:
An error has been identified in the speech I gave on Second Reading of the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill.
The correct statement should have been:
Julia Lopez
We have been very cognisant of that risk in developing our proposals. As I said in my opening remarks, we do not wish to upset the apple cart and create a compliance headache for businesses, which would be entirely contrary to the aims of the Bill. A small business that is currently compliant with the GDPR will continue to be compliant under the new regime, except for a small number of minor new requirements, such as having a process for handling data protection complaints. However, we want to give businesses flexibility in regard to how they deliver that compliance, so that, for instance, they do not have to employ a data protection officer.
Prime Minister
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Keir Starmer
This is Mr 24 Tax Rises; I have never heard anything so out of touch as the answer that he has just given. It is not just about his refusal to take any responsibility for the damage the Conservatives have done through the crashed economy and the hit to living standards; it is also that he refuses to take the action that is needed. He could stop the handouts he is giving to oil and gas giants. He could scrap his beloved non-dom status. He could put that money back in the hands of working people and get the NHS back on its feet. That is what a Labour Government would do. Why doesn’t he do it?
The Prime Minister
The record is clear. Look at it right now: record numbers of people in work, inequality lower, the number of people in poverty lower, and the lowest numbers on record for those in low pay.
[Official Report, 26 April 2023, Vol. 731, c. 726.]
Letter of correction from the Prime Minister:
An error has been identified in my response to the Leader of the Opposition.
The correct response should have been:
The Prime Minister
The record is clear. Look at it right now: near record numbers of people in work, inequality lower, the number of people in poverty lower, and the lowest numbers on record for those in low pay.
Petition
Incorrect child maintenance assessments
Westminster Hall
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
Imprisonment for Public Protection Sentences
(1 year, 7 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
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Justice Committee, IPP Sentences, HC 266, and the Government response, HC 933.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to the Liaison Committee and the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to have this debate. I am glad to see the Minister in his place. I know he will take seriously what are grave matters that need to be raised—both the issue itself, and the complete inadequacy of the Government’s response to a considered report by a Select Committee. I welcome my fellow members of the Select Committee. This report had support across parties in the Committee and was based on detailed evidence. I regret that none of that evidence seems to have penetrated into the reasoning of the response.
Let me set out the situation. I regret that we have to have this debate. We spent a great deal of time considering this issue and, as I said, we had a detailed evidence base and a comprehensive report. I hope that with changes in the Department and a new Secretary of State, there will be more scope for the Minister, whose personal qualities I entirely recognise and respect, to revisit the position on this matter.
Sentences of imprisonment for public protection, or IPP sentences, are indeterminate—that is, they have no fixed end date. They were originally designed to ensure that dangerous, violent and sexual offenders stayed in custody for as long as they presented a risk to the public. IPP sentences were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and came into effect in 2005. Following criticisms of the sentence and its operation, it was reformed in 2008 but, frankly, those reforms did not work satisfactorily either and the sentence was abolished by 2012.
The sentence was abolished largely because—this was accepted by the originators of the scheme, not least the noble Lord Blunkett and others, as I will come to later—the way the scheme was drafted and the number of offences that brought people within its scope, together with the lack of understanding and, at the time, judicial training on the matter, meant that far more people fell within the scope of the scheme than had been the political intention. Rightly, in 2012, the coalition Government, of which I had the honour to be a member, rectified that and abolished the sentence. However, they did not deal with those who were already serving sentences. In other words, the abolition did not have effect retrospectively for those who were already subject to the sentences.
In total, some 8,711 people received an IPP sentence. The sentence works in three parts. First, there is a mandatory period in prison known as the tariff. That is broadly based on the nature of the offence for which the individual is convicted and sentenced—that is, the tariff for that offence or the index offence, as it is sometimes referred to. Secondly, that is followed by indefinite detention until such time as the Parole Board determines that the person concerned has reduced their risk enough to be safely released. Thirdly, following that release, they are subject to a life licence in the community, from which they may be recalled if they breach their licence or reoffend. Ten years after their initial release, IPP prisoners can apply to the Parole Board to have that licence terminated. There is, of course, no guarantee that it will be.
Our inquiry was prompted by the serious concern, which has been ventilated in the media and both Chambers of this Parliament over a period of time, about the number of IPP prisoners who have never been released, despite the fact that the vast majority have served their tariff. Some 97.5% of IPP prisoners currently in prison have already served their tariff, and in many cases they have served well beyond their tariff. The last figures that we had showed that at the end of December 2022, there were 2,892 IPP prisoners, of whom 1,394 are serving their original sentence and have never been released.
Some 621 of those prisoners are at least 10 years over their tariff, and 222 of those had received a tariff of less than two years. To put that in stark terms, they have been in prison for something like five times longer than the index sentence that the court that sentenced them and the judge who heard the facts thought was the appropriate tariff for the offence for which they were convicted. The tariff was set at, say, two years or less—the going rate for that offence—and some have been inside for five times that. That is a stark and shocking figure.
Some 1,498 IPP prisoners in custody at the end of December 2022 have been released but subsequently recalled to custody. When we were doing our inquiry, it was suggested to us that, at the current rates of recall, the proportion will change so that a majority of the IPP population will have been released and recalled. That point has now been reached. More than half of IPP prisoners have been released and recalled for one reason or other, and I will come to that later. There are a number of problems with IPP sentences.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is actually starker than my hon. Friend sets out. One IPP sentence was given with a tariff of 28 days, so hypothetically somebody who received a 28-day tariff could spend 50 years in prison. Even in the worst banana republic, that would sound extraordinary, but that is actually what this sentence is about. We are going to keep people locked up indefinitely, even though in any other circumstances they would be released. Will my hon. Friend touch on that? I do not have the words to describe it, but I agree wholeheartedly with him.
Sir Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, he speaks with great experience as a long-standing solicitor specialising in criminal work. He and I have seen this in our professional experience. We have perhaps seen rather more of the prison system than many of those who pontificate in either House or the media about what it is like.
This is a scandal. That is why one of the great supporters of reform, the noble Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—one of the last Lord Justices of Appeal, one of the first members of the Supreme Court and one of the most distinguished lawyers of his generation—described it as a “stain” upon the reputation of the British legal system, and he is absolutely right. That is why, to his credit, the noble Lord Blunkett, when he gave evidence to us, said frankly, fairly and honestly, “This was not what we intended should happen with these sentences.” My hon. Friend is therefore entirely right to point out how stark that could be. We would be shocked if this were happening in some of the countries with which we do business, and we rightly criticise it elsewhere around the world.
One of the problems is that IPP prisoners face barriers to progression to prove they are no longer a risk within prison and, if they are released, within the community. The aim of our inquiry was to examine carefully and on the evidence the continued existence of IPP sentences and identify possible legislative and policy solutions to a situation that is, as my hon. Friend rightly says, really not acceptable.
The seriousness of those concerns and the strength of feeling about IPP sentences was reflected in the volume of evidence that the Justice Committee received. It was the largest number of submissions we have ever received for any inquiry that we have undertaken. Of course, I looked at all of them, and they included hundreds of handwritten letters, some going into considerable detail, from serving prisoners. They were moving, and articulate in many cases, but also frequently deeply distressing.
Beyond that, the Committee also proactively sought the perspective of all stakeholders affected by the sentence. That is why we took evidence from Lord Blunkett, who was the original architect of the scheme, and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice. We also held private meetings and roundtables with affected parties, including people serving IPP sentences in the community, family members, legal professionals who have supported IPP prisoners, Parole Board members, prison and probation staff—it should be said that it is not easy for prison and probation staff to deal with people in this situation, and I suspect that there is also an injustice to them—and victims of IPP prisoners. I do accept that the victim’s perspective also has to be considered, so we deliberately and specifically sought victims’ views.
I thank all who took the time and effort to engage with our inquiry and to provide the evidence that underpinned our recommendations and conclusions. In particular, I thank Donna Mooney and Shirley Debono, both of whom gave oral evidence to us on behalf of the United Group for Reform of IPP. I think that some of the group are in the Public Gallery.
Donna Mooney shared with us the experience of her brother Tommy Nicol, who took his own life in 2015 following a second refusal of parole by the Parole Board. His tariff was four years; by then, he had already served six. Donna told us of the difficulties her brother Tommy faced in enrolling on courses that he needed to complete to demonstrate progression, and in accessing mental health support. He often told her and his family that his sentence was “psychological torture”.
Shirley Debono, whose son is a released IPP prisoner, told us that even those who have been released and are serving an IPP sentence in the community are immensely fearful of being recalled to prison. She described the licence conditions as “draining” and difficult to cope with. She said that her son had been afraid of the telephone in case it was the probation service calling. That is not a happy situation to put probation officers in, never mind anything else, including the difficulty that it causes people who are genuinely trying to rehabilitate themselves.
The Committee’s report considers the difficulties faced by IPP prisoners in progressing through sentences, and the psychological harm that that causes. Our evidence focused on actions that the Government should take to address the problem, and we began by considering the prison-based barriers to progression.
The psychological harm caused to individuals serving an IPP sentence was evidenced by a number of contributors to the inquiry, including those serving the sentence, family members and professionals who have experience of working with people who are serving the sentence. It was demonstrated clearly that rates of self-harm among IPP prisoners are high. Although it is good to see that the rate of self-harm thankfully reduced between the end of 2017 and the end of 2021, it is still almost double that for prisoners serving a determinate sentence. The Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody told us that as of May 2021, of the 250 IPP prisoners who had died in custody since the sentence came into effect, 65 had taken their own lives.
The Committee recently took evidence from the former chair of that panel, Juliet Lyon CBE. She told us that nine people serving an IPP sentence died last year. She said:
“It is something one cannot afford to forget. The utter hopelessness of their position means it is very difficult for them to maintain any sense of future; it seems just utterly sad and hopeless.”
Juliet Lyon has served in post for a considerable time and has decades of experience in the criminal justice system. Her wise words ought to weigh heavily. Sadly, I was notified that only two days ago another young man serving an IPP prison sentence took his own life in His Majesty’s Prison Manchester. This is still happening all the time.
Given the psychological harm that ensues as a result of the sentence and the conditions attached, many have argued that assessing risk is more complicated than it is for other prisoners. We heard that mental health need and risk are sometimes conflated and that poor mental health may therefore become a barrier to release—although, ironically, it is the serving of the indeterminate sentence that has triggered that poor mental health, and we have a vicious circle.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is giving a very powerful account, and I am very glad that the Select Committee mounted the inquiry. Figures released last year showed that an increasing number of prisoners assessed as needing to be in secure mental health units because they had chronic personality disorders, psychotic illness and so on were not being transferred because the beds were not available. The figure was up 81% in the last five-year period, compared with the previous five years.
Does the hon. Gentleman think that this is also a factor in trying to get the right support for people on IPP sentences, so that they get treatment and can make progress? The Government are now committing to a time limit of 28 days for transfer to hospitals for people who need it. Does he have confidence that that is going to happen?
Sir Robert Neill
I very much hope that it will, because it is certainly true that that was a problem. Delays in transfer to secure beds were demonstrated to us in the evidence. I hope the Government will move on that.
The other germane point is that because of the fear of the conflation of mental health need with risk, we found that many IPP prisoners were frightened to speak up about their poor mental health and get the help that they might need, because it might count against them in their risk assessment. Compounding that, even when there is mental health support, we found that IPP prisoners faced difficulty getting help, and that included transfer to secure hospitals.
We asked the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to acknowledge the harm caused by the sentence and the challenges it presents to progression. We asked them further to set out how they intend to improve access to mental health support for IPP prisoners. The Government’s response did not set out any plans to improve access to mental health support specifically for this cohort of prisoners. Instead, it told us that which we already knew, setting out the work that is being undertaken to improve mental health support for all prisoners. That is welcome in itself, of course, like the 28-day limit that we have just discussed, but it entirely misses the point of what we asked about. We asked the Government to look again at the specific needs of the IPP cohort, separate from the general pressure that already exists, and to see what improvements can be made.
As well as the problem with accessing mental health support, there are concerns about the adequacy of offender behaviour programs and the availability of courses. Offender behaviour programmes and interventions are central to the IPP sentence. They are the primary means by which an IPP prisoner can demonstrate rehabilitation and risk reduction. If they cannot get on the courses or the interventions, they are being set up to fail, and too often that is the case. We heard of one prisoner who had a parole hearing coming up very shortly. He was asked to complete a course, but the waiting list for the course was two years. A system in such a state of affairs is simply dysfunctional.
We asked the Government what they are doing to expand the availability of courses, to reduce waiting lists and to ensure that IPP prisoners are held in the appropriate category of prison. That was a problem we found, too. We also asked that the Government publish a report that they had commissioned on the offender personality disorder pathway, and that they set out more generally how they will ensure that programmes deliver adequate outcomes.
The Government only partially accepted those recommendations. Their response noted that places on programmes and other interventions were disrupted by the pandemic. Of course I accept that, and many of the submissions we received from prisoners expressed concern about that too. In our ongoing inquiry into the prison workforce, we have also heard concerns about staffing pressures affecting prisoners’ access to courses. I hope the Minister will come back to us now that the pandemic is out of the way and set out in more detail what work is under way to ensure that IPP prisoners’ progression is not hindered by such circumstances—lack of access to courses and so on—which, in fairness, are beyond their control. And why, oh why, is it not possible for the Government to respond specifically to our request for the publication of the report on the offender personality disorder pathway? What is there to hide about it? Why can we not have it published?
We heard that, as well as the prison-based barriers to progression, people serving an IPP sentence also face barriers in the community on release. We have particular concerns about what we termed in our report the “recall merry-go-round”, which sees released IPP prisoners returned to prison following their release, in some cases time and time again. That is why we heard clear evidence that reducing the qualifying period to have the licence removed from 10 years to five years would go some way to restoring proportionality. If someone has been on an indeterminate sentence, persuaded the Parole Board that they can be safely released and been able to show, for five years, that they can stay out of trouble and move on, what is the magic in making them wait another five years, with these things hanging over their head, to reach 10 years?
The decision to recall an IPP prisoner is made by the probation service, and the reasons for recall vary. The Government’s position seems to be that they do not accept that offenders serving the sentence in the community are being recalled unnecessarily. In November last year, the then Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), told us in oral evidence that, in the 12 months to the end of 2021, 34% of IPP recalls were the result of new offences, rather than—in his words, not mine—
“tripping up over onerous licence conditions.”
Well, first, he did not deal very much with the 66% for us. Secondly, even in relation to that 34%, when we asked how many of those charges resulted in further prosecution or conviction—some might have been dropped because there was never evidence to justify them, which happens in the system—the answer was that the Government do not know:
“the required data is not routinely collated”.
How can the Government insist that every recall of someone serving an IPP is necessary for public protection if they do not know the basic data? There is an underlying problem with the collection and use of data in the justice system anyway, and that is a particularly egregious example, if you will forgive my saying so, Mr Twigg. Perhaps the Minister could explain why that is the case, and what can be done to correct it?
I am glad the Government have asked the chief inspector of probation to conduct an independent thematic inspection on whether IPP recalls are necessary and proportionate. Certainly, we heard evidence all too often that there was something of a tick-box exercise in relation to some of the recalls, which really are not based on risk. Of course, where there is genuine risk, any person on licence—whether it is IPP or not—should be considered for recall, but the risk must be genuine; these things should not happen, as is the case sometimes, purely because of a failure in communications, or because of a failure to bear in mind that many people find it really difficult to get their lives back on track straightaway after such sentences. It will not be a straight, linear progression, and there does not seem to be enough recognition of that in the recall process. There are probably better ways in which we could keep a hold on people, technologically and otherwise, and track their movements and so on without the need for the nuclear option of recall, if I can put it that way.
That is why we particularly want to press the Government on why they have not taken on board our recommendation of going down to five years for the licence to be removed. It is worth saying that among those who said they would support a reduction from 10 years to five years was Martin Jones, the chief executive of the Parole Board. The people who deal with this themselves—the Government’s own experts—see the force in that, but the Government will not listen to them.
We were disappointed to see that the Government rejected that entirely, opting instead to review the policy and practice of suspending just the supervisory element after five years of good behaviour. It is a small step, but it really does not do justice to the evidence presented on that point. I hope we can have a fuller explanation of what their reasoning was, because it just is not apparent from their response. Let us also have the opportunity to think again about that. We presented the evidence base. Where is the Government’s?
Since June 2022, the Secretary of State has been required to automatically refer every eligible IPP prisoner to the Parole Board for licence termination at the 10-year point, and to do so in every subsequent year. I hope that that will help with the number of licences terminated, but I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the number of referrals made since then and on how many licences have been terminated, because the intention may be good but we want to know whether it actually works in practice.
This is a long topic, and I want to make as much progress as I can to do it justice, so I will now turn to our main recommendation. When the IPP was abolished in 2012, that was because it was found to be unfair. In particular, it led to a lack of clarity and consistency in the way that two people who had committed the same crime might be sentenced, and to uncertainty for victims and families about when their assailants or family members might be released. In 2012, Parliament agreed that IPP sentences are fundamentally unjust, but there are still people serving them. Successive Governments acknowledged the problem, and there have been efforts by Members of both Houses to change the arrangements. Lord Blunkett was very frank with us when he expressed his profound regret at the setting up of the sentence. He said:
“I got it wrong. The Government now have the chance to get it right.”
I just hope the Government will.
On our key recommendation, although we can make various improvements to the process inside and outside prison, the real issue is that we have to bite the bullet and get rid of this irredeemably flawed system by enacting primary legislation, so that we can have a resentencing exercise for all prisoners still serving an IPP sentence on licence. That was clear from the evidence we had, and the recommendation was overwhelmingly supported. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, called resentencing the only “inevitable” outcome. He said:
“It is the only fair and just thing to do.”
That is why we made that call, and it was not made lightly. We recognise that there are concerns about resentencing, particularly for victims of crime, who have perfectly valid concerns about making sure that there is no risk to them or their families. It should be said that we never envisaged that a resentencing exercise for determinate sentences would automatically mean that every IPP prisoner would be released. We have to be honest with IPP prisoners and their families and say that there will be some for whom a determinate sentence would necessarily be a long one, and that they would not necessarily be released immediately or in a short time. But many probably would be, and all of them, however long their determinate sentence, would have finality, some certainty and the prospect of some hope. In other words, they would have the basic fairness that everybody else gets in the prison system.
To deal with this difficult issue, we suggested having a small, expert and time-limited panel to advise on the shape that the primary legislation and the scheme might take. We did not try to draft it ourselves. All we were saying is that we need to balance protection of the public with justice for the individual offender—that is a basic principle of sentencing anyway—the need to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the need to ensure that we do not, even inadvertently, retrospectively increase a sentence. None of those, we believed, were impossible, and with expert support and political will all those things can be done.
Many people had great hope raised by that recommendation, and we had moving letters from prisoners about it. I am afraid that some of those hopes have been dashed by the nature of the Government’s report. They did not just reject our key recommendation on resentencing; they did so with such a scarcity of evidence to support their reasoning that, frankly, they demonstrated no engagement whatever with the evidence and reasoning behind our recommendation, and nor did they reflect on our efforts to explain the complexities of a resentencing exercise, including the risks to the public and how they could be overcome. The Government fell back on simplistic mantras, if I may say so. I am embarrassed to have to say that about a Government of my own party. It is not the way that I, as a Conservative, have normally treated these matters, and I do not believe that the Minister would either—he was not the person responsible for drafting the response. It is as shoddy a response as I have ever seen to a Select Committee report.
I am, however, pleased that the Government have followed through on their commitment to publish the IPP action plan, which came out two days ago. I welcome that, and I am grateful to the Minister for it. We look forward to engaging with him in taking it forward and seeing how it operates in practice.
I am sorry to have taken so much time to set out what I think is a compelling case. We are now in a position to move on. It is political will that is needed now. There is a new Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who is someone who has considerable experience of the criminal justice system, so they know what prisons are like not just as a politician—there is nothing wrong with that—but as a lawyer who has been in practice for many years and who has dealt with the complexities of sentencing for many years. There is a chance for a fresh start and for the Government to say, “We will think again about this. We need to revisit our response. We need to recognise that we did not do justice to all the evidence presented to us.”
I know that the Minister, who is a fair man in all our dealings—I genuinely mean that—and a humane man, as is the Secretary of State, will want to go by the evidence, and there is now no obstacle to prevent them from doing that. I hope we will hear answers from the Minister to the specific concerns we have raised and also a sense that the Government are prepared to revisit something. There is no shame in saying, “We got this wrong.” There is no shame in Lord Blunkett saying, “I got it wrong. It was for the best of reasons, but I got it wrong.” There is massive credit in that. There would be no shame in the Government saying, “The response we gave was not up to scratch. We will go back and look again.” I hope they will reconsider, reflect and do that following this debate, and I hope the Minister will be able to signal to us that they are open-minded on that.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
If Members take no more than nine or 10 minutes for their speeches, I will not have to impose a time limit. I will call the Opposition spokesperson no later than 2.40 pm. Members should bob if they wish to speak. I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I just want to raise three simple points. First, I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and the Select Committee overall on an immensely thorough report that deals with an issue that has hung over us for so long now that it is time to resolve it. I have the same optimism as him because of the change of personnel who will deal with this matter now. I think the Minister— I am about to flatter him, although he is not listening at the moment, so perhaps we can remind him of this later—will deal with this issue with an open mind, so there is a real opportunity here.
I also want to follow the Chair of the Select Committee in congratulating those who have campaigned over the years. Most of us can relate to this matter as a result of a constituent’s experience. All such cases are absolute tragedies. Many of these people accept they have committed a crime, and they accept the judge’s decision on the tariff as well, but they then get trapped in a Kafkaesque process of never knowing when they have met society’s requirements in terms of redressing what they have done. The result—we have seen all the evidence now—is the loss of life, which has been tragic. What is particularly moving is the fact that there have been suicides since the Government’s response. What this sentence has continuously done is create a sense of hopelessness among the individuals concerned, pushing many over the edge into mental health conditions, breakdowns and then suicide. The families serve the sentence as well, which has resulted in chronic tragedies among families too. It impacts on the parents, wives and children of those who have been sentenced in this way.
I have been in Parliament 25 years now, and I did not support the original indefinite sentencing proposals. I was on the Justice Committee a number of years ago, and in 2012, when it was agreed to abolish IPPs, I was elated. I actually thought justice would be served and that we would then rapidly find a mechanism for dealing with existing prisoners, because that was the spirit of the decision to abolish. That has not happened, and I think we have a duty—I do not place the onus only on the Government but on Parliament overall—to resolve the matter once and for all and to do so rapidly. The Minister was busy when I was talking, but we have a fresh chance now, with a new administration, effectively in the Department. With a new Minister and a new Secretary of State, there is the opportunity to go back, look at the response to the Select Committee report and engage again, and to do it rapidly.
I am a member of the justice unions parliamentary group, which represents the Prison Officers Association and Napo. I am an honorary life member of the POA. There is no financial relationship between the POA and the Labour party—the only benefit would be an extra pillow if I ever get sentenced. We have discussed the issue with the unions involved—these are the people who are dealing with it hands on. What the POA says very clearly is that it does not usually comment on sentencing policy, but it has made an exception in this case. It feels it has been given a task, in dealing with these prisoners, that is impossible. It is impossible to deal with the hopelessness felt by these prisoners. In many instances, because of the overcrowding and the lack of access to the programmes that are required to support them, it is also almost impossible to keep them safe. That is why we have had so many self-harm injuries and suicides.
The POA supports the proposal put forward by the Select Committee. The same goes for Napo, which has also pointed out that the Parole Board cannot deal with this serious matter as promptly as it should because of understaffing. Every expert opinion that the Select Committee has sought, whether it is the lawyers, the prisons officers or the probation officers, says there has to be some form of shift. The proposal from the Select Committee Opposition on ensuring that there is at least an exploration of the resentencing exercise is therefore one that any Government should seize with both hands. A group of experts who can go through in detail the processes that could be undertaken is the light that any Government would want to see at the end of the tunnel in terms of resolving this matter.
Concern has been expressed that this will create a problem of mass release, but the Select Committee has addressed that. The expert committee can advise on the timing, the way this is dealt with and how the whole issue can be properly resourced and timetabled to maximum effect, to the benefit of not only the prisoners currently serving indefinite sentences but the victims and the wider community. This is a way forward, and I hope the new administration and the new Minister can seize the opportunity; otherwise, we could be here in another 10 or 15 years’ time, and more prisoners will have lost their lives or suffered harm, and more families will have suffered.
On behalf of the constituents I have dealt with and all the professionals I link up with through the justice unions parliamentary group, I urge the Minister to see that now is the time to act. I believe that the Minister would have cross-party support in that; it would not be a political issue for banter or anything like that—it would fall into line with the cross-party approach that the Justice Committee has undertaken so successfully.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I must refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, I was a criminal defence solicitor for 17 years. I dealt with many IPP prisoners during that time, and I am a proud member of the Justice Committee. Rather than repeat his every word—I agree with every single word that he and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about this—I will tell you about Thomas.
In 2012, Thomas received an IPP sentence for robbery of a mobile phone. He was ordered to serve a minimum tariff of two years, only a few months before IPPs were abolished. If Thomas had been sentenced four months later, he would not be in prison now. That in itself tells a tale.
Thomas is now aged 39. He has been in custody for more than 10 years. He should have been released after his tariff of two years, so why is he in prison 10 years later? It is because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said—his mental health has taken a huge blow during that period. He has suffered with psychosis and various other mental health traumas.
Where has that left Thomas’s family? His 13-year-old son has been left without a father. He has been moved 16 times, and on many occasions, has not been given access to the appropriate recourses because of his mental health challenges. Certainly, on occasions, he has not been able to engage with what has been provided, but the provision has been sparse to say the least.
This man is in prison with mental health difficulties. He has served over a decade more than his tariff, yet he is viewed as somebody who cannot be released. How is that possible? That brings us to risk, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst talked about. I do not have enough time to discuss how the Parole Board deals with this, but how on earth is a man who committed an offence more than a decade ago, who clearly should be in a mental health facility, viewed as a risk? The reason why is that risk, incredibly, has become related to mental health—I talk from personal experience, and we also took evidence in camera from people who were involved, who wanted to speak candidly but felt that it was difficult. If somebody has a mental health issue, that is viewed to be a risk factor to causing harm. We cannot treat people like that. That is not risk.
The figures bear this out. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Justice Committee, 66% of the people who had been recalled had not committed a further offence. Why were 66% of them still in prison if they had not committed an offence? The reason is that for many of those individuals, the Probation Service and the Parole Board take an overcautious, scattergun approach. IPP prisoners are treated differently from other prisoners—I do not know what the reason is, but they are.
To justify that and to ensure that backs are covered, we put in place lots of conditions, most of which have no relation to risk. Risk is the risk of harm to other members of the public. If someone breaches a curfew, why are they getting sent back to prison? That is not evidence of a risk of harm. It is an indictment of the Government’s response on this issue that there has been no evidence base to challenge any of the questions that were raised by experts, members of the Committee and others—none.
What could possibly be the reason for—as of 2022—2,892 people still being in prison on an IPP sentence? How can Parliament allow that, if Parliament views that sentencing exercise as unjust? More than 2,800 people are in prison serving a sentence that Members of this House think is unjust. Can somebody explain how we can look one another in the face and allow that situation to continue? It is quite extraordinary.
Looking at the Government response, this cuts to the heart of what the Government are saying:
“The risks to public protection from the immediate release of serving IPP prisoners continue to exist. Although the Government recognises the frustrations and concerns surrounding the IPP sentence, our view is that the IPP Action Plan remains the best way in which these offenders can progress towards safe release.”
Not a shred of evidence is provided to back up that statement—not one. There is nothing. We are left in the uneasy situation where what we are actually keeping people in for is a concern, and it may well be a non-existent concern, but people’s lives are being blighted by politicians deciding that they do not want the risk of somebody coming out and doing something and then it being a headline in the newspaper. That is not the way to make policy. The justice system that I served for 20 years did not recognise that as justice. That is what this has come down to.
The response to the various things that my hon. Friend set out is just words on a piece of paper. We all know it, and there is that acceptance. I could read out numerous statements about the Government being committed to improving mental health support and rehabilitation support. I could have stood here and said that 10 years ago. If a Government are committed to trying to doing something, it means that they are not actually doing it. It is an acceptance that the proper support—the rehabilitative support and the courses—that is needed for somebody to be released from prison does not actually exist. Not only is this sentence unjust, but we are not providing pathways out for people with mental health difficulties.
The Minister—I like him very much—is an honourable man and an excellent Minister. How on earth have we got into this situation? As I said, Thomas is 39 years of age. He has been in custody for 11 years. Let us say that Thomas lives to the age of 70. If the basis for which somebody stays in custody is their mental health condition, which is deteriorating by the day, that would be another 31 years. He would be in prison for 40 years, having received a two-year sentence. People think that that is okay, seemingly, without any evidence of risk or anything.
That situation is repeated throughout this cohort of people. It is genuinely appalling. As my hon. Friend said, the Justice Committee’s report is not some radical document saying, “Open the doors and off we go”. It is an expert-based resentencing exercise, where some people may not be released from custody immediately, but at least they would have a determinate sentence that they and their families could have some hope to work towards.
We talk about the effect of these sentences, and I hope the Minister will take that into account. I could read out many facts, but the rate of self-harm among IPP prisoners is twice that of those serving a life sentence. Do we think that that happens by accident? The causal link through all the evidence is clear: the sentence is creating this situation. The deterioration of people’s mental health is a result of the sentence, and it is just appalling.
I am saddened to say this, because I believe that the Government are a force for good, but on this occasion, their response has left me exasperated. All of us who have been involved in the process have seen the personal stories of individuals and their family members. During my career in criminal law, one thing that I sometimes noticed was that we tended to treat people who were in a custodial environment as non-human beings. These are human beings with the same feelings, aspirations and desires for a house, for love and to have a positive and good life. We have created a situation where that has been cut off from them.
I will finish with this point, because I am going to keep to my 10 minutes, although I am tempted to go on for longer. With the change of personnel and with the new Lord Chancellor—a criminal barrister for many years—I think we all know that we should look at this afresh. We all know that we cannot have this situation going on in perpetuity, because we may as well book this room every five years and come back and say the same thing. What will happen is that more and more people will commit suicide and self-harm, and more lives and families will be destroyed, and for what? For a sentence that Parliament accepts is unjust. What other situation do we do that in?
Sometimes in Parliament, we talk about a lot of things and throw words around, but everyone accepts that this is unjust and yet we continue with it. I genuinely believe that this is a national scandal. It is a disgrace and a stain on the justice system in which I and my hon. Friend served. In the Justice Committee—with the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) as well—we have tried to come up with a responsible way of answering those concerns and of reflecting the personal and bespoke circumstances of each individual, and the views of victims, to ensure that public safety is part of the resentencing exercise that clearly needs to take place. Please, Minister, please, let us bring this farce to an end, accept the recommendations and give these people some hope.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for securing the debate and for speaking so eloquently, setting the grounds for it. I also wish to put on the record my thanks to the Justice Committee staff for their important work for hon. Members, including me, in Committee.
I make no apology for repeating some of the things that have been stated already in this Chamber, because I think it is worth doing so. IPP sentences are a shameful mark on our criminal justice system, and successive Justice Secretaries have recognised that. In 2011, Lord Clarke expressed his concern that no prisoner can realistically prove to the Parole Board that they are not a danger to the public until after they are released. In 2016, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) recommended using executive clemency for hundreds of prisoners kept in jail for much longer than their sentence. As we heard, that was not done. In 2019, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) acknowledged that it would be possible to resentence those serving IPP sentences, yet here we are today in 2023.
I hope that the new Justice Secretary, and the Minister present, will go further than identifying lists of ideas and statements, as stated in the action plan that came out recently. I hope that they will make a real change for reform, because that is what is needed.
The primary reform identified by the Justice Committee was legislation to enable a resentencing exercise to take place, but we have to be honest that that would not be a simple process. Resentencing is the Prison Reform Trust’s preferred solution, but it noted that that would have significant resource implications and could place a strain on the judiciary. The Justice Committee, however, heard varying suggestions of how a resentencing exercise could be conducted, and 138 multidisciplinary criminal justice experts wrote to the Justice Secretary endorsing a carefully planned resentencing exercise. The Sentencing Academy suggested that the High Court be tasked with reconsidering the facts of each case. It could then apply the appropriate sentencing options.
Those varying approaches show that we must consider carefully how a resentencing programme would work. One solution would be to set up an expert committee to produce a report on the best way to run a resentencing exercise. That could include whether it is possible, and how it could be done in a way to protect public safety, to take the victim of the crime into account and to deal fairly with the offender. We should not forget why the need for reform matters so much—because we are discussing people’s lives, and those should be valued.
Last year, nine people serving IPP sentences committed suicide. That is the highest number since the sentence was introduced. Overall, 81 people serving IPP sentences have taken their own lives. They have committed suicide and we have heard about the impact of that on their family members. That is 81 lives lost because of shameful failures in our criminal justice system. This situation does not need to persist; no further lives need to be lost, although we have heard of one life being lost recently. As I said, each person’s life should be valued.
On face value, the Government have given up, locked the door and—it seems—thrown away the key for almost 3,000 prisoners currently serving IPP sentences. However, there is always time for change, and I hope that change will come. Of those 3,000 prisoners, almost half of them have been in prison for over 10 years following their original tariff. Is it any wonder that mental health problems, self-harm and suicide are so prevalent among those serving these sentences?
I remind the House, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did, that IPP sentences were abolished in 2012. Napo states that its experience of people serving IPP sentences is that they generally
“tend to suffer from personality disorders, anxiety and depression and other mental health issues at a higher rate than other prisoners in the prison”
service. There is, therefore, a higher rate of self-harm and attempted suicide among these prisoners, which “impacts on” their
“ability to ‘behave’ in a way that is”
generally
“expected by the Parole Board and the Prison Service. As such they are denied release due to bad behaviour when in fact we should be looking at how imprisonment and the trauma this causes can escalate these behaviours. Many prisoners as a result are in a never-ending cycle.”
That is really important to note. These prisoners are already likely to suffer from some type of mental disorder, so they are more likely to have received this type of sentence when they are indeed vulnerable in other ways. This is an appalling state of affairs, and the Government can and should take steps to end it now. I would like to hear what the Minister says about how they will achieve that.
In 2018, I was contacted by a constituent whose son had been imprisoned in 2007 and is now serving an IPP sentence. Her son’s prison tariff was initially five years, but after 15 years he is still in prison. He has been repeatedly moved, or there have been threats that he will be moved, around prisons up and down our country. He is like a ghost in prison—he is moving from one prison to the next—and his mother repeatedly calls me to tell me where he is now. How demoralising and degrading this must feel to him. His situation has included him being moved away from his family, being denied contact with them and being denied emotional support. His parole hearing should have taken place on time, but, again, delay after delay has meant that his case is being deferred, because the necessary risk assessments and reports were not prepared in time. Indeed, sometimes no reason has been given for such delays. His mother is stricken with grief and often speaks to me on the phone, crying. I ask the Minister if he will review that case—in fact, all these cases need to be reviewed—and I know that that this man’s family in particular would appreciate that.
This man, like so many others, deserves a chance at reform, but our crumbling justice system—on the Government’s watch—is holding them back. Our prisons are overcrowded and the Minister has been forced to use police cells to hold prisoners. There are thousands of vacancies for prison officers across our country, but the Government do not publish full data on that, so we cannot properly understand the scale of the problem or how to tackle it. This means that many prisons are unable to offer a full and meaningful prison regime, with quality education and skills training, which are so crucial for those serving IPP sentences to show the Parole Board that they are safe to be released.
Almost the entire criminal justice system, from court to probation, is beset by backlogs, staff shortages and inexperienced staff. Even if a prisoner is released, probation officers are overstretched and cannot provide the support that they need. A litany of Government failures across the criminal justice system all indicate that the system is in crisis. Sadly, I fear that the Government are in denial about the scale of the challenge facing our justice service. Only if they own up to it and oversee the huge improvements that are needed will those serving IPP sentences get their chance at reform.
I hope that the Minister reflects strongly and responds to the issues that have been raised across this Chamber, and I look forward to his response.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for securing this incredibly important debate, on an issue that affects so many people, as we have heard today. The hon. Member has worked hard to fight this injustice. To be honest, it has been an absolute privilege to stand here today and listen to the contributions from all Members. It has been a fantastic debate so far. I am going to reinforce and possibly repeat what has been said today. It is important that I do so on those of my constituents who are affected.
The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) said that this is a national scandal. I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on public accountability, and we have seen some scandals instigated by the state. Unfortunately, this is another such scandal, and it needs to be resolved.
I speak today on behalf of several families in my constituency of Liverpool, West Derby who have been affected by IPP sentences and who have been in touch with me. I recently wrote to the now, thankfully, former Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), regarding the many issues associated with these sentences, and requesting a response. I take this timely opportunity to restate those asks, in the hope that the newly appointed Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), will be able to take them up accordingly.
The principle of IPPs, together with the poor drafting of the legislation, has resulted in those who committed less serious offences that never previously carried a life sentence receiving sentences that were never intended for them, as has been mentioned throughout the debate. It was predicted that about 900 people would receive IPP sentences, but they were actually given to more than 8,000 people.
In addition, prisons did not and still do not have adequate rehabilitation services, so prisoners are not able to access the interventions they need to demonstrate that they are no longer a risk and can be released. Like many other elements in this wretched piece of legislation, that defies belief.
In 2012, the European Court of Human Rights held that the failure to make appropriate provision for rehabilitative services for three prisoners serving IPP sentences breached their rights under article 5 of the European convention on human rights. The cumulative impact of IPP sentences on individuals’ welfare and their families is well documented and has been detailed today. Indeed, the then Government Minister described it in a 2010 session of Justice Questions as “not defensible”. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) voted against the legislation. He is always on the right side of history.
Even though the sentences were abolished in 2012, that provision does not apply retrospectively, as has been said, and so the impact continues for thousands of families. The mental health element is absolutely crucial. The mental health crisis among IPP prisoners is rife, with 81 suicides recorded among those serving IPP sentences since 2005, according to the United Group for Reform of IPP. Tragically, it has been reported that only yesterday a young man serving an IPP sentence took his own life at HMP Manchester.
Studies have shown that the family members of those given an IPP sentence suffer financial and emotional strain, hopelessness and a loss of faith in the justice system. Their children show separation anxiety, emotional distress and behavioural problems. I have witnessed that at first hand in families I have spoken to in my constituency. In one case—I will not provide the full details, for legal reasons—the constituent had rebuilt his life following release. However, he has now suddenly been recalled. The positive progress that he had made over those five years has been put on hold—for how long, we do not know. His livelihood, children and family are now terribly impacted because they have absolutely no clarity on how long he will be imprisoned for.
In a surgery last month, the mother of that prisoner broke down in my arms, crying. She just could not see an end to it, with the destruction of the life that he had built, the impact on the children and the family, with everything ripped away from them. In her words:
“IPP sentences have been abolished since 2012 but so many people and their families are still suffering from the injustice and lives are being utterly destroyed. When will this nightmare end for all of us?”
That is a question for the Minister.
Along with MPs from across the House, I am a signatory to early-day motion 591, which calls on the Government to implement the findings of the Justice Committee’s report, which has been outlined fantastically today, in particular that the Government quickly legislates to enable a resentencing exercise for all IPP-sentenced individuals, except for those who have successfully had their licence terminated.
The Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report rejected its primary recommendation on resentencing. Like everyone else, I ask the Minister to shed light on whether that will be looked at again by the new Secretary of State, following the dismay of families, campaigners, trade unions and the Justice Committee at the original response.
In a recent debate in Parliament on IPP sentences, we heard the former Home Secretary Lord Blunkett, who introduced the sentences, describe the current situation concerning IPP prisoners as unequal, unjust and immoral. It was good to hear him say those words. He acknowledged the mistake and the impact it has had on so many families. Former Supreme Court Justice Lord Brown has repeated his description of IPP sentences as the
“greatest single stain on the justice system”,
as has been mentioned throughout this debate, and that
“it is a deeper, growing stain because of the situation with the recalls.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 33.]
The absurd and incredibly damaging situation with respect to the legacy of IPP sentences cannot continue. I plead with the Minister to rethink the Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report. I ask him to impress on the new Secretary of State the need to meet families, victims and campaigners in the next few weeks to discuss how we can repair the clear defects in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and, crucially, finally bring certainty to prisoners and their families about the nature of their detention and recall. We expect nothing else in this place. It is crucial that their words are listened to and adhered to.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for bringing forward the debate and for the Justice Committee’s report. I was proud formerly to serve on the Committee under his leadership, and I can personally attest to his dedication and the Committee’s rigorous approach to its work. The report is no exception.
We have heard powerful contributions. The hon. Member set out in great detail the Select Committee’s findings after many evidence sessions and highlighted the inadequacy of the Government’s response. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about a Kafkaesque process and the need for cross-party support, which I will talk more about. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) mentioned Thomas who, 10 years on, is still in prison serving a sentence that had a tariff of two years. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) talked about setting up an expert committee to look at how resentencing could work and raised some really important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) talked about a lack of intervention in prisons and spoke powerfully about his constituents’ experiences.
When IPP sentences were introduced, it was anticipated that they would be given to 900 people. In fact, between 2005 and 2013, they were given to more than 8,000 people. After concerns were raised that the sentences were being applied much more widely than originally intended, the use of IPPs was rightly abolished in 2012, but, as we know, that change did not apply retrospectively. As a result, at the end of 2022, there were still just short of 3,000 prisoners in custody under IPP sentences.
As has been outlined, countless testimonies and studies have shown the link between serving an IPP sentence and deteriorating mental health, self-harm and suicide. Eighty-one IPP prisoners have taken their own lives while in prison. In 2022 alone, there were nine suicides—the highest number of any year since IPPs were introduced. In 2021, IPP prisoners made up 11% of all self-harm incidents recorded, despite being only 3% of the entire prison population.
Those issues are compounded by the fact that, after a decade of cuts to the justice system, prisons are now understaffed, overcrowded and awash with violence and drugs. In too many cases, prisoners are spending up to 23 hours a day in their cells, with little to no purposeful activity. In a system under such strain, IPP prisoners have often been placed right at the back of the queue. Many have been unable to address their offending because they have been denied access to the courses necessary to demonstrate their rehabilitation. In some cases, the courses they need simply do not exist in the prisons they are in; in other cases, lifers have been given support ahead of IPP prisoners. A lack of mental health support and awareness of neurodiverse conditions has also made it easier to stigmatise an inmate as a problem rather than offer them the support they need to reform.
Given those conditions, it is no wonder that so many IPP inmates and their families have lost hope, and the problems do not stop there. Recalls are rising. As the chief inspector of probation outlined, most recalls to prisons are for non-compliance with licence conditions, rather than for new crimes. Non-compliance often results from homelessness, a relapse into substance misuse and a lack of continuity of care between pre and post-release service provision. In short, failing services are leading to unsuccessful licences, which means that we are setting up too many IPP releases to fail. They are put back into custody in a system that sets them goals it does not allow them to meet.
Many IPP sentences were more a judgment on an individual’s chaotic life than their risk, making it near impossible for them to prove their suitability for release. For example, Charlotte was a 30-year-old drug addict when she was sentenced to a minimum of 16 months in prison. She had been begging outside a corner shop, and when a woman refused to give her money, she pulled out a knife. She did not attempt to stab the woman, but she did terrify her. Nine years later, in July 2016, she died in prison. It was an awful crime, of course, but a disproportionate outcome given that for threats with a weapon, the mandatory minimum sentence is six months’ custody and the maximum sentence is four years.
As we have heard today, there are some cases where the continued detention of individuals appears unduly harsh, given the nature of their original crime or the length of their original tariff. There have been resulting calls from those individuals’ families and justice organisations for reform of the system. Equally, there are a large number of individuals serving IPP sentences whose continued detention has rightly been deemed necessary for public protection by successive Parole Boards. That includes many sex offenders and violent criminals. Any blanket amnesty for those individuals, who include the black cab rapist, John Worboys, would create a serious and unacceptable risk to public safety. Various proposals have been made, including by the Justice Committee, about ways to address the potential unfairness of outstanding IPP sentences without exposing the public to the risk that would arise from releasing all those currently serving them.
Whatever party is in power, I believe it is paramount that we approach any discussion of reform on a cross-party basis, just as the Justice Committee did, consulting victims’ groups as well as justice organisations. We must avoid at all costs the future of those prisoners becoming a political football. On that basis, if the Government are willing to bring forward meaningful proposals on how to solve the situation, Labour will engage with them in a constructive, cross-party way. It is important that the Government understand that we are willing to work with them to move forward on this issue constructively. I am keen to hear the Minister’s response to that.
We must also recognise that problems do not just lie with IPPs. Even if individuals on IPP sentences are eventually released on licence by a Parole Board, to keep us safe we are still reliant on a functioning probation system to ensure those individuals comply with their licence conditions and do not lapse back into the behaviours that originally made them a risk. The precursor of any reform must therefore be a probation system that works, yet after 13 years of the Tories, the probation service is buckling at the seams. Under Labour, probation was well regarded and fulfilled its aims of keeping the public safe and rehabilitating those it supervised, but after more than a decade of underfunding and chaotic organisational change, which has led to many experienced staff leaving, it is today failing. Inspection report after inspection report detail systemic failures, and it is the public who pay the price with their safety.
There have been an average of six serious further offence convictions every week since 2010, including for murder, kidnap and rape. The reality is that our criminal justice system has been pushed to the brink, and if the Government were truly concerned about protecting public safety, they would urgently plug the gaps and rebuild the service they broke.
We all recognise the problems that IPP sentences have caused, but we must also recognise the numerous complexities surrounding them and the pressures on our stretched criminal justice system. I welcome the Department’s new leadership, and I hope the Government will seriously look at this issue again. If they bring forward proposals, we will engage with them in a constructive, cross-party way with the priority of public safety at the centre of that approach.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
It is very good to see you in the Chair, as always, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for his opening remarks and for securing this debate on behalf of the Justice Committee following the publication last year of its report on imprisonment for public protection sentences. I also thank all colleagues in the Chamber for what they have brought to this important debate and to our discussion of these incredibly serious matters.
The Government welcomed the report by my hon. Friend and his Committee as a real opportunity to take stock of the debate on the IPP sentence, which rightly continues to generate enormous interest, attention and challenge across both Houses of Parliament. Having discussed this matter with IPP campaign groups and colleagues of different parties last month, I am even more acutely aware of the depth and strength of the feeling evoked.
Today’s debate is timely, because the updated IPP action plan from HM Prison and Probation Service was shared with my hon. Friend’s Committee yesterday. One of the Committee’s key recommendations was to refresh the agency’s action plan, and this debate provides an opportunity to share some details of the refreshed plan with the House. I am confident that it will make a genuine difference to the way that IPP offenders are rehabilitated and supported through to safe release, consistent with public protection.
I will provide a brief overview of the IPP sentence, before turning to the Justice Committee’s report and the Government response. As a number of colleagues have mentioned, the IPP sentence was introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for offences committed on or after 4 April 2005, and it was abolished from December 2012. As has been noted, abolition was not applied retrospectively, as the Government assessed that it would not be right to alter a sentence that had been lawfully imposed by a court prior to its abolition. This means that the Parole Board grants release to those serving an IPP sentence once they have demonstrated that they are safe to be released.
At the time of abolition, more than 6,000 offenders were serving an IPP sentence in prison. Since then a substantial number have been released on licence, so that at the end of March this year there were 2,916 offenders on an IPP sentence in custody. Although that is a significant decrease from the peak in 2012, I recognise that there is more to be done. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to support those serving an IPP sentence, both in prison and on licence in the community, to work towards a safe and sustainable future release. We will continue this work through the updated IPP action plan.
I thank all members of the Justice Committee for their thorough work in examining the issues surrounding IPP sentences. The Government gave careful consideration to all the report’s findings and each of the Committee’s recommendations. We carefully considered the recommendations to undertake a full resentencing exercise of all remaining offenders serving an IPP sentence and to establish a time-limited expert committee to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and others outlined. However, the Government’s priority remains the protection of the public, and any resentencing exercise that aims to provide each IPP prisoner with a definite release date would inevitably result in the immediate release of a considerable number of offenders who committed serious sexual or violent offences and whom the Parole Board has previously deemed unsafe to be released.
James Daly
What evidence basis does the Minister have to make that statement?
Damian Hinds
I make it on the basis of the profile of the prison population and the fact that prisoners have had parole hearings where determinations have been made not to release. That is based on the release test, with which I know my hon. Friend is extremely familiar.
It is vital for public protection that those serving the IPP sentence in prison, whether not yet released or recalled following release, are released only following a thorough risk assessment that finds that their risk has now reduced to the point where they can be safely managed in the community. That is a judgment for the parole board. It is for that reason we rejected the Committee’s recommendation of a full resentencing exercise for such offenders.
John McDonnell
I am not sure we all share the same understanding of the Committee’s recommendation. My understanding was that the Committee recommended bringing together an expert panel that would advise on the process. That does not mean the expert panel would precipitously leap us forward into a mass release or anything like that. It is just an expert panel that could advise the Government on how the process might operate. The Government could refuse its recommendations. It is just another way of exploring—to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly)—an evidence- based judgment rather than one based, frankly, on prejudice.
Damian Hinds
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that our decision is based on principles of public safety, consistent with wishing to help and support the prisoners on an IPP sentence through to the point where they can be released safely into the community. All of us want that ultimate goal.
The Committee also recommended a reduction in the qualifying period for licence termination from 10 years to five following first release from custody. As hon. Members know, the licence period following custody is an important tool not only for public protection, but to ensure that offenders are properly supported to manage risk when they are integrating back into the community. As I said earlier, offenders who originally received an IPP sentence did so because they committed a qualifying offence and were considered to pose a risk of serious harm to the public. It is extremely important to allow a proportionate licence period after release to ensure their safe management and reintegration into communities.
Sir Robert Neill
Will the Minister set out, either here or in the Library, what evidence he has that suggests the risk is significantly greater at five years as opposed to 10? What statistics lead to that decision?
Damian Hinds
We will continue to engage with my hon. Friend’s Committee in the normal way. It is perfectly reasonable of him to challenge us. I was coming on to say something about the licence periods.
Although we will not be reducing the eligibility period for licence termination at this time, we have committed in the action plan to review the current policy and practice for suspending the supervisory elements of IPP licences to ensure that all cases are considered at the point when they are eligible, which, for the supervisory element, is after five continuous successful years on licence in the community. My hon. Friend will be aware of the changes that we made in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 in regard to making sure that eligible cases are brought forward.
Colleagues have expressed legitimate concern about the high number of IPP offenders recalled to custody, and asked about the proportionality of that. I assure colleagues that in 2020 His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation did a thematic report on recall in terms of its proportionality, and it found that decisions to recall were proportionate. As part of our action plan, we will be internally reviewing our recall processes. We are also asking His Majesty’s inspector of probation—the chief inspector—to undertake a thematic inspection of recalls specifically for IPP and for that to happen in this calendar year. He will also look at the weeks leading up to recall—I know that this is a significant point that matters to colleagues, and rightly so— and consider whether, had the support on offer been different, recall could have been avoided. I thank the chief inspector for stepping up to undertake that piece of work.
I will move on to the IPP action plan, but first may I ask what time I must finish by, Mr Twigg?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I would usually allow a minute for the Chair of the Select Committee.
Damian Hinds
Then I will turn to the IPP action plan, which sets out the range of work that His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service does to support the progress of IPP offenders towards a prospective safe and sustainable release.
The Committee’s report criticised the then IPP action plan for lacking clear performance measures, an accountable owner and a timeframe for completion of workstream actions. We accept those points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and his colleagues. It had actually long been the intention of the Government to refresh the IPP action plan, once his Committee’s report had been published.
Having taken that evidence into account, I am pleased to be able to share some of the details of the refreshed plan, building on the previous one. I am confident that it will deliver tangible change by safely reducing over time the IPP population in custody and in the community, while still prioritising public protection. Our key priority is managing the sentences of those serving an IPP to a consistently high quality, ensuring that the delivery of systems and processes in every prison and probation region facilitates risk reduction and the prospect of progress towards a safe and sustainable release. That will include the delivery of specific interventions and services to enable sentence progression, rehabilitation and effective resettlement for those who continue to serve the IPP sentence. To respond to a point brought up by my hon. Friend, it is true that covid restricted access to some of those programmes. The plan has now set out—and itself includes—actions to ensure that IPP prisoners get access in a timely way to the programmes they need to be able to reduce their risk.
I will say a little about the governance of the plan—that comes to the accountable owner and ensuring that it has sufficient heft. There will be a new senior IPP progression board, chaired by the executive director with responsibility for public protection, who my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and some of the campaign groups met and heard from recently. The board will drive the completion of actions, reviewing the impact and progress of the action plan every six months. Each workstream will be formally owned by a senior leader in HMPPS and held accountable for delivery through the new board. We will also set up a new external reference group for open engagement with external stakeholders, which is very important. That will give them a chance to engage directly with and provide input to the action plan and its delivery.
I accept the points made by my hon. Friend about transparency and reporting, and we are committed to reporting more and in a timely way. The Government’s priority continues to be the protection of the public, but we remain fully committed to doing all we can to support the safe progression of those serving IPP sentences. I look forward to continued dialogue on this matter with the Committee, colleagues here and others beyond this debate. I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for securing the debate and to all who contributed to it.
Sir Robert Neill
I thank all Members who have spoken so powerfully in the debate. Of course, we look forward to engaging with the Minister and the Government on the action plan, but I must say that closed minds still seem to prevail in relation to the key issue of resentencing. If the Government will not move, Parliament must move for them. I have prepared a draft clause to enact the recommendations of the report for a resentencing exercise, and I shall not hesitate to move it when the Victims and Prisoners Bill returns to this House. I hope it will have support from across the Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Third Report of the Justice Committee, IPP Sentences, HC 266, and the Government response, HC 933.
Written Statements
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tax Administration and Maintenance: Spring 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
As announced at the spring budget the Government are setting out further technical tax policy proposals that support their ambition to simplify and modernise the tax system, tackle non-compliance, make the tax system fairer for taxpayers and to make the customs system work better for traders.
Simplification and modernisation
The Government want the tax system to be simple, fair and to support growth. In autumn 2022, the Government issued a clear mandate to put tax simplification at the heart of policy making.
The spring budget announced the first steps, with a range of improvements to make it easier for businesses to interact with the tax system. This included:
a systematic review to improve HMRC guidance and key forms for small businesses
a consultation to expand the “cash basis”, a simplified way for over four million sole traders to calculate and pay their income tax
delivering the IT changes to enable agents to payroll benefits in kind on behalf of employers, and
a package of measures to simplify customs import and export processes for traders, taking advantage of new freedoms following EU exit and promoting economic growth by making importing and exporting as easy as possible.
The Government are now taking the next steps to make tax as simple as possible for taxpayers.
First, the Government are committed to supporting saving and investment through simplification of the tax system. Announcements today include:
Help to Save: At spring budget 2023 the Government announced that they will extend the Help to Save (HtS) scheme in its current form by 18 months until April 2025 and set out the intention to launch a consultation. The Government are now publishing a consultation on the scheme design to determine how it could be simplified.
Modernisation of the stamp taxes on shares framework: The Government are publishing a consultation on proposals to modernise and digitise the framework for stamp taxes on shares. This consultation seeks views on proposals to ensure that any new framework will meet its objectives for a simple, clear and efficient tax system.
The Government are publishing two further documents as part of HMRC’s wider tax administration framework review (TAFR). These documents continue our work to ensure the UK’s tax administration framework keeps pace with the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, and supports a modern and effective tax system.
Information and data: Smarter use of information and data, including from third parties, has the potential to simplify tax administration for individuals and businesses, and improve HMRC’s compliance capabilities. This call for evidence focuses on how legislation could be updated to standardise and simplify data provision, and make sure taxpayer information is appropriately protected.
A legislative approach to piloting: This discussion document seeks views on a new approach known as a “sandbox” that HMRC could use to pilot changes. The document will explore opportunities and challenges of possible sandbox testing models, and what safeguards might be necessary and proportionate.
Building on the customs announcements made at spring budget:
Customs treatment of post and parcel exports: The Government are publishing a consultation on proposals to improve the customs treatment of post and parcel exports. This is to ensure customs facilitations for low-value post and parcels are as beneficial as possible, while creating a level playing field for operators to export low- value goods with ease.
Tackling the tax gap
Since 2010 the Government have introduced over 200 new measures and invested over £2 billion extra in HMRC to tackle non-compliance in the tax system. In 2021-22, HMRC secured and protected £30.8 billion for public services that would otherwise have gone unpaid.
This action has ensured the tax gap has remained on a long-term downward trend and one of the lowest published worldwide. We remain committed to driving the tax gap down further.
The consultations announced today build on announcements at spring budget:
Tackling non-compliance in the umbrella company market: The Government will shortly publish a summary of responses to the 2021 call for evidence on the umbrella company market. Alongside this, the Government will publish a consultation on policy options to regulate umbrella companies and to tackle non-compliance in the umbrella company market.
Tackling promoters of tax avoidance: As announced at spring budget the Government are publishing a consultation on both the introduction of a new criminal offence for promoters of tax avoidance and expediting the disqualification of directors of companies involved in promoting tax avoidance.
Repayment Agents: As announced on 11 January 2023, the Government will require repayment agents to register with HMRC to protect vulnerable customers. Repayment agents will need to register (within a three-month window) starting on 2 May 2023.
Further tax policy and administration announcements
The Government are also making a number of other tax policy announcements to improve tax administration, increase transparency and address concerns that have been raised including:
National Insurance credit changes: The Government recognise concerns that some parents who have not claimed child benefit could miss out on their future entitlement to a full state pension. The Government will address this issue to enable affected parents to receive a national insurance credit retrospectively. Further detail on next steps will be available in due course.
Plastic packaging tax: The Government will consult on allowing a mass balance approach for calculating the proportion of recycled content in chemically recycled plastics, for the purposes of the plastic packaging tax. The consultation will be launched later this year.
The full list of publications and announcements can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-administration-and-maintenance-summary-spring-2023.
[HCWS749]
Statutory Medical Examiner System
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
I wish to inform the House of the Government’s plan for introducing a statutory medical examiner system from April 2024. Medical examiners are senior medical doctors who provide independent scrutiny of the causes of non-coronial deaths. In scrutinising deaths, they:
seek to confirm the proposed cause of death by the medical doctor and the overall accuracy of the medical certificate of cause of death;
discuss the proposed cause of death with bereaved people and establish if they have questions or any concerns relating to the death;
support appropriate referrals to senior coroners; and
identify cases for further review under local mortality arrangements and contribute to other clinical governance processes.
The changes will put all of the medical examiner system’s obligations, duties and responsibilities on to a statutory footing and ensure they are recognised by law. For example, it will be a legal requirement that medical examiners scrutinise all non-coronial deaths. This will help to deter criminal activity and poor practice, increase transparency and offer the bereaved an opportunity to raise concerns.
In preparation for this, the relevant provisions of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the Health and Care Act 2022 will be commenced by autumn 2023. We will also publish draft regulations by autumn 2023, and will lay the regulations when parliamentary time allows.
The introduction of medical examiners is part of a broader death certification, registration and coronial process. We are working closely across Government to ensure that from both a legislative and operational perspective we are supporting the professions involved so that they are prepared for the full introduction of the statutory system from April 2024.
[HCWS750]
Police-led Management of Registered Sex Offenders: Independent Review
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
The Home Office has today published a report outlining the findings and recommendations from the Independent Review of the Police’s Management of Registered Sex Offenders (“the review”) carried out by former chief constable of Derbyshire Constabulary, Mick Creedon.
Sexual offences are devastating crimes that can leave a long-lasting impact on victims. The UK already has one of the most robust systems in the world for managing registered sex offenders and individuals who pose a risk of sexual harm.
To ensure our system is as robust as it can be, we recently made a number of changes through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to:
enable the courts to impose positive obligations via sexual harm prevention orders (SHPO) or sexual risk orders (SRO) where appropriate, for example, requiring an individual to engage in a behaviour change programme;
specify that the court should apply the lower civil standard of proof (“balance of probabilities”) when determining whether the individual the application is made in respect of has done the act in question;
remove the need for the police to seek a court order to place notification requirements on an individual convicted of an equivalent, relevant sexual offence in a foreign court. The requirement for a court order has been replaced with a power for the police to give a notice requiring the relevant offenders to notify when authorised by an officer of the rank inspector or above;
confer a power on the Secretary of State to prepare (or direct a relevant person, such as the National Crime Agency (NCA), to prepare) a list of countries deemed to be at high risk of child sexual abuse by UK nationals or residents, which must be considered by applicants and the courts when applying for or making a SHPO or SRO for the purpose of protecting children outside the UK from sexual harm; and
enable the enforceability across the UK of new SHPO and SROs.
The carrying out of the review was a commitment made in the Government’s July 2021 tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) strategy. On the 2 March 2022, the then Home Secretary announced that Mick Creedon would undertake the review. Its terms of reference stated that it would
“consider the consistency of the management of registered sex offenders across England and Wales and whether current capabilities to manage registered sex offenders are fit for purpose...and whether the regime protecting the public from them could be strengthened further”.
The review considered evidence in relation to a number of factors, including:
police resourcing;
the consistency of offender management;
information sharing;
risk management tools and orders;
risk assessment and prioritisation; and
training.
Mr Creedon conducted extensive engagement throughout 2022 with a range of expert stakeholders representing the different functions of the police in respect of sexual offences and sex offender management. He also engaged with organisations responsible for setting and inspecting the police’s standards, as well as representatives from other criminal justice agencies and civil society.
Mr Creedon is clear that in his view that the multi-agency approach to the assessment and management of the risks posed by registered sex offenders is the right approach. I echo the tribute that he pays to the dedication, commitment and professionalism of all those involved in the management of registered sex offenders: the police, other criminal justice agencies and those in the voluntary and charitable sector that work tirelessly with victims and survivors, as well as ex-offenders.
The version of the report being published today is an executive summary which does not include certain sensitive information. As the House will understand, it would not be appropriate to put information into the public domain that could potentially be of use to an offender seeking to circumvent the system designed to prevent their offending.
The full and unedited version of the report has been shared with relevant criminal justice agencies to which recommendations are addressed. I thank Mr Creedon for the energy and diligence that he has shown in his engagement and the analysis that underpins his recommendations.
Among Mr Creedon’s most significant recommendations are those which propose changes to the notification requirements system. The notification requirements (often referred to as the “sex offenders register”) have existed in some form since 1997 and require qualifying offenders to notify specific personal details to the police annually or whenever those details change. The notification requirements are a valuable tool in the risk management of registered sex offenders—any changes would require careful consideration to ensure that they contributed to making the sex offender management regime as strong as it can be.
I have met criminal justice agencies and other partners to have an initial discussion Mr Creedon’s findings and recommendations. We will carefully consider the recommendations, ensuring that our focus continues to be that our system for managing sex offenders is robust as it can be.
A copy of the executive summary report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS747]
Northern Ireland Finances 2023-24
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Despite the progress that has been made with the Windsor framework it is with considerable disappointment that I find it is necessary for me to once again step in and set a Budget for Northern Ireland for 2023-24. The challenging budget position means that Northern Ireland Departments need clarity on their budget allocations now to deliver a balanced budget. I will bring forward a Budget Bill in due course.
The context of setting the Northern Ireland Budget for 2023-24 has been very difficult.
With agreement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, flexibility has been granted on the repayment of the £297 million overspend from the 2022-23 Budget. This will provide some protection to frontline public services in Northern Ireland from having to take the most severe reductions. However, difficult decisions remain in order to live within the funding available.
To support this, I am committing any future in-year Barnett consequentials for 2023-24 to repaying the Reserve claim. Should this not amount to £297 million, I will work with HM Treasury to reallocate funding from previously announced Northern Ireland funding packages, with the residual to be repaid in 2024-25.
The UK Government have for many years recognised the unique challenges Northern Ireland faces. We have provided around £7 billion in additional funding to Northern Ireland since 2014, on top of the Barnett-based block grant. The Northern Ireland Budget per person is around 20% higher than equivalent UK Government spending in other parts of the UK. Yet the level of public services offered is still not affordable and outcomes are not improving. We need the Executive back so that they can progress much needed and long promised public service transformation.
2023-24 Budget allocations
I set out below the resource and capital allocations which I consider to be an appropriate settlement for Northern Ireland Departments.
In deciding these allocations I have engaged intensively with the Northern Ireland civil service. I am grateful to them for their engagement. I have also met with Sir Robert Chote, the chair of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council, and I have received a range of representations from public groups and individuals.
Non-ringfenced resource funding
On the resource side, this Budget position delivers:
For health, this Budget provides £7.3 billion in funding. It also ringfences funding for abortion services, as ensuring availability of services is a statutory duty on me as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
For education, this Budget provides £2.6 billion in funding.
For justice, this Budget provides £1.2 billion in funding.
For economy, this Budget provides £772 million in funding, including £1.1 million for the public service obligation route from City of Derry Airport to London.
Capital departmental expenditure limits
For capital, this Budget provides continuing investment and enables key projects to progress. It also ensures sufficient funding to meet departmental capital commitments that can progress in the absence of an Executive.
Revenue raising
My Department has continued to work closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Finance on a sustainable and strategic approach to public finances, which includes options for revenue raising in line with the rest of the UK. The lower levels of revenue generation but higher public service provision in Northern Ireland compared to the rest of the UK is unsustainable.
Governance
The Government must also ensure that Northern Ireland Departments can continue to operate. That is why the Government have today introduced the Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Bill to ensure ongoing governance in the short term, should Northern Ireland remain without Ministers beyond 5 June.
The Bill continues the powers already afforded to permanent secretaries in Northern Ireland Departments in the absence of an Executive. It also grants powers that will allow the UK Government to explore, with the Northern Ireland civil service, options for increasing budget sustainability including further revenue raising in Northern Ireland.
The right way for Northern Ireland to be governed is through locally accountable and elected Government. But we have a duty to the people of Northern Ireland and in managing public funds to ensure Northern Ireland’s finances can be put on a sustainable path. That is why these powers are deliberately focused on official advice and public consultation. The final decisions for any implementation are best taken by Northern Ireland’s elected leaders. But we are taking these steps now to ensure that work progresses towards a more sustainable system in Northern Ireland that better reflects what is happening across the rest of the UK.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-04-27/HCWS748/.
[HCWS748]
UK Covid-19 Inquiry
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
On 28 June 2022, the final terms of reference for the covid-19 inquiry were announced in this House. Baroness Hallett has emphasised that she is keen to start hearing evidence as quickly as possible and to make timely recommendations. To assist with this, and following careful consideration and consultation with Baroness Hallett, I have decided that the inquiry will be most efficient and swift if Baroness Hallett sits without a panel.
To help ensure that the inquiry has the expertise required for its broad scope, Baroness Hallett stated when she opened the inquiry that she would appoint scientific, economic and other experts to help her with her work, covering a range of different topics and views. The reports and advice Baroness Hallett receives from these experts will be entered into evidence and published by the inquiry.
Experts will play an important role in the inquiry but the pandemic has affected every one of us right across the United Kingdom. We have always been very clear that the inquiry must hear from those most affected by the pandemic, including those who have tragically lost their loved ones. The inquiry will be gathering views from the public in a number of different ways, including through a “listening exercise” which will enable individuals to contribute to the inquiry without the formality of giving evidence or attending a public hearing.
The Inquiries Act allows the independent inquiry chair to determine an inquiry’s process and procedure. Baroness Hallett has considerable experience and expertise in leading complex investigations. She is putting in place mechanisms to enable the inquiry to gather the breadth of evidence and experiences needed to deliver its work effectively and efficiently, with the findings and recommendations published as soon as practicable.
I therefore believe that the inquiry will have access to a range of expertise which negates the need for a panel. For these reasons, and for those of pace, I have decided not to pursue a panel to sit alongside Baroness Hallett.
In weighing up these issues, I am conscious of the recent criticism over the length of time that the public inquiry may take to reach its conclusions. It is in the public interest that the inquiry is thorough, rigorous and comprehensive, but also delivers its report without excessive delay.
[HCWS745]
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles: Driver Vetting
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Richard Holden)
The Government recognise the important role that taxis and private hire vehicles play in the wider transport network. The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 applies in England and requires better information-sharing between taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities to ensure that unfit drivers cannot hide previous instances of misconduct.
The first part of the Act came into force on 31 May 2022 requiring licensing authorities to report safeguarding and road safety concerns about drivers licensed by other authorities to the licensing authority that issued the driver’s licence. Licensing authorities that receive concerns about a driver it has licensed must then consider whether to suspend or revoke the driver’s licence.
Since then, the Department has been working to put in place arrangements so that the rest of the Act could be brought into force. Licensing authorities will be required to use a database to record instances where taxi and private hire vehicle drivers have their licences removed, suspended or refused for misconduct. When deciding whether to grant or renew a driver licence, licensing authorities must search the database for any entry relating to the applicant.
I am pleased to announce that the Secretary of State has designated the National Anti-Fraud Network as the database provider under the Act. The National Anti-Fraud Network’s voluntary database has been in use successfully for several years. Over 70% of licensing authorities in England are already using the database to vet their driver licence applicants.
From today, using the database is compulsory. The National Anti-Fraud Network will grant access to the database to all the relevant taxi and private hire vehicle licensing bodies in the UK. Government are covering the cost of administering this vital safeguarding database.
Requiring the use of the database across England will ensure that licensing authorities have more of the information they need to make the correct decisions, preventing drivers who could do harm getting a license elsewhere without being challenged. This change will help protect passengers, and the reputations of the vast majority of drivers, from those who are unfit to hold a licence.
This vital improvement to passenger safety builds on wider work this Government are doing to protect the public, with the commitment to prioritise prevention, support survivors, and strengthen the pursuit of those who abuse their position of trust. This includes the new grooming gangs taskforce that the Prime Minister announced to root out and put more perpetrators behind bars. We are also fundamentally transforming victims’ experiences through the new Victims and Prisoners Bill, amplifying their voices and strengthening their care.
[HCWS746]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
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.
Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency
Thursday 27th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 View all Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-V Fifth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (25 Apr 2023)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Failure to prevent fraudFailure to prevent fraud
(1) A relevant body which is a large organisation is guilty of an offence if, in a financial year of the body (“the year of the fraud offence”), a person who is associated with the body (“the associate”) commits a fraud offence intending to benefit (whether directly or indirectly)—(a) the relevant body, or(b) any person to whom, or to whose subsidiary, the associate provides services on behalf of the relevant body.(2) But the relevant body is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(b) if the body itself was, or was intended to be, a victim of the fraud offence.(3) It is a defence for the relevant body to prove that, at the time the fraud offence was committed—(a) the body had in place such prevention procedures as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the body to have in place, or(b) it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the body to have any prevention procedures in place.(4) In subsection (3) “prevention procedures” means procedures designed to prevent persons associated with the body from committing fraud offences as mentioned in subsection (1).(5) A “fraud offence” is an act which constitutes—(a) an offence listed in Schedule (Failure to prevent fraud: fraud offences) (a “listed offence”), or(b) aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of a listed offence.(6) For the purposes of this section a person is associated with a relevant body if—(a) the person is an employee, agent or subsidiary of the relevant body, or(b) the person otherwise performs services for or on behalf of the body. (7) Whether or not a particular person performs services for or on behalf of a relevant body is to be determined by reference to all the relevant circumstances and not merely by reference to the nature of the relationship between that person and the body. (8) Where a relevant body is liable to be proceeded against for an offence under subsection (1) in a particular part of the United Kingdom, proceedings against the body for the offence may be taken in any place in the United Kingdom.(9) Where by virtue of subsection (8) proceedings against a relevant body for an offence are to be taken in Scotland—(a) the body may be prosecuted, tried and punished in a sheriff court district determined by the Lord Advocate, as if the offence had been committed in that district, and(b) the offence is, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment, deemed to have been committed in that district.(10) A relevant body guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine;(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;(c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.(11) In this section—“relevant body” means a body corporate or a partnership (wherever incorporated or formed);“sheriff court district” is to be read in accordance with the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (see section 307(1) of that Act).(12) In this section “financial year”—(a) in relation to a UK company, has the meaning given by the Companies Act 2006 (see section 390 of that Act);(b) in relation to a relevant body that is not a UK company means—(i) any period in respect of which a profit and loss account of the relevant body is required to be made up (by its constitution or by the law under which it is established), whether that period is a year or not, or(ii) if the body is not required by its constitution or the law under which it is established to draw up a profit and loss account, a calendar year.”Member’s explanatory statement
This clause together with new clauses (Fraud offences: supplementary) to (Failure to prevent fraud: miscellaneous), Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s amendments at page 173 lines 21, 33, 36 and 37 and page 315 line 20 and new Schedule (Failure to prevent fraud: fraud offences) provide for a new offence of failure to prevent fraud.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 84A, I will also speak to other government amendments in this group, which create a failure to prevent fraud offence. I first thank the many noble Lords in Committee today for their continued engagement on these amendments and corporate criminal liability more generally. These conversations have been robust but constructive, and I am sure that we will have a lively debate today.
Let me start by reiterating the Government’s commitment to reform of corporate criminal liability— CCL—and to tackling fraud. That is why, in 2017, the Ministry of Justice issued a call for evidence; then, in November 2020, the Government commissioned the Law Commission to explore further this area. The Law Commission report was published in June last year. The Government have been reviewing the report and its extensive consultation and working with relevant stakeholders, including prosecuting agencies, to explore options for reform. My ministerial colleagues and I are of course also grateful for the extremely helpful insight and input from various noble Lords in this House and Members in the other place.
The tabling of these amendments to introduce a new failure to prevent fraud offence is a major and tangible demonstration of action. This offence will crack down on fraudulent practices by corporations. It is one part of the Government’s wider fraud strategy, due for publication shortly. Under the new offence, a large organisation will be liable to prosecution where fraud was committed by an employee, for the organisation’s benefit, and the organisation did not have reasonable fraud prevention procedures in place. The new offence will help to protect victims and cut crime by driving a culture change towards improved fraud prevention procedures in organisations and by holding organisations to account through prosecutions if they profit from the fraudulent actions of their employees. We are giving law enforcement and prosecutors the powers they have asked for to tackle organisations that defraud consumers, other businesses, investors and the taxpayer.
The offence has been designed to drive change and facilitate prosecutions without duplicating existing regulation or placing unnecessary burden on legitimate business. It will therefore apply only to large organisations, to avoid disproportionate burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises. A strong UK economy must be an environment that supports people to open and grow businesses. Of course, we encourage small organisations to take steps to prevent fraud and learn from the guidance that the Government publish. There are also existing powers to prosecute them and their employees if they commit fraud, but we need to keep the burden on business in check. The new offence covers fraud and false accounting, while keeping money laundering responsibilities contained under the existing regulatory regime. This ensures that the offence is targeted, focused on offences most likely to be committed by corporations and where prevention can have the most impact, and not duplicative of existing regimes.
The amendments include a statutory duty to publish guidance to set out what would be considered reasonable fraud prevention procedures, making the expectations on business clear. There have been cross-party calls for this measure, both in this House and the other place. I look forward to debating the detail today, but I trust that your Lordships will overall welcome and support these amendments, to ensure that we tackle fraud in corporate bodies. I beg to move.
Amendment 84AA
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with consequential amendments to Amendment 84C, would extend the Government’s failure to prevent offence to all relevant organisations regardless of size. Instead of allowing the Government to amend or remove the applicability to large organisations, these amendments would apply the offence to all organisations by default, with the Government able to restrict it to large organisations by affirmative resolution.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. As the Minister has set out, amendments were brought forward in the other place on Report by Sir Robert Buckland and Sir Bob Neill. The Government undertook to produce their own amendments, which they have indeed done. We should recognise that these amendments, on failure to prevent fraud, are a positive move forward, but they are overdue. Without sounding too churlish, had this offence been in place at the time of the financial crisis, the authorities could have had effective prosecutions during, for example, the Libor and Euribor scandals. So, good news, but there are some qualifications, as set out in my amendments.
The government amendments have a considerably reduced scope in limiting it to large businesses, which was certainly not the intention of the Buckland/Neill process in the other place. As we have heard, there is an exemption for small and medium-sized businesses, but it does not address the fact that SMEs are just as much, if not more, at risk of fraud as big companies. It is just as important to encourage them to have the right procedures in place as it is large companies.
Hence my Amendments 84CA, 84CB and 84CC. Together, they seek to amend the Government’s amendments, extending their failure to prevent offence to all relevant organisations regardless of size. Instead of allowing the Government to amend or remove the applicability to large organisations, these amendments would apply the offence to all organisations by default. However, the Government would be able to restrict it to large organisations by a subsequent affirmative resolution, if experience required them to do so.
The Minister said that small and medium-sized enterprises had been excluded to avoid a disproportionate burden on them. It would be useful for him to explain on what basis that assessment has been made and what evidence there is to support that. We have not seen it, so it would be very useful to know. In my view and that of others, the carve-out for SMEs is short-sighted and unnecessary. The Law Commission did not accept arguments for thresholds to apply to failure to prevent offences in its June 2022 options paper and the House of Lords rejected exemptions for SMEs when scrutinising the Bribery Act 2010. SMEs are not excluded from AML or the National Security and Investment Act, so why have the Government taken this view in this case?
There is also concern that this amendment is limited to offences that take place in the UK or have UK victims. If the offence takes place abroad, in cases where a UK company has failed to prevent fraud and there are no UK victims, UK enforcement agencies would have no grounds to pursue the corporate body. This lack of extraterritoriality is not present in already existing FTP, bribery and tax evasion offences. It is unclear why the Government are creating such inconsistencies in the corporate criminal liability framework. Why have they made this carve-out? There is a lot of expertise waiting to speak on this group, so I will stand aside, except to say that I strongly support Amendments 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sharpe for the courtesy he has shown to me and other noble Lords in holding meetings, along with his officials, to explain the Government’s case on failure to prevent and the adjustment of the law of corporate liability. It has been very helpful to have some understanding of where they are coming from and where they intend to go. It is fair to say that he was more forthcoming in those meetings than he was in providing an explanation for the SME carve-out this afternoon. I thank not only him but the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for tabling his amendments, which I support, and for his mention of the amendments I have tabled.
The amendments that I have tabled are exactly the same, almost to the semicolon, as amendments that I have tabled not only in this Parliament, since the 2019 general election, to Bills dealing with economic and financial crime, but also to Bills that I spoke to when a Member of the other place. I have taken an interest in how we deal with economic crime since I became the Solicitor-General in 2010. I appreciate that that was a long time ago and that my noble friend the Minister probably did not have a particular interest in the subject all that time ago. None the less, I appreciate that many will find what I have to say unoriginal, not least because I have said it so many times before but also because it aligns with what others on all sides of the House and in both Houses have been advocating for some little while.
I will first deal with the SME carve-out, which is provided for in one of the government amendments. I suppose it is fair to say that half a loaf is better than no loaf and that a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. However, after nearly 15 years, following the banking crash of 2008-09, the subject of economic crime and corporate misfeasance has been if not on the top of everyone’s agenda every day then certainly close to it. For the Government to come up with a carve-out in the way that they have—bear in mind that we are only talking about failure to prevent fraud at the moment—is disappointing.
What we are here required to understand by Amendment 84C, proposed by the Government, is that if a company or business has a turnover of less than £36 million, has a balance sheet total of less than £18 million and has fewer than 250 employees, it should not be caught by the failure to prevent fraud.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My noble friend Lord Leigh is entirely right: you have to pick two of this lucky trio and you are away.
One only has to think briefly about start-up businesses and the pressures that they come under when they may have very few employees and a turnover of much less than the Government indicate to realise that the danger of an associated person committing an act of fraud is not predicated on the size of the company. It is also possible to say that there will be people who will so construct their corporate affairs that each bit of their corporate existence is by some happenstance just below or well below the Amendment 84C cut-offs.
In any event—I have bored my noble friend the Minister with my feeble sense of humour on a number of occasions—there is no similar cut-off for failure to prevent bribery under the Bribery Act 2010 and no equivalent cut-off under the Criminal Finances Act 2017. Although my noble friend tells me that, after much consultation and because they do not wish to impose unnecessary burdens on business, the Government have come up with these numbers, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, indicated, I have yet to hear a reason why they have landed on those figures or why as a matter of principle they have chosen to have a carve-out at all.
Here comes my feeble joke, so stand by. A burglar of five foot four should be prosecuted just as vigorously as a burglar of six foot six. There is no carve-out for small people committing crimes and there should be no carve-out for small businesses that fail to prevent crimes. When the prosecuting authorities—I look with respect at the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven—come to consider whether it is in the public interest, assuming that there is evidence, to initiate the prosecution, no doubt one of the factors that they will take into account is whether it is in the public interest to pursue that prosecution, bearing in mind the small size of the company and the mitigating steps that it took to do its best to avoid an associated person committing a criminal offence.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself entirely with the remarks of appreciation and thanks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, to the Minister and his team for their engagement on all aspects on the Bill—to the extent that I have been engaged in them, but I think I speak for everyone when I say that.
To summarise in a blunter way what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was saying, I suspect that if we in this Committee voted on this issue, and indeed on all the amendments tabled by members of the Committee, the Minister would find himself in a minority of two. My sense—to the degree to which I can be relied upon to have the ear of Parliament—is that, when this comes back on Report, it will not be difficult to persuade a substantial majority in your Lordships’ House to vote for these. There is also a strong echo of support coming from the other House; anyone who has read the Commons Report stage from 25 January will know that there is overwhelming support there for this trend, if not the specifics.
I intend to restrict my remarks to the two halves of the loaf described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, but I support all the other amendments. I do not need to go through them, although I may have something to say before I sit down about the amendments from the Select Committee that I had the pleasure to serve on, since for personal reasons I may need to leave the Committee earlier than I would have hoped.
As we have heard, the new clauses are welcome in so far as they impose a duty to prevent fraud in large organisations. Helpfully, the main amendment and consequential amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would invert the Government’s approach whereby we can amend to remove the applicability to large organisations. I have to say that the existence of that provision suggests that the Government think they may need to do that. Instead, the amendments would extend the Government’s failure to prevent offences to all relevant organisations regardless of size.
If the Bill is to fashion the real cultural change that has been promised, that approach is surely better calculated to achieve a sweeping change, analogous to that achieved by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, which has been referred to in debates. It is not just about imposing these measures on the companies and associates themselves, but ensuring that this becomes part of public, business and, in particular, corporate consciousness, empowering individuals to identify and report crime—particularly fraud and money laundering, which are the main crimes being committed in the economic crime environment—they feel is taking place.
In support of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the vulnerability of SMEs to crime, I shall refer to a couple of headline statistics that could be useful for context. For example, the US-based Association of Certified Fraud Examiners found that private companies and small businesses have the most fraud simply because of the lack of internal controls, which we see as a regulatory burden, but they do not need to be as they would help these businesses to protect themselves from fraud. Fraud was proportionally significantly greater in these businesses than it was in larger companies.
On 25 January, on the second day of Report in the other place, John Penrose’s argument in his intervention on Stephen Kinnock is an interesting one, in that it fundamentally challenges the Government’s assumption about a duty to prevent imposing an unreasonable and unbearable burden upon small businesses. It suggests instead that a simple duty to prevent could not only reduce the burden of criminality but
“sweep away a raft of largely ineffective and deeply costly measures, and replace them with something that is simpler”
and “more effective” for small businesses.
In a statement on 11 April, Spotlight on Corruption stated:
“The carve out for SMEs is … desperately short-sighted and entirely unnecessary … By including this exemption, the government has deprived the corporate sector as a whole of the full benefit of this offence. SMEs are known to be at a high risk of fraud, and encouraging them to have appropriate anti-fraud procedures would not only help prevent fraud, but also better protect them from becoming victims of fraud”.
As Robert Buckland reminded the Minister on 25 January, the 2015 Conservative manifesto
“rightly committed the Government to make it illegal for companies to fail to put in place measures to prevent economic crime”.—[Official Report, Commons, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25/1/23; cols. 1057-61.]
In what respect does that commitment not find an echo in calls to ensure that this failure to prevent is in operation throughout the economy, rather than just in companies that sit above what appears to be an arbitrarily drawn threshold?
The Government’s attempt to draw a false dichotomy between corporates and smaller companies fails to appreciate that all these sectors are inextricably linked. There is no Chinese wall between corporates and small businesses. In terms of fraud and money laundering, money is directed to where its origins and purpose will get the smallest amount of scrutiny. It would be extremely easy for companies to restructure themselves to ensure that they could limbo under the bar of meeting the test of being a large organisation and ensure that they avoid being subject to this duty to prevent. There is certainly no shortage of people out there who seem willing to enable them to restructure their businesses in ways that achieve this objective, directing them to where the origins and purposes will receive the smallest amount of scrutiny.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will permit me to speak now, because I may not be able to stay for the whole of the debate on this group. I apologise to those who still have to speak to their amendments. I will comment on two aspects of these amendments. The first is the carve-out for organisations that are not large.
The original legislation that provided for a prevention of crime scenario was the Bribery Act 2010. I was the chairman of the Law Commission when that project began, under pressure from the OECD on the Government because of this country’s poor rating on bribery. As at least two noble Lords have pointed out, there was no carve-out for small organisations. I am satisfied in my own mind that, had we created such a carve-out, it would not have satisfied the OECD. It is important that there be consistency in the law. If there is to be a change from the position on bribery to the position here on fraud, there must be a good reason to do so. To produce inconsistency in broadly comparable situations seems bad law. That is the only thing I wanted to say about that.
As a member of what I am afraid the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, would describe as the legal establishment, I urge some caution in changing the principles of vicarious liability in relation to criminal responsibility for companies. Again, the question of consistency is important; if this is to move forward, we must look at the ramifications across the whole of criminal law, and there has to be a very good reason why this area is selected for different treatment. I know that this is anathema to so many people here, but it would be a good subject for the Law Commission to look at. Of course, it would not be able to do so by Report. However, if the proposal has merit, it warrants a much wider investigation for its impact elsewhere.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward an amendment—it is at least a start. My noble friend the Minister said that he enjoys a lively debate and was looking forward to another one today, so I do not want to disappoint him. I speak as an SME; cut me in half, and that is what I am, and have been all my life. Indeed, my interest in SMEs long predates my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s interest in bribery, as I set up my first business in 1978.
My point is that I absolutely understand how SMEs think, so it is not credible to say, “Oh, we must protect them”. For a start, the way in which the categories are set excludes probably 90% of businesses in this country. I cannot work it out exactly, but it is the vast majority of commercial activity, so that makes a nonsense, frankly, of what is being suggested. On the fair application of law, to respond to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, a 5 foot 3 inch burglar can do just as much damage as a 6 foot 6 one. There is no logic to that—and I speak not as a lawyer but as a simple businessman.
More profoundly, unless we bring about this culture change, we are not going to get the SME community to think about fraud. If you are a victim of fraud and have the mechanisms in place to detect it because of other people doing it to you, you are far less likely to have it committed against you. All we are doing is creating an artificial bubble for people who are victims. I keep banging on about this figure, but 40% of crime in this country is now economic crime, of which fraud is a large part. So as for the idea that we are protecting SMEs in any way—we are not.
Perhaps the most important element is the professional enabler—the accountant and solicitor. We heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, the other day that the behaviour of the legal profession is not perhaps as pristine as it was 20 years ago. If it can take short cuts because someone looks like a juicy client, then the temptation exists. Only 100 of the 10,000 law firms in this country would have to comply with this carve-out—so that is nonsense, too. Then we come to public procurement. I was procurement Minister, and we have had a great success in government in the last few years, doubling the amount of money going from public procurement to SMEs from £20 billion to nearly £40 billion. If this provision comes in, it will have a kind of freezing effect on government. I know what officials are like—they are very cautious people and, if they feel they are taking a risk by contracting with SMEs because they, in turn, are not doing proper fraud checks, it will be another reason not to use them. So there is that perverse impact.
If we go a bit further, large corporations will find ways round this. They can create separate subsidiaries and they can use all the things we have been talking about, such as different ownership in different jurisdictions, so this will not solve the problem. The point has also been made about inconsistency: bribery has not had a carve-out for SMEs, so why should this? I ask my noble friend to put a cold towel round his head and those of his officials and come up with a credible explanation.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the government amendment. It is a step in the right direction, but I think the Minister will hear fairly similar arguments from all of us as to why it does not go far enough—I will be doing the same thing. In simple terms, the offence that the amendment creates is that the company becomes liable if an employee of the company commits a fraud offence with the intention to benefit the company. I am struggling to understand why, if the employee of a smaller company with, say 25 or even 200 employees, commits fraud intended to benefit the company, that company should not be guilty.
At the risk of introducing a new question at this point in the debate, which I am quite pleased to be able to do, I do not understand how this works for groups of companies. Are the numbers calculated on the basis of consolidated figures or, as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, suggested, could you just create a subsidiary specifically for the purpose of carrying out the fraud? If it is not on a consolidated basis, it cannot make sense at all.
I have worked for both large and small companies in my career and the reality is that it is much more likely that the directors of a small company will know what their employees are up to than those with a big company. They do not necessarily need burdensome processes to know what has happened. They are in the same office, they are walking the same floor and they are hearing the phone calls. In any event, it should be the responsibility of any company to have in place reasonable procedures to ensure that its employees do not commit fraud on its behalf. Frankly, that should be a basic minimum to be allowed to be in business. Because of the defences that are included, all that is required is to have in place
“such prevention procedures as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to expect”,
or to have no such procedures in place if that would be reasonable. Whether those procedures are considered reasonable in all the circumstances will be driven in part by the size and activity of the company. The Government have also given themselves power to provide guidance as do what would be reasonable and they could easily tailor that for smaller companies, so we really do not need to remove them from scope. In the absence of compelling reasons from the Minister, I would be minded to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
The other element that seems to be missing from the government amendment is any personal liability of the company management. Without this, those who turn a blind eye to fraud can hide behind the limited liability of the company. If someone has been involved in the decision-making process that led to the failure to take reasonable steps to prevent fraud from being carried out on behalf of the company, they should personally be on the hook. Personal liability concentrates minds wonderfully. Finally, as we have heard, the amendment does not deal with the identity doctrine, which the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, tries to. Again, why not?
At Second Reading, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said that this Bill
“will bear down even further on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists who abuse our open economy, and it will strengthen the UK’s reputation as a place where legitimate business can thrive, while ensuring that dirty money has no place to hide … The Bill will ensure that law enforcement and the private sector have the tools needed to help tackle economic crime, including fraud and money laundering”.—[Official Report, 8/2/23; col. 1250.]
As currently drafted, it does not achieve those aims. The UK, sadly, does not have a reputation as a place where
“dirty money has no place to hide”—
depressingly, the opposite is true. If we want to make a real difference and repair our damaged reputation, we must take genuinely robust steps.
Throughout our debates in Committee, the Government have resisted a whole range of sensible suggestions that would strengthen our fight against economic crime. Here we are again, with a set of amendments from the Government that are just too weak. The suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and others would not create a disproportionate burden on businesses but would strengthen our reputation. I am becoming baffled and rather depressed by the Government’s continued reluctance to take genuinely strong action to reduce the levels of economic crime and, without genuinely compelling reasons from the Minister, I will support the noble Lords’ amendments. We have heard many times in our debates that this is a once in a decade opportunity to tackle this. We really have to take it.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I will have more to say shortly on Amendments 91 and 94, but I will make some brief points on the Government’s proposed offence. I also take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne—in case he is not here later—for his support not only for the committee but for Amendment 94.
Like others, I welcome the Government’s proposed offence. As we have heard, it is a long-overdue step in the right direction. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier set out quite how long he and others have been calling for such an amendment. In looking at this, I was drawn to the fact sheet on the failure to prevent offence published by the Government on GOV.UK, which rightly says:
“Fraud is the most common offence in this country, amounting to 41% of all crime”
in England
“in the year ending September 2022”.
That is absolutely right, but the trouble with this amendment—to introduce a new point, which is quite good, rather than repeating and supporting what everybody else has said—is that, as we found in the inquiry, the 41% referred to in the fact sheet would not, on the whole, be caught by it. That is because the government amendment requires the company whose employee has committed the fraud to have benefited from it. As we will discuss later, the vast majority of frauds are not committed in a way that benefits the company, which often is the platform used to perpetrate a fraud on innocent victims.
My noble friend the Minister mentioned the forthcoming fraud strategy, which I am sure he will be as relieved as the rest of us finally to see, not least because we will all stop asking him when it will be published. I understand that “imminently” really does mean quite imminently, but we are all dependent on the Downing Street grid. However, it is important that we see it before Report, because it will be difficult for the Government to resolve these issues in a way that will keep both Houses happy—as we have heard, the House of Commons wants to see change on this—without seeing that strategy, which will provide part of an answer as to how this country will tackle fraud.
I have talked about why the drafting of this proposed offence is insufficient in requiring an employee or associated person to benefit the company. We have heard much from noble Lords about the small companies exemption. I support the queries raised about why that has been introduced. When listening to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, it occurred to me that part of the problem, and perhaps the reason why the Government think it is acceptable to have this exemption and others do not, is that, as we found in the inquiry, there is a total lack of research into who is committing these frauds—the types of companies involved and how big they are—who is benefiting and the size of those companies. The Government need to commission far more research into this whole area.
As we have heard, this offence is about driving cultural change. That is needed in companies of all sizes, not just the very largest. I was struck by my noble friend Lord Agnew’s comment about the significant number of law firms that would be exempted if this exemption were to take place. Speaking as a former solicitor, I think that he is absolutely right. Most solicitors’ firms are tiny; we know that they and others can be enablers of fraud and other economic crime, so to exempt them makes absolutely no sense.
I add my support to calls for, if not reform of the identification doctrine, at least commissioning to look seriously at how this might be changed. The trouble with this offence is partly that in proposing it many years after it was first called for, the Government are late in solving this problem and therefore late in realising just how much corporates have changed. The lack of a directing mind in corporate bodies is much harder to discern in the 21st century than it would have been in the 19th century.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
May I just briefly make four points? First, as regards exempting small companies, as a director of one or two small companies that are charities, I can see no reason at all why we should exempt them. Your accountant always goes through what measures you have in place to prevent fraud, and it is extraordinarily difficult to understand what the costs are.
Secondly, from the way in which the Bill is drafted, it plainly means a single body corporate. There is a whole host of good reasons why you would structure your corporate activities over a host of different companies. It is critical that, if you are to have a limit, it must include all associated companies. You can see a good illustration of the way this is done in the provisions of the Building Safety Act 2022 that deal with remediation in relation to cladding. The Government dealt with it there because so many SPVs—special purpose vehicles—are used in the property industry, and you simply cannot permit them to be treated separately. Certainly, there are extremely good reasons sometimes to structure your partnerships as a whole lot of separate partnerships, partly to limit your liability for negligence. However, it should not apply in relation to fraud.
Thirdly, dealing with two out of three tests is not sensible. Looking at the way in which you suggest fines be imposed on companies, if you are to go down this route, the variety of the ways in which companies operate is so enormous that if you are to have an exemption, you should catch as many as possible. Again, if you do not have a structure that brings in everyone, the position is more complex.
Lastly, I will say something about the reform of the doctrine of corporate responsibility. Of course, I agree with my noble and learned friend, and former colleague, Lord Etherton that we need to be very careful. However, we are trying to tackle economic crime, and there is therefore a special case to be made for dealing with that. If we say that we have to wait until we have the whole of the criminal law sorted out, although one or two people in this Room may see it in their lifetime—I see that the Minister has a young team behind him—the law moves with incredible slowness in reforming criminal justice, and if we do not go through with this in this Bill, I doubt whether even the young members of the team will see any change, not merely during their time at the Home Office but in their lifetimes. We ought to move now.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, against the extraordinarily high rate of fraud offending, we have to set the fact that fraud is the most under-prosecuted offence within this jurisdiction. There is no doubt about that, and no doubt that people in the country understand it, are aware of it and are extremely angry about it, particularly victims of this crime. I would hazard a guess that virtually everybody present knows at least one person who has been the victim of a fraud that has not been prosecuted; I know several. That is a lot of people who are not getting justice—on both sides of the transaction, I might say. I therefore welcome this amendment but I am disappointed that SMEs have been carved out, largely because, on the Government’s own figures, no less than 99.9% of businesses in the UK are SMEs. That is a significant statistic when we are considering the size of this carve-out and the impact it is likely to have on the Government’s objectives.
Some comparisons have been made with the Bribery Act 2010, specifically Section 7, and the “failure to prevent” offence in that legislation. Similar arguments about SMEs were made during the debates that led to that legislation, including the claim that if SMEs were included within it then that would impact on their ability to export. I am sure these are the sorts of arguments the Government have in mind when excluding SMEs from this legislation—that somehow it would be too burdensome for SMEs, some of which, to most of us, are very large companies indeed. So it is germane that in 2015, the government survey of SMEs and the impact of the Bribery Act on them found that nine out of 10 had no concerns or problems whatever with the Act, and that 89% felt it had had no impact on their ability to export.
As the Committee has heard, when your Lordships’ House undertook post-legislative scrutiny of the Bribery Act, it concluded that there was no need for any statutory exemption for SMEs from the Act. The Law Commission similarly received submissions arguing that SMEs should be excluded from corporate liability reform. It disagreed and did not recommend any statutory exemption for SMEs. Furthermore, government research on SME adoption of preventive procedures in relation to the Bribery Act found that the average cost for an SME was £2,730, with medium-sized enterprises spending an average of £4,610. These are tiny figures that could not conceivably justify exclusion of SMEs from this legislation on the basis that it would be too burdensome for them. Points have already been made about the extent to which the Government are encouraging the placing of public procurement contracts with SMEs, and that is also highly significant.
Since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has raised the question of prosecutorial discretion—it seems only yesterday that he was Solicitor-General, but that may be a sign of my age as much as his— I say in support of him that the amendment as drafted places a great deal of discretion at the disposal of prosecutors. The defence set out under new subsection (3)(b) is:
“It is a defence for the relevant body to prove that, at the time the fraud offence was committed … it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the body to have any prevention procedures in place”.
That is a potential carve-out that would deal with any problem or concern the Government have that the amendment’s impact might be disproportionate on SMEs. For all the reasons I have set out, I do not believe that it would be. I believe the real effect would be to leave whole swathes of business activity completely unaffected by this legislation so that, in effect, fraud would continue—disgracefully, in my view—to be an under-prosecuted offence.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, referred earlier to making feeble jokes. Anyone who was here on Tuesday heard my feeble joke for this year, so the Committee will be relieved to know that I am not going to make any more.
I agree with all the previous speakers that the idea of creating a legal cliff edge, with whole, untouched schools of fish swimming in the sea below the cliff, is both problematic and fundamentally pointless. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about enablers; we will be coming to that issue later, and it is a real concern. To me, it is rather like saying that SMEs do not need to worry about health and safety or do not need cyber security, and only the big firms do. Both those assertions are patently nonsense, but that seems to be the flavour of what we are faced with here with this cliff edge. I hope the Committee enjoyed my analogy about the fish.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I apologise for not speaking to the Bill at Second Reading. I was unable to take part because I could not commit to be at both the start and the finish that day. I hope noble Lords will forgive me. I declare my interest as a member of last year’s Select Committee, chaired so ably by my noble friend Lady Morgan, who is sitting beside me.
I shall speak to all the amendments in this group, which are directed globally at the failure to prevent fraud. Some of what I will say now will be relevant to what I will say in respect of Amendments 91 and 94, when I shall be much briefer. It is much easier to get the whole thing over at this point.
Amendment 84A is a start, but I am afraid it is an inadequate start. I wonder, with all respect, whether the Government actually read carefully and understood our committee’s substantial report. The committee heard a welter of evidence from everyone across the whole gamut. It was absolutely plain to us that a vast amount of fraud is happening and nothing is being done.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I find some of these amendments tricky, really. Clearly, we are all keen to prevent fraud but I frequently wear the hat of the SME company. I should make the further declaration that I am the director of a number of SMEs and an investor in many more—not many successful ones but, none the less, I put my money in and hope. I have read the Law Commission’s options paper and the briefing papers from the APPG on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax, and I have had the pleasure of innumerable discussions with the very persuasive Margaret Hodge and her extremely capable team. Congratulations to them; they have got the Government to move to the much-promised amendments from the other place, the debate on which I read carefully. Clearly, we all want to beef up failure to prevent and the amendments go a long way to doing that.
I broadly support the principle of excluding small companies and I shall explain a bit more about why. However, I agree that the terms here are a bit odd. Needless to say, I am a bit worried about a company with 250 employees turning over only £36 million—it is more bust than small. I suspect, however, that these are EU figures, translated from the euro; I do not how they were arrived at but they may need some polish. They are definitely more “M” than “S”, and thought might be given to restricting ourselves to “S” rather than “M”. Needless to say, one looks at one’s business to see whether one is within scope —and, of course, I was reminded that the problem is with the balance sheet qualification. Ordinarily, I never thought that it would apply but, as fellow members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales will recall, the recent brilliant accounting standards brought in require one to capitalise leases in the balance sheet, meaning that companies’ assets are, frankly, grossly inflated. This definition refers only to gross assets, not net assets, so you will capture many more companies than you thought you might if you stick to that definition. I urge another look at the actual definition, if this route is taken.
It is certainly possible for large companies to develop procedures and systems, but smaller ones are, frankly, stretched with other matters, such as, essentially, how to pay the next payroll and survive. It is not reasonable to expect many of them to stop working, sit down and have a cup of tea and dream up preventive procedures. Of course, business owners do not want to see fraud because, at the end of the day, they will be the main losers. However, I can see lawyers advising on the purchase of massive amounts of belts and braces, given the penalties, which could be a massive distraction from the incredibly challenging job of trying to run a business and make a profit, which is difficult enough. I suggest that we see how large companies cope with the Bill, what it means in practice, what “preventive measures” —the guidance is yet to come—actually means, and then give ourselves the power to bring in small companies if we feel it is appropriate at a later stage, once we see what happens in practice.
I also have some concerns about Amendment 101, on the senior manager responsibilities. Of course, I strongly support measures which are likely to reduce economic crime. However, I note that an assessment produced by the Law Commission on individual criminal liability concluded that
“in principle, directors etc, should not be personally criminally liable on the basis of neglect if the offence is one which requires proof of a particular mental state. Liability for directors on the basis of neglect should be restricted to offences of strict liability or negligence”.
We have some way to go to make me feel comfortable that those are right.
There are other outstanding issues concerning senior manager liability, specifically how this would be monitored and enforced. The legal obligations on senior managers at the moment affect the UK’s competitiveness, particularly when trying to recruit talent at senior levels. So I would be reticent to encourage the introduction of significant legislative change without a broad assessment, which I would welcome, of the likely impact. That means consulting with industry and an official impact assessment that considers international comparisons of the effect, particularly on recruiting senior staff. Therefore, I would welcome some more consultation and consideration of the consequences of this reform.
On the proposed changes to the “identification doctrine”, clearly, amending it is essential to tackle the most egregious intentional behaviour; I get that. Here, of course, it is easier to see that in a small company—the Victorian brothers example—the directors could be guilty of this behaviour and, in an overzealous environment of trying to score wins, they could be prosecuted first, quickly and more easily. However, where you have a company consisting of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people, can we be certain that the act of a few rogue managers or even one manager a long way down the reporting structure should rightly lead to the sort of punishments suggested in some of these amendments?
That does not sit easily with me, and again, I still want to be convinced that we are in sync with our major international competitors. Let us not forget that while FDI into the UK has historically been very high, it is not now. The UK stock market is out of fashion, and countries all around the world are seeking to attract our businesses to set up offshore. Any legislation we bring in has to be very mindful of that.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I think it falls to me to start the winding-up speeches, but noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not try to repeat everything that everybody else has said. I declare my interest as a director of both a large company and small companies; I set up my own first business in 1981, so I have spent most of my life as a business owner.
In this group I support the amendments mainly led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I hate to break with the gentle congratulations that have been given to the Government for at least doing something, but having such a weak amendment could well be counterproductive. The Government could think that they have done something when, as has already been exposed by many colleagues, it does very little. It will exempt most companies and it probably will not touch where action is needed most.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. Various contributions that have been made show that we should see the Government’s amendments as a starting point, but they have considerable work to do. I have decided that I shall not make the speech I was going to make because that is such an important point.
I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I looked again at the report that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, brought forward last November, and I have been struck by the point made by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about cultural change and how important it is that that is taken forward.
I have two specific questions for the Minister that have not been mentioned in the debate so far. First, I think the Committee’s plea to the Minister is that the Government have an opportunity now to make a real difference through the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked, are we going to miss that opportunity? Are we going to think in a few months’ time, after it has passed, that we had a legislative vehicle by which some of these issues could have been sorted out but this was the Government’s position?
I have been a Member of the other place as well, as have other Members of the Committee, and I know that a Government have not only to look at the votes but to reflect on what is being said. You can tell from the discussions that we all have with our colleagues in the other place that there is a mood for change. To an extent, that has been brought about by what the Government have done but it simply does not go far enough. If the Government set their face against this, whip the votes in the other place and say, “We’re just going to drive this through. We don’t care what the reports have said or what the arguments are. This is where we are”, this will have been a real missed opportunity.
Politically I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but his approach should give this Committee hope. In other Bills that we have debated, change has been brought about by speeches made in Committees such as this one, and indeed by votes lost in the other Chamber.
The Government have to move on some of this—they simply do. I agree that the SME carve-out is flawed and should not be there, and the Government need to move on that; they cannot just set their face against it and say, “Everybody else is wrong and we’re right”. Usually, if everybody is telling you that you are wrong, you are wrong, frankly, whether you are in government or in a family. The Government are being told, in report after report and in interview after interview, by virtually everyone without exception—there may be one—that they have to change. The question is really not whether the amendments are flawed or inadequate or whether a sentence needs changing here or there; government lawyers can sort that out. In Committee the Minister will read out his brief, but between Committee and Report, will the Government at least try to adapt and change and listen to some of the points being made? That is the fundamental question, and that is why I decided that I would not repeat what has been said.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, will he clarify Labour’s position from the Dispatch Box: that it would be happy with one clause that requires prevention procedures to apply to an extremely large, multinational financial services company, for example, and to a local sweet shop which was incorporated? The noble Lord says that everyone agrees. According to the soundings I have taken from small business organisations, they would not be happy with that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I said everyone on the Committee —with the possible exception of the noble Lord. I was talking about how people feel about the Bill as drafted, with the carve-out for small and medium-sized enterprises. The noble Lord was referring to something that might include not the small but the medium, and that is a matter for debate, but the general view of the Committee was that the Government’s current carve-out is not acceptable. Where you put the threshold—whether you apply to a little sweet shop at the end of the road with a turnover of a few thousand pounds the same regulation you apply to a multinational company—could be sorted out in regulations, and if we saw them, we could suggest that they take into account the small sweet shop to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords—too numerous to mention—who have participated in this debate, and I shall try to address all the points put to me, but I apologise if I do not name everybody individually.
I feel I should declare an interest: I have owned and been a director of small businesses, not all of them successful—like my noble friend, Lord Leigh—and to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, I declare an interest as a tall man.
I will start with the amendments linked specifically to failure to prevent offences. I welcome the broad support today for the government amendments, which would, I emphasise, cover all sectors, and that includes telecoms companies. I hope that they deliver most of what the other amendments intend. However, I have noted that concerns remain. Obviously, I listened to the debate very carefully, including on the scope and reach of the new offence.
Before I turn specifically to the amendments, I reassure my noble friend Lady Morgan that the fraud strategy really is imminent. She is absolutely right: I am really keen to see it. I say to my noble friend Lord Leigh that his point about accounting principles was very interesting, but the design of the definition of large companies comes from the Companies Act 2006.
I note the wider offence lists put forward in Amendments 96, 97, 98 and 99, tabled in the names of my noble and learned friend, Lord Garnier, my noble friend Lord Agnew, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. In particular, noble Lords seek to ensure that money laundering is covered by the new failure to prevent offence. The Government have consulted with law enforcement and prosecutors, and we are satisfied that all the priority offences have been included.
We have carefully examined the wider offence list and determined that they are not appropriate to include because they would duplicate existing regimes, cause repetition with other existing offences, are too broad or relate to preparatory offences. It is also worth noting that the Law Commission report published in June 2022 agrees with this. It highlighted that Part 2 of Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013, as Amendment 98 suggests, while a good starting point for considerations, would be too broad.
I turn to the proposed failure to prevent money laundering offence, as in Amendment 99, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. The UK already has a strong anti-money laundering regime which requires regulated sectors to implement a comprehensive set of measures to prevent money laundering. Corporations and individuals can face serious civil and criminal penalties if they fail to do so.
A failure to prevent money laundering offence would duplicate the systems, controls and penalties of the existing regime. Furthermore, it would extend anti-money laundering obligations to organisations with very low risk, which would be disproportionate. Any necessary anti-money laundering measures can be implemented through the existing regime. The Law Commission agreed with this point, noting that any offences to cover breaches of money laundering would create additional positive duties on organisations which would overlap with the duties under the anti-money laundering regime.
The Government’s review of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, published in June 2022, concluded that existing regulatory requirements allow for businesses to take a risk-based approach to their obligations, meaning their compliance activities can be targeted at areas of highest risk of money laundering and terrorist financing. The review also committed the Government to further analysis and public consultation to identify the best path for reform of the anti-money laundering supervisory regime. Further improvements to the UK’s anti-money laundering framework are therefore best targeted by strengthening and improving the existing regime, rather than by the creation of a new parallel regime. The Government have already committed to undertake further consultation on the anti-money laundering supervisory regime and continue to review the anti-money laundering framework.
Amendment 99 in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier also proposes a failure to prevent sanctions evasion offence. The UK can already impose a range of criminal and civil penalties against corporations and individuals for breaches of UK sanctions. Powers were strengthened last year when we moved civil penalties for financial sanctions on to a strict liability basis. Introducing a failure to prevent offence would duplicate the existing regime. On the scope of the offences, government Amendment 84B contains a power in secondary legislation to update the list when required.
I turn to Amendments 84AA, 84CA, 84CB and 84CC, on the threshold for the new offence, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank him for talking me through his concerns last week and I note that most other noble Lords have supported its intention. I will endeavour to set out the Government’s position on this. Our analysis shows that small businesses would be disproportionately affected by the costs of complying with a failure to prevent fraud offence. The total cost to small and medium-sized enterprises would amount to billions of pounds in year one and hundreds of millions in each subsequent year. This would significantly increase the cost of the measure, which is £98.5 million per annum with the threshold included. An affirmative power—
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
If the Government have done some analysis on that, could they share it with us? That would be very helpful.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am happy to investigate whether that is possible. If it is, I will do so.
An affirmative power to add a threshold in future, as proposed by the noble Lord’s amendments, would have limited impact on this burden, with the highest costs already borne should the offence apply to smaller organisations in year one. It is also important that we consider the cumulative compliance cost for SMEs across multiple government regulations, rather than seeing these fraud measures in isolation. Excluding SMEs from the new offence does not mean they can get away with fraud; powers already exist to prosecute small companies, their owners and their employees for criminal acts. It is currently easier to hold these companies to account than larger organisations with complex structures.
The Government’s proposed failure to prevent fraud offence will strengthen powers to tackle fraud by large organisations, ensuring that companies with the biggest customer bases which risk causing the most harm take extra steps to prevent fraud.
We will keep the threshold under review and can amend it through secondary legislation, if required. I know that some noble Lords argue that this power should be used the other way. However, given the potentially chilling impact on small businesses, I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is better to understand the impact on large companies once the measures are implemented, as my noble friend Lord Leigh has highlighted—as well as any trickle-down effect on smaller companies—before applying it more widely. The regulation-making power in the Government’s Amendment 84C enables this approach. The Government therefore firmly consider that the proposed failure to prevent fraud offence strikes an appropriate balance between the crime prevention benefits and the burden placed on business.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
I apologise to the Minister; I should have intervened slightly earlier. If the Minister has data on the likely cost of the extension of the provisions in the Government’s amendment to small and medium-sized enterprises, I think that all Members of the Committee would like to see it, including how it could be disaggregated. To make a proportionate decision, surely it would need to be accompanied by the Government’s estimate of the loss to small and medium-sized enterprises caused by fraud. Given the scale of fraud in this country, it must be significant. Personally, I would like to have the opportunity to compare what this is likely to cost against what fraud already costs small and medium-sized enterprises.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. As I have said, I will endeavour to find some more figures and share them more broadly. I do not know whether it will take into account the precise analysis that the noble Lord seeks, but the fraud strategy is imminent and it would be strange to publish a strategy without saying what the strategy is there to address. Once again, I am piling all my faith into the fraud strategy—possibly misplaced faith, who knows?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm the figure the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, put forward: that about 99% of businesses will be excluded? That was the figure that I found, but I would like to hear that from the Minister, as well as whether he thinks that is proportionate in the carve-out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I cannot confirm that. I do not know, but I will find out.
I will go back to Amendment 100 and talk about the identification doctrine. As noble Lords are aware, prosecuting corporates for serious crimes is challenging, largely as a result of the identification doctrine. This principle dictates that the acts and minds of the individuals who represent the directing mind and will are treated as the acts and minds of the corporate itself. In practice, it can be difficult to determine the “directing mind and will” of a corporation. Large and sometimes opaque governance structures make it challenging to identify a senior manager in charge of specific operations. This means that the current law applies unfairly to smaller business. As set out at Second Reading, the Government are fully committed to addressing this problem and to bringing forward legislative reform to achieve it. However, as noble Lords are aware through the amendments that they have tabled, whereas the identification doctrine currently applies to all crimes, the scope of this Bill can permit reform only for economic crime offences. I am as frustrated about that as other noble Lords.
While this amendment would improve the law for economic crimes, it would not remedy the current issues faced by prosecutors for all other sectors of criminal law. However—and I take a partial deep breath here for my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier—given our shared overall ambitions for reform, I would welcome further conversations ahead of Report on this subject. My officials are working through the list of offences with practitioners to determine whether the offences can be reformed without impacting the wider criminal law. My noble and learned friend will also be aware that we are committed to introducing reforms that can be effectively used by prosecuting agencies over a broad range of business. I am sure that he will also agree that is vital that any unintended consequences or risks be identified and understood. I hope that noble Lords are satisfied that the Government are absolutely committed to reform in this area, but that we want to ensure that any reform can be effectively utilised.
Turning to Amendment 101—
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
Before the Minister moves to another area, the figure I gave that SMEs account for 99.9% of all companies and business organisations in the UK comes from government statistics—namely, business population estimates for 2022.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that information; I will come back on that.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Absolutely; I shall get my abacus out. I turn to Amendment 101 on senior managers’ liability for failing to prevent economic crime, also tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier.
I agree that it is important that individuals, particularly the most senior ones, do not go unpunished for their involvement in committing economic crimes. Prosecutors already have a range of powers at their disposal to pursue decision-makers who enable or commit criminal offences in a corporate setting. This includes the power to prosecute individuals for substantive offending. For example, last year an individual was jailed for 12 years following a Serious Fraud Office investigation into a £226 million fraud.
Additional powers also exist which enable senior managers and directors to be prosecuted where they consent or connive in fraud, theft, money laundering or bribery. A director or manager who is convicted on the basis of their consent, connivance or neglect can be dealt with accordingly by the courts, including being sentenced to imprisonment. Also, under the Serious Crime Act 2007, a person, including a senior manager, is liable for encouraging or assisting the commission of a criminal offence. That includes fraud, false accounting or money laundering—the offences captured by the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. The individual found to be encouraging or assisting the commission of the offence can be prosecuted in the same way as if they commit the offence itself.
This amendment seeks to extend liability for senior managers on a lower basis for culpability than is normally provided for. It would allow a senior manager who takes a decision to be imprisoned for taking that decision, even if the offence is the action of a rogue employee. That would place a disproportionate burden on corporations and their senior management, which is likely to deter legitimate business from seeing the UK as a fair and safe place to conduct business. This amendment is therefore not appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about extraterritoriality. Our approach is focused on cutting crime in the UK and protecting UK victims. As he noted, the powers have sufficient extraterritorial extent to do this, even if the perpetrators or the organisation is based outside the UK. Other countries can take steps to prosecute fraud under their own law. As for the precise mechanics of how it would work, it would be on a case-by-case basis, so it is pointless to speculate.
The noble Lord also asked for more detail about guidance. As he knows, we intend to publish guidance setting out reasonable prevention procedures before the offence of failure to prevent fraud comes into force. It will give organisations clarity about what they need to do. It is important that we engage and consult the right stakeholders in this process and that we engage further with the organisations this will impact. Once the Bill has received Royal Assent, we will start engaging with law enforcement, prosecutors, relevant government departments, public sector organisations, trade associations for businesses, other organisations in scope and other experts to draft the guidance.
We anticipate that the guidance will follow similar themes to those seen in many regulatory regimes—albeit that in this case they are not requirements—and to guidance for existing failure to prevent offences. This includes regular risk assessments to establish the level and type of fraud risks to be addressed; establishing fraud controls and due diligence processes designed to prevent fraud or spot it in the early stages before the offence is carried out; leadership and training to ensure that employees implement controls and create a culture within the organisation that does not accept fraudulent practices as a route to boosting performance and profits; and monitoring and review to ensure that procedures remain effective. I am happy to hold further discussions on this subject at the noble Lord’s convenience.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
I was waiting to hear the tenor of my noble friend’s response. He opened by saying that a relevant body includes a telecoms company. That is not my point. A telecoms company is obviously likely to be a relevant body. My complaint is that those within scope include only associated persons and not the fraudster who actually makes money indirectly or directly by paying charges to the telecoms company. That target is missed altogether by this Bill and the Online Safety Bill. Is it the intention that telecoms companies will continue to have no responsibility at all for spoof calls and so on?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
We will come on to this in more detail on a later group. Perhaps we should leave the detail of this debate until the third group, which we will get to at some point.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The Minister referred earlier to questions about groups of companies and the fact that an employee of a subsidiary would still be an associate of a holding company. That does not address the question that I was asking. Are the thresholds in Amendment 84C on an individual entity basis or a consolidated basis? There is a big difference between the two. A group could happily have a small subsidiary and say, “An employee of that did it, so we are off the hook”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I appreciate the point that the noble Lord was making and apologise for not addressing it more directly. I will refrain from answering that now and will write. I think I know how it is done, but I am not an accountant and I do not want to say something that he will pick apart. If he will indulge me, I will write on that subject with greater clarity to make sure that I am not making a mistake.
I thank all noble Lords for their participation in this debate and for their patience as I have taken them through a fairly long speech on the Government’s positions on these issues. We agree that reform is needed and, as we have made clear, the Government’s amendments represent a major step in delivering it. I hope that further explanation has reassured noble Lords on why we have presented the amendments with the scope and reach that they contain, and that the Government are committed to reform of the identification doctrine. I therefore very much hope that noble Lords will support the government amendments and not seek to move their own.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I appreciate that my noble friend is at the Home Office, but none the less can he give us a commitment that the Government will look again at the definitions used in the Government’s clause for SMEs? I appreciate that they come from the Companies Act 2006, which themselves were cut and pasted from EU regs, but now that we are out of the EU we are free to choose definitions that suit our circumstances and our institutes’ accounting standards.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think I was right at the very beginning not to speak for long on this set of amendments. Your Lordships filled in for me very adequately and expertly.
The Minister came back with a couple of points that I want to refer to. He explained that aspects of the amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, were not necessary because there would be duplication. It would be helpful for us to understand that duplication. Perhaps between now and Report he could provide a list of all the prosecutions that have happened with the existing legislation, proving that the new legislation would not be necessary, so that we can understand that his point is correct.
He also talked about the chilling effect on small companies. This legislation is designed to chill fraud. Taking up the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, about his perfectly innocent sweet shop, legislation that excludes that sweet shop will also exclude all the other small companies that are perpetrating fraud. The skill is in the proportionate application of this legislation. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, it is also about the proportionate advice that is being given. Not all companies are getting the same level of advice on how they should approach this legislation. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, as my noble friend Lady Bowles said.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Fraud offences: supplementary
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule (Failure to prevent fraud: fraud offences) by—(a) removing an offence from the list in the Schedule, or(b) adding an offence to that list.(2) The power in subsection (1) is exercisable by the Scottish Ministers (and not by the Secretary of State) so far as it may be used to make provision that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if contained in an Act of that Parliament.(3) The power in subsection (1) is exercisable by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (and not by the Secretary of State) so far as it may be used to make provision that—(a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(b) would not, if contained in a Bill for an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State.(4) An offence added under subsection (1)(b) must be—(a) an offence of dishonesty,(b) an offence that is otherwise of a similar character to those listed (on the passing of this Act) in paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule (Failure to prevent fraud: fraud offences), or(c) a relevant money laundering offence.(5) The Secretary of State may from time to time by regulations restate Schedule (Failure to prevent fraud: fraud offences) as amended by virtue of subsections (1) to (3) (without changing the effect of the Schedule).(6) For the purposes of section (Failure to prevent fraud) (1), where a fraud offence is found to have been committed over a period of 2 or more days, or at some time during a period of 2 or more days, and that period of days straddles the beginning of a financial year of the relevant body in question, the fraud offence must be taken to have been committed on the last of those days.(7) In this section “relevant money laundering offence” means an offence under any of the following sections of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002—(a) section 327 (concealing etc);(b) section 328 (arrangements);(c) section 329 (acquisition, use and possession).” Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new clause (Failure to prevent fraud).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Section (Failure to prevent fraud): large organisations
For the purposes of section (Failure to prevent fraud) (1) a relevant body is a “large organisation” only if the body satisfied two or more of the following conditions in the financial year of the body (“year P”) that precedes the year of the fraud offence—
Turnover Balance sheet total Number of employees | More than £36 million More than £18 million More than 250. |
See the explanatory statement for new clause (Failure to prevent fraud).
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Offences under section (Failure to prevent fraud) committed by partnerships
(1) Proceedings for an offence under section (Failure to prevent fraud) alleged to have been committed by a partnership must be brought in the name of the partnership (and not in that of any of the partners).(2) For the purposes of such proceedings—(a) rules of court relating to the service of documents have effect as if the partnership were a body corporate, and(b) the following provisions apply as they apply in relation to a body corporate—(i) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and Schedule 3 to the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980;(ii) section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 (c. 15 (N.I.)) and Schedule 4 to the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26));(iii) sections 34(2), 66(6AA) and 72D(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.(3) A fine imposed on the partnership on its conviction for an offence under section (Failure to prevent fraud) is to be paid out of the partnership assets.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment supplements new clause (Failure to prevent fraud).
“Guidance about preventing fraud offences
(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about procedures that relevant bodies can put in place to prevent persons associated with them from committing fraud offences as mentioned in section (Failure to prevent fraud) (1).(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise the whole or any part of the guidance issued under this section.(3) The Secretary of State must publish—(a) any guidance issued under this section;(b) any revision of that guidance.(4) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Scottish Ministers, and(b) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.(5) The requirement to consult those persons may be satisfied by consultation carried out before this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment supplements new clause (Failure to prevent fraud).
“Failure to prevent fraud: minor definitions
(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections (Failure to prevent fraud) to (Guidance about preventing fraud offences). (2) References to a person “associated with” a relevant body are to be interpreted in accordance with section (Failure to prevent fraud)(6).(3) “Financial year” has the meaning given by section (Failure to prevent fraud) (12).(4) “Fraud offence” has the meaning given by section (Failure to prevent fraud) (5).(5) “Modify” includes amend or repeal (and references to modifications are to be interpreted accordingly).(6) “Partnership” means—(a) a partnership within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890;(b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907;(c) a firm or other entity of a similar character to one within paragraph (a) or (b) formed under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.(7) “Relevant body” has the meaning given by section (Failure to prevent fraud) (11).(8) “Subsidiary” has the same meaning as in section 1159 of the Companies Act 2006.(9) “UK company” means a company formed and registered under the Companies Act 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out definitions for the purposes of new clauses (Failure to prevent fraud) to (Guidance about preventing fraud offences).
“Failure to prevent fraud: miscellaneous
(1) In section 61(1) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (offences to which certain investigatory powers apply), at the end insert—“(k) an offence under section (Failure to prevent fraud) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (failure to prevent fraud offences).”(2) In Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (offences which are serious offences for purposes of serious crime prevention orders)—(a) in Part 1 (serious offences in England and Wales), in paragraph 7, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) An offence under section (Failure to prevent fraud) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (failure to prevent fraud offences).”;(b) in Part 1A (serious offences in Scotland), in paragraph 16J, after sub- paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) An offence under section (Failure to prevent fraud) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (failure to prevent fraud offences).”;(c) in Part 2 (serious offences in Northern Ireland), in paragraph 23, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) An offence under section (Failure to prevent fraud) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (failure to prevent fraud offences).”(3) In Part 2 of Schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (offences in relation to which a deferred prosecution agreement may be entered into), after paragraph 27A insert—“27B An offence under section (Failure to prevent fraud) of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (failure to prevent fraud offences).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause makes consequential amendments of other legislation in consequence of new clause (Failure to prevent fraud).
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Duty to disclose funds and economic resources
After section 16 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, insert—
“16A Duty to disclose funds and economic resources(1) Any regulations made under section 1 must, for the purposes of preventing an offence under those regulations, make provision requiring designated persons—(a) to report to the Treasury or another competent authority, within three months after such regulations are made or within three months from the date of designation, whichever is the latest, the funds or economic resources that—(i) are currently held, owned or controlled by them within the United Kingdom, and(ii) were held, owned or controlled by them within the United Kingdom six months prior to the date of designation, and(b) to cooperate with the Treasury or other competent authority in any verification of such information.(2) A failure to comply with a requirement in subsection (1) may be considered as participation in activities the object or effect of which is (whether directly or indirectly) to circumvent such requirement.(3) Where a designated person has been convicted of an offence by virtue of subsection (2), a court proceeding under section 6, 92 or 156 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation orders) must consider such person as benefitting by the value of any assets concealed through such criminal conduct.(4) Assets concealed as a result of a failure to comply with a requirement in subsection (1) constitute recoverable property for purposes of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may also be made in relation to a person who is subject to an International Criminal Court warrant for an offence that would constitute an economic crime in the United Kingdom.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment says that sanctions regulations must, for the purposes of preventing an offence under those regulations, require designated persons to disclose all assets they own or control in the UK. Failure to disclose such assets is defined as a form of sanctions evasion, which is already criminalized under UK law, and which could result in asset recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading, but I was overseas—I had been invited to speak at the National Assembly in Seoul—and, relevant to this amendment, among the subjects which we discussed was the hacking of cryptocurrency, cybercrime, human rights violations and the failure to apply proper sanctions. North Korea—I declare a non-financial interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for North Korea—has produced the original playbook for many of the evasive actions that have been taken by other authoritarian regimes in the world.
In moving Amendment 85, I will try to explain its genesis and why we need to strengthen the sanctions regime. Although it stands alone on the Marshalled List, it is not unconnected to the important issues raised in Committee thus far, especially in relation to amendments debated on Tuesday on anti-money laundering measures and strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, was right to say that the House is fortunate to have the insights and collective wisdom of noble Lords in ensuring that the Bill has what he called “proper teeth”. Amendment 85, which bears the names also of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Stevens of Birmingham, enjoys support from across the House. Significantly, it also enjoys support from all sides in another place. It is designed to give the sanctions regime proper teeth and to deal with dirty money.
I should say that I have skin in the game as someone sanctioned by authoritarian regimes—a distinction I share with the right honourable Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP. He suggested that I meet Dame Margaret Hodge MP, former chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, who served on the Standing Committee in another place on this Bill. She and Margot Mollat from her office have been tireless in their efforts to build a non-partisan alliance championing greater accountability and countering malign forces which manipulate and enjoy our British freedoms while collaborating in the denial of those same freedoms to millions of people elsewhere.
Subsequently, I met Helen Taylor, senior legal researcher at Spotlight on Corruption, and her colleagues, and Maria Nizzero, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute’s Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies. I draw attention to her important paper, How to Seize a Billion: Exploring Mechanisms to Recover the Proceeds of Kleptocracy, recently published in the New Law Journal. I have also previously met Bill Browder, author of Red Notice, and Evgenia Kara-Murza, the wife of Vladimir Kara-Murza, a British citizen and champion of democracy in Russia who only last week was sentenced to 25 years in jail on so-called charges of treason. In a book published last year, I also detailed our state’s failures to hold to account those responsible for international crimes—notably genocide—and the way in which we persist in doing business as usual with the actors who perpetrate many of those crimes.
Yesterday, I was grateful to the Minister for providing the opportunity to discuss Amendment 85 with him and to explore some of the issues that inevitably arise—everything from proportionality, touched on in the previous group, and capacity for enforcement to European Union requirements on mandatory disclosure. He was accompanied by the able Corrie Monaghan from the Bill team. I was glad to learn from her about the continuing work going on across departments to address the issues raised in the amendment and the Government’s willingness to consider what more might be done. I know that the Minister will try to plug some gaps through Amendment 91A and bring clarity, although I think he himself would say that it does not specifically do anything new.
My Amendment 85 seeks to go further than that by requiring disclosure and enabling asset recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act where there has been deliberate concealment rather than disclosure. This Committee is well aware that Russia’s illegal and tragic invasion of Ukraine on 24 February last year exposed the uncomfortable reality that our country has been welcoming Russian money and at times facilitating the concealment of illicit funds, earning us the infamous nickname of “Londongrad”. The Minister knows that; I recognise and applaud the Government’s introduction of two welcome pieces of legislation aimed at combating economic crime and enforcing transparency. Their swift legislative action in the form of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act and this Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill are a good beginning but, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said on the previous group, we must go further.
Amendment 85 would allow the seizure of assets when deliberate attempts had been made to escape the enforcement of sanctions. I should add that, in addition to these important legislative efforts, the Government have imposed sanctions on nearly 1,500 individuals, including 120 oligarchs with a net worth of over £140 billion. However, to put that in perspective, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation—OFSI—reports that, in total, just £18 billion of assets associated with Russia’s regime have been frozen since the beginning of the war—compare that with the net worth of £140 billion.
In the meantime, the oligarchs have found increasingly sophisticated ways to weaken our sanctions response: moving assets just before sanctions hit; exploiting loopholes to put assets out of reach; and concealing assets to hinder the enforcement of sanctions. Oligarchs such as Abramovich, for example, were able to bypass the sanctions by handing over their wealth and companies to family members just a few weeks before the sanctions hit. Just before the war began, Abramovich restructured at least $4 billion of his personal wealth and transferred it to his children, who are now the owners of trusts, luxury yachts, private jets and mansions—all out of reach of UK sanctions. Had Amendment 85 been in place, these funds, which by contrast amount to more than the UK’s present commitment in military aid to Ukraine, would not have escaped freezing orders and could potentially have been seized.
I give the Committee another example. Mikhail Fridman’s personal assistant, Nigina Zairova, took control of several entities previously owned by that sanctioned oligarch, including a £65 million mansion in Highgate. She was belatedly sanctioned, but the costs of constantly being one step behind are clear. Recent investigations by Transparency International UK found that luxury homes worth £700 million previously linked to sanctioned oligarchs were not flagged as restricted on the UK property register. I would love to hear from the Minister, when he comes to reply, what is being done about that and what the current position is when it comes to properties on that register.
This is not just about the war in Ukraine. The Minister and I share a passion for and love of Hong Kong. I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch. At an event last night, I pointed out that at least five Hong Kong officials and six legislators who are complicit in the ongoing human rights crackdown currently own property in the UK. I strongly welcomed the Magnitsky sanctions—named for Bill Browder’s lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured to death in pre-trial detention in 2009—but the failure to use targeted sanctions against those responsible for the destruction of Hong Kong’s freedom underlines the case for parliamentary accountability and oversight of the sanctions regime. I find it extraordinary that no Select Committee of either House, or Joint Committee of both Houses, even meeting in camera is able to discuss the nature of the Magnitsky sanctions, including why they are so random and often arbitrary—some are included, and some are not.
Indeed, we even provide red-carpet treatment for officials such as Christopher Hui, who met not just one but three United Kingdom Ministers last week, while his regime has denied Hong Kong BNOs access to more than £2.2 billion of pension savings. A letter signed by 110 parliamentarians, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who is co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, of which I am an officer, urged the Government to undertake an audit of UK assets of Hong Kong and Chinese officials linked to human rights violations. No response has been received and no action has been taken. I hope that, with his customary diligence and commitment, which I applaud, the Minister will attend to that and help us to get a response.
Assets are clearly slipping through the cracks of our sanctions regime, but we do not currently have any legislative tools to seize assets that remain concealed. Amendment 85 proposes a minor but significant change to our current legislation that would put us on the front foot in pursuing sanctioned assets. The amendment has what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, described on Tuesday as “teeth”, and would help us seize concealed assets by expanding the scope of sanctions evasion—evasion is, of course, already a criminal offence in the UK. By extending the definition of what constitutes evasion, we can increase the pressure on those who seek to conceal their assets here.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow that powerful, comprehensive and, I think, highly persuasive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I will be extremely brief but, given there was not space to attach my name to this amendment, I wanted to briefly offer Green support. I hardly need to declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already done that, but I will do so for the record.
I just want to make two points. I am perhaps slightly less optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who said that if we create this law, the sanctioned individuals will declare. However, this amendment would create a weapon to use against them when they do not. So I would perhaps frame that slightly differently. This really relates to the debate on the previous day in Committee when we talked about SLAPPs. We know the limitations—we have just been discussing the limitations of the resourcing and capacity of our enforcement vehicles. It will likely very often be NGOs and journalists who expose this, but if we bring in the anti-SLAPP rules and this rule, we will see the seizures actually happening and the Bill being effective.
Secondly, through this Bill we are aiming—as we aimed with the previous economic crime Bill—to close lots of loopholes. I assume, however, that not even the Minister will say that, once we have done all this, everything will be fixed and we will not have any future problems. As evidence for that, in August last year the register of overseas entities came in and yet the figures show that little more than half the relevant properties owned by overseas companies have been declared.
We in this Committee are looking at making a difference not just in theory but in practice, and that is what this amendment would do.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on this amendment. I have supported him on a number of amendments in other areas, and I have learned not to do too much research because however much you have done, he will have said it by the time you get the chance to say it.
The Government have recognised the importance of asset seizure. Back in the heady days of March 2022, the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, James Cartlidge—he has of course moved on since then—said that the Government were looking at
“how we can go further to crack down on illicit money in British property, including considering temporary asset seizures beyond the freezing regime that we already have in place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/22; col. 147.]
However, that is not an easy task, and this is a bit more than closing a few loopholes. Many experts have flagged risks relating to seizing assets—I am sure that the Minister will remind us of that when we come to it—particularly without the necessary proof of criminality. For assets belonging to individual oligarchs, concerns have been raised over the rule of law, due process and property rights. In the case of state assets, objections include sovereign immunity—something that I think I mentioned in a previous debate—and the fear that other states may withdraw their reserves. This is a big issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned. When we focus on the Russian sanctions, for example, we see that the UK has frozen billions of pounds of Russian assets under the sanctions following the invasion of Ukraine. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation—OFSI—has reported that £18 billion owned by individuals and entities associated with Russia’s regime has been frozen since the beginning of that war. Some estimates suggest that more than £40 billion could be frozen or immobilised if further sanctions were put in place.
However, assets frozen under sanctions are passive. Funds frozen under the UK sanctions regime cannot be retrieved or repurposed. In fact, these should be returned at the end of the war if sanctions are lifted. Meanwhile, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, the UK is asking the taxpayer to fund the war effort and, no doubt, the repair of Ukraine if and when we get to that point. So, there is quite a lot at stake.
Amendment 85 is a way of trying to do this and cut through the complication relatively simply and ingeniously —for which I claim no credit. It seeks to strengthen the UK sanctions regime and find a route that allows us to recover these frozen assets, which have been concealed in the past. As we have heard, the mechanism we propose would impose a duty on sanctioned persons proactively to disclose all their assets held in the UK and criminalise the failure to disclose such assets as a form of sanctions evasion.
If a sanctioned person fails to declare all their assets and further assets are uncovered by the authorities, they are guilty of a criminal offence—sanctions evasion. Those undisclosed assets may then be seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This seizure would be subject to the same safeguards that courts currently uphold in criminal and civil recovery processes, following due process and ensuring that any deprivation of private property is not disproportionate to the public interest in seizing the proceeds of crime.
Given that sanctions evasion is already a criminal offence in the UK, this amendment would be a straightforward way rapidly to scale up assets that may be susceptible to seizure. Adding a requirement to disclose all assets held within six months prior to designation would also capture assets such as those set out by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. It is for these reasons that we support this amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to which I have added my name, and to support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, the question for the Government concerns giving teeth to the sanctions regime in respect to designated individuals. If it is not dealt with like this, what do the Government propose to do? There is clearly a gap, sanctioned individuals are finding ways around the law and we are not able to confiscate or seize the assets we want to seize. Criminalising a failure to disclose as a form of sanctions evasion, so that those assets can be seized, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is a very important step forward. Although this is just one amendment, Amendment 85 is really important.
As I said, if the Government do not believe that this amendment is appropriate, what are we going to do about the situations and individuals the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke about, and the huge sums of money, which are beyond the scope of the British state to collect from individuals? We all think we should be able to do something about that.
Just so the noble Lord does not feel on his own in being sanctioned, I am sanctioned as well, so we are in good company, as is the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. We could have a sanctions party here.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I join the sanctions party. I rise to say that, as this amendment has the support of Cross-Bench, Lib Dem and Labour Peers, I add my support, even if I missed out on adding my name to those proposing it.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I too add my support, as a further person in the sanctioned party. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on moving this amendment and on his excellent speech. I also congratulate him on all the work he does in some most important areas.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his amendment and for his kind words. I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Altmann about his work in so many areas. I also thank the others who have spoken in this brief debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Coaker, and my noble friend Lord Leigh.
I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are sympathetic to using frozen funds to assist with Ukrainian reconstruction. Currently, government authorities have the powers to utilise various enforcement tools to investigate breaches of sanctions and, in criminal cases, to confiscate relevant assets. As has been noted, that has resulted in over £18 billion of Russian assets being frozen in the United Kingdom.
The Government are also considering lawful routes to making Russian assets available for Ukrainian reconstruction. We must ensure that any solution is legal, safe and robust, and we will continue to work with G7 partners to make progress.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
Before the noble Lord sits down, during the passage of the first economic crime Bill, when the question of sanctions was discussed, much reference was made to the very lengthy Explanatory Notes which accompanied that Bill—the longest I have ever seen—particularly as regards the human rights implications of depriving people of their assets in the sort of way that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, envisages in his amendment, in particular A1P1 of the European convention and various other rights. Is it part of the Government’s position that the sort of suggestions made in this amendment are in fact stymied or may be frustrated by the provisions of the European convention and the Human Rights Act?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord has strayed into an area with which I am not familiar. I shall have to write to him.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I think that the whole Committee would be interested to see the reply that the noble Lord receives from the Minister on that point.
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this short debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Coaker, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for their brief but helpful interventions. I thank her especially for her personal remarks.
On Tuesday, some noble Lords will have seen sitting with me in the strangers’ area at the back of our proceedings a young man called Sebastian Lai. His father, Jimmy Lai, is incarcerated in a prison in Hong Kong. He had confiscated from him Apple Daily. He was a journalist, media owner and the leading voice for the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong. Imagine how that family feel as their father, a British citizen, languishes in a jail in Hong Kong—likely, at the age of 75, to die there—knowing that some of those responsible for what has happened to him and who have brought about his incarceration in what is, and I use the word deliberately, a complete corruption of the once illustrious legal system in Hong Kong, have properties, portfolios and massive assets in the United Kingdom. It is high time that we took this issue even more seriously than we have hitherto.
I was not saying this for purely rhetorical reasons earlier—I mean it when I say that I know that the Minister is passionate about people such as Jimmy Lai and the terrible things that have happened in Hong Kong. I was pleased that he did not rule out the possibility that we might be able to overcome some of the issues, particularly around proportionality, which he raised and which we discussed yesterday—and maybe the need for other safeguards, perhaps to deal with the issue that the noble Lord just raised. I hope that, therefore, he will agree to a meeting with some of the legal team that I have met from Spotlight on Corruption, RUSI and the others to which I referred earlier. Sanctions must not just be about virtue signalling—they have to be real and have the teeth to which we have referred in today’s debate.
I am grateful that the noble Lord has not ruled out doing more, but I hope that what more we do will be truly effective and that we will pause and consider further action between now and Report. Perhaps a meeting could even be arranged in the margins of this Committee, where we can discuss this together, for those who are genuinely interested in finding a solution. Perhaps we could invite some of the Members from another place who are so interested in this issue, too. I know that the Committee has a lot of other business to attend to. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“20A_ An offence under section (Failure to prevent fraud) of this Act (failure to prevent fraud).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is supplementary to new clause (Failure to prevent fraud). It adds the new offence of failure to prevent fraud to the list of offences that constitute “economic crime” for the purposes of clauses 175 to 178.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“SCHEDULE 10FAILURE TO PREVENT FRAUD: FRAUD OFFENCESCommon law offences
1_ Cheating the public revenue.2_ In Scotland, the following offences at common law—(a) fraud;(b) uttering;(c) embezzlement.Statutory offences
3_ An offence under any of the following provisions of the Theft Act 1968—(a) section 17 (false accounting);(b) section 19 (false statements by company directors etc).4_ An offence under any of the following provisions of the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969—(a) section 17 (false accounting);(b) section 18 (false statements by company directors etc).5_ An offence under section 993 of the Companies Act 2006 (fraudulent trading).6_ An offence under any of the following provisions of the Fraud Act 2006—(a) section 1 (fraud);(b) section 9 (participating in fraudulent business carried on by sole trader);(c) section 11 (obtaining services dishonestly).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Schedule sets out the list of “fraud offences” for the purposes of new clause (Failure to prevent fraud).
“Regulatory failure to prevent economic crime and failure to prevent facilitation of economic crime
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) confer on any supervisory or regulatory bodies a duty to prevent economic crime and to prevent facilitation of economic crime within their supervisory or regulatory scope;(b) establish an offence of—(i) regulatory failure to prevent economic crime; and(ii) regulatory failure to prevent the facilitation of economic crime.(2) Regulations must be made within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed conferring duties under subsection (1)(a) and creating offences under subsection (1)(b) in respect of—(a) OFCOM and other regulators of communication platforms including telecommunications;(b) financial services regulators;(c) the Financial Reporting Council in respect of auditors;(d) the Solicitors Regulation Authority and other relevant regulators of legal representatives;(e) the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and other relevant regulators of accountants.(3) Regulations must be made in respect of any other regulator that notifies the Secretary of State that they wish to be bound by such duties, within 18 months of such notification.(4) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group were inspired by the work of what we call in shorthand the Fraud Act review committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. Several members of the Committee were also on that Select Committee. At Second Reading, several of us spoke ahead of the noble Baroness and stole her thunder, so I am going to—
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
In order not to do the same again, I will concentrate mainly on the mechanics of this first amendment, which is a regulatory failure to prevent amendment. Both amendments in the group are targeted at the same issue—that is, enablers or suppliers of services where the perpetrators, the fraudsters, as has already been explained in the earlier group by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, are not associated with the company. Largely, they will be customers, so they fall outside many of the provisions of the failure to prevent regime, as has already been discussed.
In the Select Committee, as well as recommending a failure to prevent criminal regime, we saw the benefit of regulators having powers to intervene, and we broadly favoured there being a comparable regulatory failure to prevent regime. We did not actually say that it was a recommendation because, at that stage, from the evidence that we had heard, we were led to believe—I think this is clear in the report—that the Online Safety Bill might provide a similar result. It is now clear that that is not the case, certainly not with regard to the telecoms operators, so I have tabled this amendment. My amendment has been put in what I call a “sunrise” form where the detail comes from the statutory instruments, which would enable the Government to do the right kind of consultation and specifically tailor the regimes. It could also be done in the light of deferring to whatever happens in all the relevant Bills presently going through, because there are aspects covered in the Financial Services and Markets Bill and the Online Safety Bill as well as this one.
The issue that we are aiming to cover is where the services provided by others are used for fraud, not in active participation by the service provider but in the passive sense, and they are not intervening even when they know that their services are being abused. Email, phone and text scams are the notable examples. While banks have been on the front line of defending against scams and are paying compensation where people have been tricked into transferring money—which is also now being legislated for—it is fair to say that we on the Select Committee were shocked by the complacency of the telecoms companies in particular. We were not convinced that enough, or indeed anything, was really being done. It seemed to be deliberate negligence; there is no other way to explain it.
My amendments would enable the Government to confer on regulators a duty and a power relating to failure to prevent and failure to prevent facilitation of fraud. I am sure that the Minister will say that regulators generally have powers concerning fraud in their sectors already; the Law Commission’s report referenced the case of sewage discharges and Southern Water. However, fraud is not generally stated in regulators’ headline duties. For example, it does not appear in the objectives or principles of the Financial Conduct Authority, which claimed in the instances of fraud around the RBS Global Restructuring Group to be powerless to intervene, although fraud was pretty clear, because business lending was outside the scope of the regulatory envelope.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who, along with other noble Lords, made an excellent contribution to the work of the fraud inquiry, which I will return to in a moment. For the sake of good order, I declare again my interests, which are as a non-executive director of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, chair of the Association of British Insurers and a non-executive director of Santander UK.
I will speak first to Amendment 91, which has just been so ably moved. I do not wish to duplicate or repeat but, exactly as the noble Baroness said, Amendments 91 and 94 are grouped together because they are about the services or channels being used for the commission and perpetration of fraud on victims. I entirely take her point that the ability of the regulators to have “failure to prevent” offences would be faster, while criminal sanctions and penalties for the offence potentially take time to bed in.
However, I will confine my remarks mainly to Amendment 94 so as not to detain the Committee too long. It was a huge pleasure to be asked to chair the House of Lords Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee inquiry last year. I thank all my fellow members of the committee and our truly excellent staff, who worked over and above—committee members are nodding—and made a significant contribution. I also thank all the witnesses and those who gave evidence.
It is a thick report—if you are suffering from any sort of insomnia, it might help, or it could work as a doorstop—but we took a deliberate decision to make it comprehensive, rather than just talk about certain areas. I have had very positive feedback from outside, with people saying that, for the first time, it brought together the problem of fraud, particularly digital fraud, and the way in which the whole chain works. That was exactly what we wanted to look at. It was deliberately called, Fighting Fraud: Breaking the Chain, because, as we have heard, there is a whole chain involved before we get to the fraudsters potentially realising their proceeds. On page 23, we set out the whole chain, starting with the inbound route, which includes phishing, smishing and fraudulent advertising; then the interaction, which includes number spoofing, social engineering and fraudulent websites; before you get to the cashing out, where the money moves, perhaps via mule accounts, to the fraudsters.
As we heard in the debate on a previous group—I will not repeat it—the reason we are talking about these amendments, apart from their being long overdue, is that we will not crack down on or stop the UK being the fraud capital of the world, which I am afraid it is at the moment, if we do not go right upstream and prevent the frauds happening in the first place, rather than just dealing with the consequences at the end. This has already happened in some ways, with the introduction of chip and PIN technology in cards a number of years ago, which cut down on the number of fraudulent transactions. It is possible to get ahead of these things, but it requires looking at the whole system.
There is an extremely good article in today’s Financial Times by the head of Demos, which generally asks: why do we, as a country and a Government, not prevent problems as opposed to just dealing with them as and when they occur? As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we have a real opportunity with these amendments and debates to prevent people becoming victims of fraud, rather than just dealing with it at the end.
We have heard that 41% of crime in England and Wales is fraud. Paragraph 4 of the report states:
“In the first half of 2022, it is estimated that over 40 million UK adults were targeted by scammers and data shows that a total of £609.8 million was lost to all types of fraud”.
Over 40 million adults were not necessarily defrauded but targeted, and the argument for this amendment and Amendment 91 is that, unless we deal with the contact by the fraudsters, we will not prevent fraud, and more people will become victims.
We have not yet talked enough in this debate, although it has been talked about before, about the impact on those who are defrauded—the victims. I know from when I chaired the Treasury Select Committee in the other House and from this inquiry that the testimony of victims is always incredibly powerful. Sometimes, as we heard in some evidence, because fraud does not “bang, bleed or shout” it is regarded as somehow a victimless crime. But for those to whom it has happened—not just elderly people, as it is commonly believed, but right the way through the age groups—there is a loss of trust when you are defrauded, particularly in your bank but also just generally in the messages that you receive; we know about scams whereby people pretend to be members of the family. After that, it is difficult to learn to trust again any information that you receive in WhatsApp messages, text messages or phone calls. So I appeal to the Minister and the Government: if, as we have heard, we do not take action on this and pass a comprehensive “failure to prevent” offence, that will be a missed opportunity not just for us and the country but potentially for 40 million or more people who will be targeted by scammers in future.
I turn to the amendment. The important difference between this and the government amendment in particular is that our draft—I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for adding their support—would not require the company to benefit from the fraud that had been committed or attempted to be committed. The company or channel would not have to be the victim of the fraud. We also cover having officer liability as well as the company.
My noble friend said he was going to return to the issue of telecoms companies in this part of our proceedings. The point is that telecoms companies and social media platforms are an important early part of the fraud chain. That is where people are first contacted and are then often taken off those platforms or services and put into further contact, which is where they pass on their details and ultimately get defrauded.
We have heard why Ofcom is going to be an important regulator. In March it published important research that said:
“Nearly 43 million UK adult internet users have encountered suspected scams online … Among those who had experienced an online scam or fraud, nearly a quarter (23%) first encountered it on social media—the second most common channel after email … Potential victims were most commonly contacted via a direct message, or a mass message posted to a group … A fifth were reached through online advertisements … while others were targeted through user-generated and influencer posts or videos”.
This area—of fraudsters using these channels to contact people—is only going to grow. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has already asked about telecoms companies, which are responsible for many of the smishing texts. My suspicion is that the Online Safety Bill will not catch telecoms companies or emails. It potentially does not catch those internet service providers that host fraudulent websites. The position is unclear about intermediary sites such as Airbnb and Amazon, which people use in order to post, if not a fraudulent advertisement, then enough information to inveigle a potential victim into ultimately sharing their details.
I am not going to labour this point, but the need for cultural change is very real. In the report—and this is the reason why we are talking about these companies—we say:
“Until all fraud-enabling industries fear significant financial, legal and reputational risk for their failure to prevent fraud, they will not act. Companies continue to play their part in public-facing talking shops whilst at the same time relying on individually managed consumer awareness campaigns that shift the blame onto victims”.
I hope the Minister has a look at this report, although I know he is a busy person. Paragraphs 520 and 521 are relevant here. We say:
“Some sectors have less liability for fraud than others and are not held to account effectively for their role in facilitating this crime. We recognise that the role of failure to prevent offences is primarily to inspire behaviour change rather than criminal prosecutions”.
Behaviour change and cultural change are very important, and they are what noble Lords are saying today that they want to see.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, who so ably chaired the Fraud Act 2006 and Digital Fraud Committee of which I was also a member. She has given a lot of detail, so I will try to slash out bits of my speech that she has already covered and not repeat too much—I apologise if I fail slightly in that.
I think that we all know about the scale of fraud in this country. However, I think it is worth repeating what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about the impact that fraud has on the victims. This is not just a financial crime and “Oh, I’ve lost some money”. We heard stories about mental health issues, even suicide, arising from frauds. It is a really serious matter. Losing your life savings is serious but it goes way beyond that.
Yet we do not seem to have taken much action. We have heard several times about the 1% of law enforcement resources that are focused on it. The government response has been fragmented—we refer in our report to an “alphabet soup” of bodies dealing with it. Our report referred to this creating
“a permissive culture across Government and law enforcement agencies towards fraud and the criminals who perpetrate it”.
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, we have been waiting for months for the national fraud strategy—I think I detect that the Minister is as frustrated as we are about the delay. I am pleased that it has moved from “shortly”, as he said on 15 November last year, to “genuinely imminent” today. We look forward to it. However, the delay does not inspire huge confidence in how seriously the Government are taking this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, described what we called the “fraud chain” in our report. It is sometimes known as the “kill chain”; we decided that that was not a particularly pleasant phrase, but it again conveys the seriousness of it. Some parts of the chain are, at last, taking action. In particular, the banking sector has taken a number of actions that have had a positive impact; the introduction of the confirmation of payee process is a good example. But why has that sector in particular taken action? I would argue it is because it has had, almost alone in the chain, a real financial incentive to do so with the voluntary reimbursement code. It has been on the hook for paying back and reimbursing, therefore it is trying to do something to stop it. The voluntary code is now becoming mandatory under the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is welcome.
It is also interesting to see, in the financial services and banking area, some competitive elements creeping in. The TSB uses the fact that it now reimburses all APP fraud losses as a selling point, which is encouraging. On the other hand, those banks that did not sign up to the voluntary reimbursement code are often cited as being more likely to see greater fraud levels on their customers; with less incentive to take action, they have taken less action. Making the code mandatory will, I hope, force them to start to do so.
We have heard about the other players in the fraud chain, those who make it possible for the fraudster to carry out the fraud—the enablers, if you like. They have no such incentive to act at the moment and, as a result, they have not acted, or not in any meaningful way. These enablers are players such as social media companies, search engines, online dating companies, the telecoms industry, website hosting companies, email platforms, ISPs, online gaming platforms, intermediary platforms and those selling bulk SIM cards or SIM farms, which the fraudsters use—and many more. I am sure that, as this area moves and changes, as it does very rapidly, we will see fraudsters constantly jumping into new areas and doing new things. They will react; there will be plenty more that we have not thought about.
From speaking to a major UK fintech, I know that around half the frauds it sees start from platforms operated by Meta, and more than half arise on just four platforms. In a debate on protecting vulnerable people from fraud on 2 December 2021, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, answering for the Government, said:
“As for discussions with Facebook, I have lost count of the number of discussions that I have had. One thing that we said way back in the day was, ‘Look, if you don’t sort some of these problems out, we’re going to legislate to sort them out’—and this is where we are now”.—[Official Report, 2/12/21; col. 316GC.]
A year and half later, we are still there.
As we have heard, we were particularly unimpressed with the telecoms industry, which was at best depressingly complacent. Who in this Room has not received a fraudulent SMS message or phone call appearing to come from a UK number such as HMRC or Royal Mail? I guarantee that nobody in this Room has not. To be fair, some telecoms companies are now taking action. EE, for example, flags suspicious calls, which proves that it can be done. But most have not taken action. They are paid for all these calls and texts, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has said but, because there is no come-back on them at all, they have taken little or no action to stop them. I have not been able to find reliable data as to what proportion of scams originate from telecoms companies; rough data seems to indicate that it is somewhere around 20% to 25%.
Amendment 94 aims to create an incentive for all players in the fraud chain to take action. Effectively, it creates an offence of failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the use of a company’s services for the purpose of committing fraud—by a third party; it does not have to be related to the company. The amendment is deliberately scoped widely, rather than industry by industry; it tries to make it so that anyone providing a service that could reasonably be expected to be used by fraudsters should have to take reasonable steps to detect and prevent that use. That does not seem particularly extreme. It creates a defence that the company had in place such procedures as it was reasonable, in all the circumstances, to expect to detect and prevent the use of its services for the purposes of committing fraud, or that it could not reasonably have known that they were being used for such purposes.
When we get to the discussion that we will no doubt have about this being disproportionate, I will disagree. Any court is going to look at a small company, and that is one of all the circumstances that it will take into account when deciding what would be reasonable for detecting and preventing fraud. It cannot be too much to ask that companies should have to put reasonable procedures in place. I think that it is a pretty low bar, but I am sure that we would all be very happy to discuss how the amendment might be tweaked or changed to ensure that it does not have a disproportionate impact on businesses. But it would be good to hear whether, first, the Minister agrees that there is genuinely a problem in this area and, secondly, whether he agrees conceptually that creating a real incentive for companies to take more care to ensure that their services are not being used by criminals is necessary.
The Online Safety Bill goes some way to achieving this in some respects—and I thank the Minister for arranging for me to meet officials yesterday, who were extremely helpful in getting me up to speed on what that Bill does. It does that especially in relation to fraudulent advertising, and that is very welcome, but it does not cover all the enabling industries, even the ones we know about now, let alone those in future. It does not cover telecoms, email providers or web-hosting companies, for example, and is more focused on the large players. It also does not cover all the activities. Previously I mentioned people selling SIM farms or other tools used by fraudsters. They would not be caught by it. It will not catch the SMS with a link to a fake Royal Mail site, for example.
What worries me is that the approach of using lots of different pieces of legislation to deal with this problem, such as the Online Safety Bill and the others that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned, leaves us in danger of creating a piecemeal approach, mirroring the alphabet soup of responsible bodies that I mentioned. This amendment would create an overarching obligation on any business to take reasonable steps to prevent the use of its services by fraudsters, whether on or offline.
Amendment 91, in the name of Baroness Bowles, attacks the problem from the point of view of regulators, conferring a duty on them, or giving them the option, to create a duty to prevent or facilitate crime regulation. It names a number of regulators, including Ofcom in respect of telecoms and other communications platforms. It mentions the ICAEW, so I should remind the Committee of my interest as a member of that body—I keep doing that, I am very boring. Personally, I think these two amendments would actually work quite well together. If Ofcom, for example, set out a code of conduct for telecoms companies to follow, that could work as the defence mentioned in Amendment 94.
However we do it, we must incentivise all enablers in the fraud chain to do the right thing. There is an excellent opportunity in this Bill to do it now. Further delay will lead to countless more innocent people losing their savings and being traumatised. I very much hope the Minister will be willing to approach this constructively, even if he does not like some of the specifics in the amendments. I support the noble Baroness’s suggestion about the analysis of how all these Bills work together, which would be very helpful.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Vaux, and everyone who has contributed to this crucial debate. I feel I should begin with an apology for not taking part in the debate on the failure to prevent in the first group, but that is because I was in the debate on the Online Safety Bill, with an amendment to which I had attached my name. It is a grave pity that we are debating two such important and closely linked Bills on a Thursday, with the pressures that is putting on your Lordships’ House, but in this group we have seen that we are overcoming those challenges and doing a great job of scrutiny, as we should be doing.
I will be quite brief and again try not to go over any of the same ground as others, but something that struck me when I looked at the Online Safety Bill was that action against fraud and other crime was utterly missing from it. In fact, I considered tabling amendments, but the drafting job was, frankly, beyond the capabilities available to me. The way it has worked out fits very well with this Bill and draws on the capacity of people involved with this Bill, whereas the other Bill has been taken in a somewhat different direction. It is worth noting that this is a safety issue—the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, referred to this. The noble Baroness said that it does not only affect older people, but it is worth noting that it is particularly an issue for them. If you are hit by a fraud when working in a system that you already found challenging and difficult to engage with, you lose confidence in your ability to operate in the world. We have a loneliness epidemic, with many people struggling to survive, with the Government stressing digital first, digital first. The impact on older people in particular is an earthquake through their lives, and that needs to be noted.
Lots of people talked about the scale of that problem, but I do not think anyone has mentioned that UK Finance, the trade association for the UK banking and financial sectors, said that financial fraud is now a national security threat. That ties in with the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In the first half of 2021, more than £750 million was stolen, and that was a 30% increase on the same period from the previous year, so we are looking at something that is escalating and absolutely demands action.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak with a particular focus on Amendment 91 but, in so doing, it should not be thought that I do not think that Amendment 94 is important; the two run together, as other noble Lords have said—we want them, so to speak, before and after, for reasons I shall explain. We need to do something now to prevent fraud. In this context, I make no apology for reminding my noble friend the Minister of what my noble friend Lady Morgan said about page 22 of our report and paragraph 520, which, helpfully, is in bold. I ask the Minister and his officials, in the words of the collect, to
“read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest”
what we have to say, and then act on it with both the regulatory and the criminal proposals.
We need the criminal offence but also need the flexibility that proper regulation will give and the culture change that it will bring by the regulators talking to and influencing how the different industries behave. We know that regulators can achieve much in advance and drive changes in behaviour; that is important because we know that prosecuting fraud is very difficult and too often ends in failure—and anyway the resources are not there to do it. We have to stop it happening in the first place. You have the criminal offence as a backup when someone who could have prevented it has not done so, but that is very much the last resort. Regulators are fleeter of foot and can move with more flexibility, and they can influence behaviour.
The sort of regulations we have in mind would mirror what is said in Amendment 94, particularly in subsection (3) regarding the statutory defence—“Do you have in place such procedures as it is reasonable in all the circumstances to expect?”, and so on. Our regulations would say that that was what you had to do. Then the regulator would know what was going on because it would have all the data and the picture of what was happening in the particular regulatory sphere in which it was operating. The regulator could say to a particular operator or someone in the industry, “Look, others are doing this but you’re not”, or it could say to the whole industry, “Look, there’s a new scam about and you have to take steps to stop it. We’re going to call you together. What are you going to do, what do you think you can do, and what technology is out there?”, and so on. That is not covered directly by the criminal offence—it is very much a longstop—but the sorts of fines and penalties that a regulator can impose, and the regulatory damage to the reputation of large organisations in particular, are important and have great influence, as we know. If a company is small or indeed a one-man band then the regulator would approach it differently, because of course it does not have the resources to look everywhere and man every pump.
We have to do something. I suggest that what is reasonable will take into account the size of the potential offending business; the measures that it has in place to prevent fraud that are proportionate to its size; those which it does not have in place but could have; the prevalence of the offence within that particular field of activity; and, if it is looking at regulatory enforcement, and indeed in terms of criminal offence, the regulatory compliance history of the company and what others in that area are doing by way of comparison. I need not go on in more detail.
As I said, the regulators have flexibility. They can influence behaviour. They can pick up the telephone to a company and say, “We’ve seen this is going on. Unless you do something, we’ll be down like a ton of bricks”, or they can act directly. Unless we have the package that these two amendments would give, we are not going to see any important change in outcomes.
That is all I need to say. Everything else has been covered. As I hope I have made plain, I see Amendments 94 and 91 running in tandem.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst that they run in tandem. I was not able to run quick enough to be able to sign Amendment 91 but I managed to get my bulk into the relevant Room in order to sign Amendment 94, and I am happy that I managed to do so.
Public opinion must influence policy-making. Whereas 300 or perhaps 250 years ago, anyone who thought about it probably thought it was not a good idea, and certainly not a humane thing to do, to send small children up chimneys or down mines, it took a little while for the legislation to change. I make that exaggerated point—well, it was not an exaggerated point; it was a very bad thing. [Laughter.] I was not alive 250 years ago. I make that point to illustrate that we in this Parliament are in danger of allowing the Government to drag their feet reluctantly and, worse, to appear as if they are being reluctant to do the modern equivalent of stopping children being sent up chimneys. The modern equivalent is that the public, and I as a citizen, disapprove of companies failing to conduct their business in such a way that crimes are not committed by associated people. However, we mitigate the difficulties that these new laws may pose for a company by putting in the defence of reasonable provision.
If you look at the guidance published in conjunction with the Bribery Act 2010—my noble friend Lord Sandhurst mentioned some of the sensible work that has been highlighted in my noble friend Lady Morgan’s report—you can see that it is all there. If your company is one that has no risk of committing bribery, you do not have to have anything other than the most minor provision to satisfy the defence provision under the Act—and ditto in the Criminal Finances Act. So it is even in the government amendments that we discussed earlier. For example, to go back to government Amendment 84A, which we discussed earlier, new subsection (3) says that:
“It is a defence for the relevant body to prove that, at the time the fraud offence was committed … (a) the body had in place such prevention procedures as it was reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the body to have in place, or … (b) it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to expect the body to have any prevention procedures in place”.
The Government accept quite a liberal and permissive defence regime there, so we do not need to be frightened or to frighten SMEs, or the people to whom my noble friend’s report is addressed, about people being overburdened by regimes which will cause them to be distracted from earning profits and getting on with the job that they are primarily there to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, highlighted, thanks to Sue Hawley from Spotlight on Corruption, the very small cost involved in running a compliance regime. If you have a small company, with no risk of committing bribery or fraud or whatever else it may be, the chances are that you will spend very little, and you may have to spend it only once.
I come to Amendments 91 and 94 with a sense of desperation that we are now providing the Government with yet another opportunity not to do very much, and they ought to be doing a lot more. When it came to the passage of what became the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, I can assure noble Lords that the corporate world said, “Oh no, you mustn’t do this—it’s going to make us spend money, look at lawyers, put bolts on doors and put safety notices down chimneys and near machinery. It is all far too expensive—we can’t be doing all that”. I think of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007; in the lead-up to that—I was in the shadow Cabinet of my party in those days—we had anxious discussions about the hideous nature of the impositions that would be put on the corporate world to make things safe so that people did not get killed at work and factories were safe places to go to work in. Here we are again having to worry about companies being asked to behave themselves and not to commit crimes or to prevent others committing crimes to their advantage. It seems absurd.
There have been two good non-legislative reports in the last short period. First, there is the one from my noble friend Lady Morgan, which she introduced us to. I urge my noble friend the Minister, if he has time to read nothing else, to look at page 22 and paragraphs 496 to 498 and 520 to 522. It will take him three minutes—he should look at it, read it, learn it, and inwardly digest it.
The other one was the Joint Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Faulks, of which I was privileged to be a member, on the draft Registration of Overseas Entities Bill, which sat in 2019-20. We heard all the same evidence as I am sure my noble friend did in her committee, and we heard all the same complaints about the burdens and expense of compliance that will have been heard every time these sorts of things come along. Yet every time, all you have to do is go back and look at the simple, common-sense guidance attached to the Bribery Act 2010; you will see how that Act has come into force and been implemented and worked through, and no one now fusses at all.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, given the time of day, I shall make a brief comment. I agree with Amendments 91 and 94. On Amendment 94, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I ask the Minister directly: why would he not ensure that this Economic Crime and Transparency Bill currently before Parliament did exactly what Amendment 94 suggests? It just does not seem logical. If the Minister and the Government do not do it, this will have been a missed opportunity, and we will come back to this issue and ask why we did not do it now. The amendment is reasonable and makes perfect sense and no doubt the Minister agrees with it, but it needs the Government to say, “We’re going to do it”. If it is flawed then the government lawyers can sort it out, but it is a perfectly reasonable amendment and, in my view, the Government should have no difficulty in accepting it. With that brief comment, I will sit down.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for their amendments on failure to prevent economic crime, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I hope that my comments during our debate earlier today will have provided some reassurance on the Government’s ambitions to take action in this area, including the introduction of a new offence of failure to prevent fraud. These amendments obviously cover some of the same ground so I will seek not to repeat myself too much on issues such as the scope and threshold of the Government’s amendments but to focus more on what I understand to be the wider thrust of Amendments 91 and 94.
Before I get on to that, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the fraud strategy is a couple of hours closer. I remind noble Lords that there is an all-Peers drop-in session on 9 May to discuss the three Bills that are currently under way through Parliament: this Bill, the Online Safety Bill and the Financial Services and Markets Bill. That will bring some of the discussions together, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Morgan. I refute the allegation that the Government are not doing very much. Those three Bills themselves prove that we are indeed intent on fixing many or all of the problems that have been identified—the Government of course take these problems seriously.
I turn to the amendments in this group. The Government’s offence does not extend to services that facilitate fraud—that is, companies whose services are misused by third parties to carry out fraud. Examples include social media and telecoms companies whose services are used to promote fraudulent schemes, as has been pointed out, and banks and crypto exchanges, which fraudsters use to process the payments. If these companies or their employees commit fraud, they will be in scope, but not where their services are misused by others.
The Government agree that companies that facilitate fraud, even if they are not complicit in the offending, must do more to prevent and detect it. In doing so, they can protect their customers and the wider public from fraud, which, as has been discussed at length, causes significant damage to wider society and individuals —we must not forget them. However, we intend for this to be achieved by seeing through existing plans for regulatory and voluntary activity, rather than by creating a new offence which risks duplicating those existing approaches.
Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, proposes a regulatory duty to prevent economic crime, enforced by regulators. In relation to organisations that commit fraud, we can achieve a similar effect that incentivises organisations to put fraud controls in place through the Government’s approach: an offence enforced by law enforcement. Our approach allows all sectors to be in scope, not just regulated bodies, and is less resource-intensive for business and the public sector than establishing new regulatory approaches. In relation to the facilitation of fraud, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that action is already under way to tackle this. I will address some of the sectors mentioned in today’s debate and Amendment 91, which I hope will provide some further reassurance.
The Online Safety Bill will require all in-scope tech companies, including social media companies, to take action to tackle fraud where it is facilitated through user-generated content or via search results. They must put in place systems and processes to prevent users encountering fraudulent content through their platforms and to swiftly remove any such content available through their platform. Without wishing to single out any particular company for attention, I reassure my noble friend Lady Morgan that Airbnb, which she referenced, would of course be in scope.
Additionally, there will be a duty on the largest social media and search engines requiring them to prevent fraudulent adverts appearing on their services. The Bill gives Ofcom, as regulator, robust enforcement powers, allowing it to impose significant financial penalties on services that do not fulfil its duties. Ofcom will publish codes of practice to set out further details on what platforms must do to meet their duties under the Online Safety Bill.
The “failure to prevent” offence operates in a similar way to the Online Safety Bill, by setting out reasonable steps to be taken, with the ability to fine companies that fail to fulfil their duties. Expanding the “failure to prevent fraud” offence in the ECCT Bill to cover facilitation of fraud would create duplication for tech companies, which would have to follow two parallel regimes in relation to facilitation of fraud, potentially creating confusion for businesses.
Noble Lords also raised the role of telecoms companies, including the content of messages passed over their networks. The telecoms industry is already extensively regulated by Ofcom, which is active in encouraging the industry to tackle scam calls and texts, including through regulation and guidance. This includes new measures that will take effect shortly to tackle the spoofing or disguising of UK telephone numbers from overseas. As it should be, the telecoms industry has been an active partner in the fight against scams, with broadband and mobile providers signing up to the Home Office’s Telecommunications Fraud Sector Charter and committing to work with the Government to reduce the use of their networks by criminals.
However, it is important to recognise that telecoms operators are not able to view the content of messages passing over their networks. While they employ sophisticated algorithms to identify and block hundreds of millions of fraudulent or scam messages and calls, the rapid evolution of threats creates challenges to pre-emptive action. This means that a facilitation offence could potentially have a disproportionate effect on the industry and the operation of telecommunications in the UK.
Amendment 91 also references the Financial Conduct Authority. The FCA is working closely with banks and other financial institutions to reduce the role they play in facilitating fraud and to identify further controls that can be put in place to protect the public from scams. In addition, the Payment Systems Regulator is introducing new requirements for financial institutions to reimburse fraud victims, which will create strong incentives to improve fraud controls, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.
In respect of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, noble Lords will be aware from Tuesday’s debate that Clause 183 of the Bill already inserts a regulatory objective in the Legal Services Act 2007, focusing on promoting the prevention and detection of economic crime. This measure affirms the duties of the regulators, the Legal Services Board and the regulated communities to uphold the economic crime agenda.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also referenced the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Amendment 91 also references that organisation and other relevant regulators of accountants. As I said, I am aware that several noble Lords have declared their association with that organisation.
As noble Lords will be aware, ICAEW is a professional and supervisory body for chartered accountants. Its work in areas regulated by law—for example, audit, anti-money laundering, local audit, investment business, insolvency and probate—is monitored by oversight bodies such as the Insolvency Service, the FCA, the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Legal Services Board. ICAEW has been proactive in the industry fight against fraud, leading the sector in negotiating and delivering the Accountancy Fraud Sector Charter, published in 2021, and is an active member of the counter-fraud community, contributing to all levels of governance across the threat landscape. It is a co-signatory to the Economic Crime Plan and associated actions.
As I set out in our earlier debate, the offence introduced via the Government’s amendments covers fraud and false accounting, while keeping money-laundering responsibilities contained under the existing regulatory regime. That ensures that the offence is targeted, focused on offences most likely to be committed by corporations and where prevention can have the most impact and not duplicative of existing regimes.
I note the wider offence lists put forward under the noble Baroness’s amendment, but—as we debated at length earlier today—we are satisfied through discussions with law enforcement and prosecutors that all the priority offences have been included. There is a power in secondary legislation to update the list when required. We have also touched on the issue of the threshold in the government amendment that means it applies—at least initially—only to large organisations. As I set out earlier, this is to avoid disproportionate burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises and ensure our economy encourages people to open and grow businesses. Of course, we encourage small organisations to take steps to prevent fraud and there are, as I mentioned in an earlier group, existing powers to prosecute small organisations and their employees if they commit fraud, but we need to keep the total regulatory burden in check.
There have been cross-party calls for the Government’s failure to prevent fraud offence both in this House and in the other place, as well as across civil society. The Government have listened and introduced amendments. In addition to the legislative measures proposed, the Government continue to work closely with regulators and wider sectors to tackle fraud and set out the actions expected of industry. I am afraid that the Government therefore view these amendments as duplicative of measures already being taken forward—
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I am a little confused, because we seem to be talking now about the previous amendments, where an associate of the body commits fraud with the intention to benefit the body, which is a very different thing to the amendments we are looking at at the moment. The situations we have been talking about—the scams, and so on—would not, as I think we established fairly clearly in debate on the first group, be covered by that. Will the Minister please address the issue of scams and what these amendments are trying to address, rather than the rather different offence that was created by the first group of amendments?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think I have already addressed that a little earlier when I was talking about the various codes that we are asking telecoms companies to sign up to via Ofcom. I am wrapping up now, so I am bringing it all together—or attempting to.
The Government therefore view these amendments as duplicative of measures already being taken forward and not achieving their intentions. I of course commit to read page 22, in answer to my noble friend, but I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lady Morgan not to press their amendments.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
I thank my noble friend very much for what he said; I will read it very carefully. I wanted to wait for the end of his speech, but he mentioned a meeting that is being held on 9 May to bring together at least three pieces of legislation and, who knows, we might even have had the fraud strategy by that point and be able to talk about that. I suggest that he looks at that meeting the other way round and, as I suggested, go through the different types of fraud—they will not be exhaustive—and work out what the Government think the relevant legislation is tackling. Then we will be able to see what the gaps are. I think one of the gaps is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, just said, which is where services are being used to perpetuate fraud that are definitely not caught by the Government’s proposed amendment. That would enable us to have a much better informed debate before and at Report about whether we will really use the opportunity of this Bill. I invite my mobile friend to say that he will ask officials to work that way round: looking at the frauds and then seeing what the Government have already proposed to tackle them.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
My noble friend will be aware that this will be a cross-departmental meeting, and I have not seen the proposed agenda, but I will certainly take her comments back. I meant to say that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made reference to the technical meeting he had on the Online Safety Bill, and I obviously extend the offer of a similar meeting, if anyone else would like it.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. I will not attempt to summate what everybody has said and will concentrate on responding to the Minister.
I have to say that I am not reassured. I do not believe that anything powerful is going on that will address the hole that has been elaborated on at great length in the report by the committee, never mind by what other noble Lords and I have said today. All we seem to have are amendments from the Government which do not catch this and do not catch a lot else either, so they do not matter. We do not have anything that deals with third-party use other than, if I heard correctly—like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I will have to read through everything the Minister said in Hansard—the fact that the Government are speaking to the telecoms companies and trying to come up with some kind of voluntary agreements. Well, good luck; we found them less than enthusiastic. There are things they can do to stop spoofing; they can update their systems and some of their codes sooner rather than later, but they think they can get away with it by waving their hands and saying, “It’s technically difficult”. There are some people, myself included, who have technical degrees and can see through the rot. Frankly, the Government should not put up with back-pedalling. Yes, it will cost them money, but they have to spend that money to help protect the 40 million-plus people who are not just being sent a text, a scam, a spoof or a phish every now and then but are incessantly getting them. It needs technical intervention to help. Until there is a stick as well as the carrot of discussions, that will not happen.
I will of course withdraw my amendment for now, but we must return to this subject on Report, as well as to the inadequacies of the other “failure to prevent” offences. They should be the central theme of what we are doing now; we cannot just put up with a fig leaf and say, “It’s been done”. We need a lot more than a fig leaf. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Banks: Closures and Shared Banking Hubs
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many (1) bank branches have closed, and (2) shared banking hubs have opened, in the last 12 months; and what steps they are taking to minimise the former and speed up the latter.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my financial services interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not make assessments of bank branch networks or intervene in commercial decisions to close branches. Banks should follow FCA guidance, including considering alternative access where appropriate. One example of this is shared banking hubs. More than 50 hubs have been announced, with four now open, and the pace of delivery is expected to accelerate over the coming months. People can also access everyday banking via their local post office.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, in the past 12 months, 847 bank branches have closed or are set to close. Four shared banking hubs have opened. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Government need to act to ensure local banking provision, including deposit taking as well as withdrawals and advice? They must also act to ensure acceptance of, as well as access to, cash; otherwise, what currency is cash if there is no place to spend it? Finally, will the Government consider carefully commissioning a review into access to digital financial services to ensure that everyone can benefit from all the financial innovations in that space?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, we are legislating to protect access to cash. That covers withdrawal as well as deposit services. The Government do not plan to mandate the acceptance of cash. That would be an unprecedented intervention. However, the increased access particularly to deposit services for businesses should allow those who wish to continue to accept cash to be able to do so on a more sustainable footing. My noble friend makes an interesting suggestion. The Government are working hard to ensure financial inclusion, including digital financial inclusion. I will think about his suggestion very carefully.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, getting a smart hub still requires the voluntary participation of the banks, which is part of the reason why the pace of progress has been so slow. Will the Government consider changing the rules so that any community that meets the standards to justify a smart hub, as assessed by LINK, then has an automatic right to that hub and can overcome bank resistance?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are not considering changing the framework. As I said in response to the Question, we expect the pace of delivery to pick up. Shared banking hubs are one initiative to ensure that communities can continue to access banking. I mentioned the Post Office as being another route: 99% of personal and 95% of business banking customers can carry out their everyday banking there, with more than 11,000 branches across the UK.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will recollect, no doubt, an earlier Question asked by my noble friend Lord Holmes about the nature of the facilities provided by ATMs and banks, particularly for those with disabilities. Will my noble friend therefore confirm that, in the establishment of these hubs, there will be a requirement on them to be careful to provide the sorts of facilities that are suitable for people with disabilities, as the banks were starting to do?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, in taking forward this work, I am sure that that is a consideration the banks have in mind. The banking hubs came out of a pilot programme that allowed banks to test out this model to ensure that it was accessible to all their customers. Of course, they are subject to the equality duty, which also means that they need to make proper provision for those with protected characteristics.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, legal tender is legal tender. I urge my noble friend to bear in mind that the Government have the opportunity, if they wish, to mandate the use of cash—people can use it when they want. Will she also bear in mind that a lot of people now are being discouraged from writing cheques? Many people like to pay their bills with cheques. All these facilities should remain, certainly for the next two decades.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government acknowledge the important role that cash still plays in many of our lives, which is why we are taking unprecedented action on protecting access to cash. As I said, ensuring that businesses have access to deposit facilities will also promote ongoing cash acceptance by businesses.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not think my children know what a cheque is, actually. The Social Market Foundation and the Treasury Select Committee in the other place have expressed some concern about the overreliance on post offices as a stopgap. Postal staff are wonderful, but they are not trained banking specialists. Does the Minister agree that we need that trusted expertise to be available on our high streets? Does she also agree that some post offices just are not suitable for many of the requirements of face-to-face banking, especially for more vulnerable customers, as they do not provide the privacy and dignity that many bank customers need?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that the Post Office can play a really important role in ensuring ongoing provision, but it should not be the only provider of services. There are other services that are more appropriately delivered in other ways, including in person, which is part of where banking hubs come in. As I have said, we hope to see the delivery of those hubs accelerated this year. It is also reassuring to hear that several banks have committed that if their branch is the last in town, it will stay open until the relevant banking hub is up and running, to ensure continuity of service.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
In my local town of Bishop Auckland, Newcastle Building Society and Darlington Building Society have moved on to the high street as banks have moved off it. Will the Minister commend building societies for their commitment to local communities and to making things accessible to them, and will she encourage further work on that?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely commend building societies and all businesses that have a commitment to local communities and are thinking about how they can make their services as accessible as possible. There are many different routes to ensuring accessibility. We should focus on the outcome for the customer and embrace the different routes that this can be delivered by.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, the bigger the profit, the less customer service there is. This has happened over the last decade. There are still some banks pretending that they are disabled by Covid and that is why you cannot get through on the phone, and the local branch is closed so you cannot actually talk to anyone. Will the Minister ask the banks to start putting the customer first and ensure that there are facilities available, not just at the odd hub but in local communities, which, in the past, could rely on serious, person-to-person customer service?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, a process has been put in place to allow communities to make the case through LINK for where they need access to further services, and there is a commitment that if something is deemed necessary, it will be implemented. The noble Lord is right that it is essential that the interests of consumers are properly considered in all areas of financial services. There is the new consumer duty, which is due to be implemented later this year and will take forward some of his suggestions.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, in contrast to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I do not know what a cheque is; I thought it was something one received in a restaurant in the United States. I do not carry cash and, in common with millions of people, I pay using contactless technology. Of course, some still need cash, including small businesses, but, as my noble friend says, is not the Post Office network a ready-made, available network for cash, which almost every business can use and is guaranteed in terms of proximity?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is right about the breadth of the Post Office network, and I have talked about the high percentages of people who can access their everyday banking services through it. It is also geographically widespread; 93% of the UK’s population live within one mile of a post office and 99.7% within three miles of their nearest post office. There are other services that people need to be able to access, which is why it is important that we encourage banks to continue to innovate so that people can access the services in the way that is most appropriate for them.
Climate Change Committee: Discussions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Climate Change Committee about (1) the impact newly licensed oil and gas infrastructure will have on domestic and global emissions, and (2) the design of their ‘Climate Compatibility Checkpoint’.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government work closely with the Climate Change Committee and are grateful for its expert independent advice. The committee provided advice on 24 February 2022 in relation to both new licensing and the climate compatibility checkpoint; the advice was published on the committee’s website. Officials also had several discussions with the committee throughout the design process for the checkpoint. Its advice was considered in the final design, which has now been published on the GOV.UK website.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the climate compatibility checkpoint, in reference to new oil and gas fields, is, quite frankly, doublethink in Orwellian proportions. Can the Minister confirm that the IEA, the IPCC, the vast bulk of UK scientists and the Government’s own net zero tsar, Chris Skidmore, have all stated that the opening of new fields is incompatible with keeping global warming within the 1.5 degree scenario necessary to protect us and the natural world from catastrophic climate breakdown?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not agree with the noble Baroness. She is dead wrong about these matters. The reality is, whether the Liberal Democrats like it or not, that we get about 75% of our energy from oil and gas. That is declining, and the North Sea is a declining field. Unless she is proposing to tell voters that they should disconnect their gas boilers or not drive their cars anywhere, we have a requirement for oil and gas in the future, albeit for a declining amount. Therefore, the only question is whether we get them from our own fields and employ British workers, paying British taxes, or whether we import them from abroad, which usually has a higher carbon footprint. That is the choice that faces us.
Lord Deben (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that the Government asked for the Climate Change Committee’s advice and then ignored it? First, the Climate Change Committee said that it was perfectly possibly to do this if there were a proper checkpoint. The checkpoint is not what we asked for. Secondly, the committee said that the Government should make sure that all extraction from the North Sea should be of the highest environmental level. We have not insisted on that. Norway has a much higher level. Thirdly, the committee said that the Government should accept that they should not increase the amount of oil being produced on the excuse of the war in Ukraine. Why have the Government not accepted the CCC’s advice?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Let me give my noble friend some other quotes from the letter from the Climate Change Committee, with which he is of course closely associated:
“UK extraction has a relatively low carbon footprint (more clearly for gas than for oil) and the UK will continue to be a net importer of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, implying there may be emissions advantages to UK production replacing imports”.
I think he should read the letter that he sent.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, what steps are the Government taking to reduce the impact of flaring? I am sure the Minister is aware that routine flaring, which incidentally has been banned in Norway since 1970, has a very bad effect on the environment, as it releases methane 80 times more potent than CO2 over a 20-year period. As a result, if Rosebank goes ahead, we will exceed our carbon budget.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Baroness is aware, we have a plan to reduce our flaring. We had a Question on that a few weeks ago. We have committed, along with many other countries, to eliminate flaring by 2030. The amount of flaring is declining rapidly across the North Sea and action is being taken.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, can I follow up on the last question? The Rosebank oilfield, which has just been licensed, is the largest undeveloped field in the North Sea. It is going to create 200 million tonnes of CO2, which is more than the combined annual emissions of all 28 low-income countries in the world. Most of the oil is going to be exported; it is not going to lower our domestic bills. Can the Government tell me what the benefits from this are? How on earth is this showing global leadership, at a time when all the institutions are saying that we have to stop extracting oil and gas to defeat climate change and temperature rise?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I refer the noble Baroness to the answer I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. We still have in this country a requirement for oil and gas. Some 80% of our space heating comes from gas. We need to phase that out in a transition. Over the years, we need to electrify more, but in the short term we have a requirement for oil and gas. The question is whether we want to get it from Qatar or Saudi Arabia and pay taxes abroad, or employ our own people in the North Sea to extract those same reserves?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the Dasgupta review commissioned by the Treasury warned against the continued use of subsidies towards fossil fuels because they are driving biodiversity loss. Before the Minister says that they do not subsidise them, there are tax breaks, investment allowances and decommissioning loopholes—all of which are subsidies. What can the Minister say today about dealing with biodiversity loss and ending those subsidies towards fossil fuels?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but the Minister is going to say that we do not subsidise fossil fuels, because that is the case. In fact, the opposite is true. We gain billions of pounds per year in tax revenues from fossil fuels.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, would the Minister agree with the right honourable Member in the other place Chris Skidmore, the chair of the independent review of net zero, who has come out in opposition to the new Rosebank field development? He recently said:
“We must not let the industries of the past dictate our future”.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I actually agree with him on that particular statement. Of course we need to move towards phasing out fossil fuel use; nobody disagrees with that. We have a legal commitment to do that and we are doing so through a transition. As I said in response to previous questions, the question is where we get those reserves from in future. Even with new licensing, UK production in the North Sea will continue to decline at a rate of about 7% per year. At the moment we are importing LNG to satisfy our domestic demand, which has about twice the carbon footprint of that produced in the North Sea. I really do not understand the point the noble Baroness is making.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the CCC’s report last month emphasised the need for decarbonising and expanding the electricity system to rapidly reduce the UK’s demand for fossil fuels. As mentioned in the report, the Government still have not provided a coherent strategy or essential details on how they will achieve their goal of decarbonisation by 2035. When will these be provided? When will the Government accept that the quickest and cheapest way to offer the required supply of variable renewables to do so will involve onshore wind and solar?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Decarbonising our electricity system, which we are doing at the fastest rate of all G7 countries, will require much more electrification. Renewable generation capacity is currently six times greater than in 2010. We are expanding to deliver up to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030. We have said that we will also consider onshore wind in future CfD rounds. We have one of the highest solar capacities in Europe as well—in fact, we have more solar capacity than even countries such as France.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s defence of new exploration and production in the North Sea is that the carbon footprint of the oil and gas produced will be less because it will be consumed here. This goes against all the evidence. Can the Minister therefore give the House an assurance that all future production of oil and gas in the North Sea will be consumed in the UK in order to reap the benefits which he so repeatedly announces?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The reason I said it was lower carbon intensity is that that is a fact. There are lots of studies being done on it. Imported LNG has about twice the carbon footprint of domestic production. Of course I cannot give him a guarantee that it will all be consumed within the UK, because it is an international market. We have pipelines, for instance, interlinking our gas supply with the continent, as the noble Lord well knows. If the Liberal Democrats really believe that we should stop our production tomorrow, I look forward to all the focus leaflets—which are being distributed at the moment—telling people that they have to stop using their gas boilers or driving their cars. Lots of leaflets are being produced but I have not noticed the Liberals saying that in public.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister did answer the question on the impact on biodiversity of fossil fuel extraction. Could he have another go now?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course it has an impact on biodiversity, but we have very strict climate and environmental studies that need to be done before any fields are licensed. This is the subject of court action at the moment, as the noble Baroness probably realises, so I cannot comment on it in detail. We follow all the required biodiversity protocols.
Overseas Territories: Illegal Immigration
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to support the Overseas Territories in the Caribbean with the challenge of illegal immigration.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and remind your Lordships of my interest as the honorary colonel of the Cayman Islands Regiment.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I salute my noble friend for his contribution to the overseas territories. The Prime Minister has been clear that supporting the overseas territories is a top priority for this Government. That includes supporting Caribbean overseas territories tackling irregular migration. I am working closely with colleagues across government to strengthen our collective support for the OTs. The Turks and Caicos Islands face particularly high levels of irregular migration from Haiti. The UK’s support package includes FCDO-funded work to introduce electronic borders and procuring a maritime surveillance aircraft.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, last month I visited the Turks and Caicos Islands with the Chief of the General Staff to see the work of the TCI regiment, which is supporting the countermigration challenges the islands face. It is a very real problem. So far this year, some 1,599 Haitians have been intercepted—which, for an island with a population of just 60,000, is an enormous challenge. Notwithstanding the work of my noble friend, who I know is committed to the OTs, I must say that I was underwhelmed by the response of His Majesty’s Government. It really is a challenge. The problem seems to be that other government departments here in the UK view the OTs as not their problem but an FCDO problem. However, the FCDO does not have the levers to pull to help the overseas territories, for example in policing. If the FCDO is unable to support the OTs, should responsibilities be transferred to the Cabinet Office to ensure a whole of government approach to supporting our overseas territories?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point; I know I am expected to say this, but I am genuinely grateful to him for raising this issue, which is not raised enough in this place. The problem he described is serious, but he is semi-right in relation to the FCDO. The FCDE is air traffic control for the OTs; the levers of delivery belong to other departments of government. But I pay tribute to the team in the FCDO, given that it is the department, notwithstanding what I just said, delivering the most for the OTs. We commissioned a serious crime review before the situation escalated in TCI, and urgently requested the deployment of UK police—and funded this. It is true, as has been noted, that UK police pulled their officers out and chose not to provide operational officers at the time they were needed. That was a mistake on their part, but the Foreign Office then secured further UK police capacity-building team and separately procured a 16-strong operational serious crime team for TCI through commercial routes, and that team is in place and making a big difference today. The FCDO also requested and funded the support of a Royal Navy helicopter at the height of the crisis in the TCI. The Foreign Secretary has been working with the Prime Minster and myself to ensure that all government departments understand their role in supporting the overseas territories. The noble Lord makes an important point that this is not someone else’s problem. The OTs are part of the UK family and the message has gone out from the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, and to individual Ministers from me, that the Government need to step up across Whitehall.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the international medical charity MSF has underlined that gang violence has spread to every part of Port-au-Prince, displacing many residents who are now living in dire conditions. Hospitals, clinics and schools have been forced to close, worsening already appalling food shortages and limiting access to clean drinking water. What steps are the UK and UN taking to help address the violence and humanitarian situation, and to support those fleeing the country to find safety?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Of course, Haiti is not an overseas territory, but it has a big impact on neighbouring overseas territories, as we have been discussing. We are obviously very concerned. We used our platform in the UN Security Council to support the UN sanctions back in October. We continue to engage in Security Council discussions, including considering Haitian requests for security assistance, and we want stability and security as soon as possible in Haiti. We are supporting it through contributions to the UN and other international agencies that have a strong presence on the ground, including the World Bank, and we are working with the UN office in Haiti and the international community to support a peaceful, democratic and Haitian-led solution for the Haitian people.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows that the OTs operate their own visa regime, which is separate from that of the United Kingdom. Given the violence and climate crises in that near neighbourhood, there are no safe and legal routes for seeking asylum. Are the OTs fully covered by the proposals in the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill, which means that they will now have to detain and then remove to Rwanda any of those individuals? What are the mechanisms for providing support for detention facilities within the OTs and supporting the cost of flights to Rwanda that the Government are now going to insist the OTs carry out? What was their response? I assume the Government and FCDO consulted them. What was the response to the consultation?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Different OTs have different challenges and problems. We began the conversation about TCI, where the migration problem is on a scale that is incomparable. If it was translated into UK conditions, it would be like 4 million or 5 million people crossing the channel every year, and clearly that is a major problem for a small island with a small population. What we are helping to do in TCI is helping the country return those refugees to Haiti where possible. Similarly, we have a problem in Cayman, where large numbers of people are fleeing from Cuba. The answer there is to return people wherever possible to Cuba. The only issue that seems to be of interest to Parliament at the moment relates to the British Indian Ocean Territory, where we have a particular problem with refugees, mostly from Sri Lanka, who are inhabiting an area that is effectively uninhabitable. There we have particular issues and it is in those circumstances where the Rwanda option may be the best one.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, when I had the good fortune to do the Minister’s job in the other place, I was able to visit most of the OTs. One of the consistent themes was the lack of capacity, experience and training across the Governments of the OTs. One way to address this is to put in place twinning arrangements with local authorities in the UK. One such partnership was between the TCI and Hertfordshire County Council to exchange and train staff, move people and embed them and, above all, build that crucial capacity. Is that twinning arrangement still going? What plans do he and HMG have to put in place further such arrangements?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
There are actually quite a few arrangements of the sort that the noble Lord describes—on education, policing and a wide range of issues. There are too many for me to regale now in the short time that we have, but I am happy to write to him and detail some of the most effective arrangements in place. I would emphasise the point made in the original Question. Different government departments need to recognise that we have a constitutional responsibility to the overseas territories. While the FCDO is a key central organisation in ensuring that that delivery happens, different government departments need to recognise that the inhabitants of the overseas territories are no less His Majesty’s subjects than we are in this place.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, HMS “Medway” was deployed to very considerable and very good effect in the Caribbean in 2022. Why cannot it or a vehicle of a similar class be deployed in the Caribbean in support of the overseas dependencies in 2023? If it cannot, is that not a good argument for having a permanent naval presence in the Caribbean?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point and I agree with him that HMS “Medway” and the auxiliary ship RFA “Tideforce” were of huge assistance in the Turks and Caicos Islands in the wake of Hurricane Fiona. “Medway” then supported the Cayman Islands in response to Hurricane Ian. HMS “Dauntless” will be in the region from 1 June this year to provide a consistent maritime presence in the Caribbean, including humanitarian assistance and disaster response support. It is our intention and duty to ensure we have that presence when needed, particularly during the hurricane season.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, if flights to Rwanda are an option for the Caribbean, overseas territories and beyond, who picks up the bill?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord raises what I think is currently an academic question. The Rwanda option is being explored in relation to the refugees I mentioned earlier who have landed in Chagos—Diego Garcia. We have a particular issue there, given that the facilities are not appropriate. The area that the refugees currently occupy is not strictly inhabitable and we need to return as many of those people as possible. I would add 130 individuals have already voluntarily returned home and the numbers are now pretty small.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on the issue of assistance from HMG to the overseas territories, can the Minister confirm that carbon emissions from overseas territories count under the UK’s net-zero target? What support are the Government providing to those overseas territories to tackle their carbon emissions?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The key value of the overseas territories is related less to carbon—their emissions are minuscule—than to the fact that 96% of UK biodiversity is in the overseas territories. That is an enormous source of pride for the UK, and rightly so. We provide a lot of financial support through Darwin Plus, which we expanded to £10 million annually. We have £2 million also available this year to the OTs through the CSSF. We have the Blue Belt programme, which has grown—Anguilla joined a few months ago and another overseas territory will be joining. I long to tell the House about that but I cannot do so yet. That programme continues to grow. We are focusing a lot of effort and energy in helping the OTs to protect and enhance their biodiversity. I did not answer the question about whether emissions are included, because I am afraid that I do not know the answer. My colleague here no doubt does.
Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP: Resignation Letter
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action, if any, they are considering following the comments made about civil servants by the Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister dated 21 April.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that the Civil Service is vital to the work of the Government. The Government greatly value the work of civil servants who, together with Ministers, are working to deliver for the British people. The Prime Minister has accepted the resignation of the right honourable Dominic Raab, the former Deputy Prime Minister, following the findings of Adam Tolley KC, in a published exchange of letters.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome much of the Minister’s reply, but does she accept that the emerging pattern we see is not civil servants conspiring against their Ministers? The pattern documented is of Conservative Ministers bullying their staff, with three examples in the current Parliament, two of which led to resignations and one of which should have led to a resignation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I cannot accept the conclusion of the noble Lord. Of course, as the Prime Minister said, we need to learn from these cases
“how to better handle such matters better in future”,
and a credible complaints process needs to have the confidence of Ministers and civil servants alike. Work is under way on that. Ministers and civil servants work together on difficult issues every day and, in the main, very constructively.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, as someone who headed four separate departments, all under Conservative Governments, in my experience overwhelmingly the Civil Service was loyal and gave exceptional advice to the Government. Would it not be better to look at the quality of special advisers, who sometimes exhibit neither of those qualities?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Having worked as an adviser, a Minister and a civil servant, I would say that the constitution has these different parts. Political advisers are important and helpful. In most cases, they work well with the Civil Service.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, is it not important to recognise that Ministers have no power to select, reward, promote or demote officials working for them? Likewise, officials should not have the power effectively to dismiss Ministers for whom they work, least of all by making anonymous complaints against them. I was very fortunate, like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that my officials were a joy to work with throughout, but some Ministers have perceived some officials to be reluctant to implement their policies and have had to try to find ways of dealing with that, and some officials have perceived Ministers’ responses trying to get them to do that too abrasive, demanding and rude. I sympathise with those who had to duck telephones thrown by Gordon Brown or to deal with Richard Crossman, who said in his diaries that when he found officials reluctant to do his will:
“I bullied them and made a fool of them in front of others, quite often their subordinates”.
I suspect such an approach was counterproductive. Does the Minister agree that it is up to the electorate or elected superiors to get rid of Ministers who cannot deliver, not officials?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Ministers are of course part of the process of democratic election. I agree with much of what my noble friend said.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, in his letter of resignation, the former Deputy Prime Minister said that the inquiry into his actions
“set a dangerous precedent for the conduct of good government”,
and set the “threshold for bullying” too low. The Prime Minister in response said that we should learn to manage these matters better in future. Does the Minister agree that the threat to good government comes not from the inquiry but from bullying Ministers, that the threshold which needs to be raised is that of ministerial behaviour, and that the lesson to be learned is that Ministers should behave themselves and not bully their staff?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Ministers are required to behave themselves and do behave themselves. The code includes the statement:
“Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated”.
Complaints are investigated, as we have been discussing.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
In his report, Mr Tolley took care to anonymise all the complainants. Reading the report, it was not possible to see who had complained. In his resignation letter, the former Deputy Prime Minister mentioned a Gibraltar negotiation and then someone leaked the name of the British ambassador to Spain to the Telegraph. Will His Majesty’s Government condemn that leak?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I read the Tolley report. He took great care on this matter. Where there are specific allegations, it can be very difficult to guarantee anonymity in a process like this. It is important for fairness that the full details of the complaint are made. Although the Deputy Prime Minister stepped down and there were findings of concern, there were also areas where Mr Tolley took a different view.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The Minister is choosing her words carefully, and she has our sympathy for that, but the extraordinarily poor grace of Mr Raab’s resignation letter means that this case has failed to clarify the standards expected of Ministers.
“The conclusion of the Raab inquiry has done nothing to help other ministers who misunderstand what professional behaviour looks like avoid getting into the same position”.
Those are not my words but the words of the Institute for Government. Is it not time that the Government introduced an independent adviser with the power to initiate investigations? Should there not also be an independent review of the effectiveness of the Ministerial Code?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I should point out that in his letter, Dominic Raab, who did some good things as a Secretary of State, said:
“I am genuinely sorry for any unintended stress or offence that any officials felt”.
An independent adviser, Mr Tolley, was asked to conduct the inquiry because at that time there was no ethics adviser, as the noble Baroness knows. Sir Laurie Magnus has since been appointed. He can initiate, but he has to get the approval of the Prime Minister. As we discussed on Tuesday, the arrangements have been changed and the process shows that, where there is need for an inquiry, an inquiry takes place.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, looking around, I see many noble Lords who have had more successful ministerial experiences than mine, but none who lasted 21 years. My experience is that you do not get the best out of civil servants by shouting at them. There is no organised conspiracy to frustrate the will of Ministers, but some Ministers may see as obstruction civil servants doing their job by pointing out the adverse consequences of certain policy options. If we have a review of the complaints procedure, can we debate it in this House so the plethora of ex-Ministers, ex-civil servants and others can contribute to that review?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I think almost no Secretary of State has been as successful as my noble friend, and he has helped here as well by joining the Front Bench. What we debate in this House is a matter for the usual channels, but we are getting on and work is under way on the complaints process.
Lord Bird (CB)
My experience, having spoken to a number of Ministers, is that a couple of them have said things like, “You won’t get this past the Civil Service”. What does that mean?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not dare to speculate on what the thing in question was. The Civil Service has a fundamental principle of political impartiality so, in considering proposals, that is something they have to look at. If something is improper, then the good civil servant—I used to be one—will point that out to the Minister of the day, and it might be that that is what was meant. Obviously Ministers are advised by civil servants on matters of policy, and it is clear that civil servants sometimes disagree with Ministers.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I once asked a senior civil servant who were their favourite Ministers to work with. In confidence, they said Nicholas Ridley and the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—which in itself is an interesting combination. I asked why, and they said it was because you knew where you stood with them and they were decisive. I think that is the definition of a good Minister. I have never met a civil servant who was disloyal, but I have met people who say that they would rather not receive direct instructions via a spad and would rather speak to a Minister. I think that is not necessarily because of the quality of the spad, but because of the method of avoiding talking to civil servants. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. These are the sort of points that come up when we debate these things. Good Ministers decide clearly, and civil servants and political spads provide advice, which can be helpful. Spads can indeed be helpful to civil servants, as I remember.
House of Lords Commission, Services, Liaison, Procedure and Privileges and Selection Committees
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
That the Earl of Kinnoull be appointed to the following Select Committees, in place of Lord Judge:
House of Lords Commission
Services
Liaison
Procedure and Privileges
Selection.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, in moving the five Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper, I express my considerable thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on behalf of the whole House for his work as Convenor of the Cross Benches over the past three and a half years, and recognise his service and significant contribution to those committees on which he served as convenor. We look forward to the noble and learned Lord’s return to the House in due course. I beg to move.
Artificial Intelligence in Weapon Systems Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Mitchell and Lord Triesman be appointed members of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent and Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.
Built Environment Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe be appointed a member of the Select Committee.
Constitution Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Baroness Finn be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Howard of Lympne.
Science and Technology Committee
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That Viscount Stansgate be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe.
Online Safety Bill
Thursday 27th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87(Rev)-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (27 Apr 2023)
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on other amendments in the name of Lord Moylan to remove Clause 23(3) and the subsequent new Clause after 23, the effect of which is that the duties imposed on search services vary depending on whether or not they are Category 2A services: this needs to be reflected in the provision about combined services (regulated user-to-user services that include public search services) in Clause 6.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 13 I will speak to all the amendments in the group, all of which are in my name with the exception of Amendment 157 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pickles. These are interlinked amendments; they work together. There is effectively only one amendment going on. A noble Lord challenged me a day or two ago as to whether I could summarise in a sentence what the amendment does, and the answer is that I think I can: Clause 23 imposes various duties on search engines, and this amendment would remove one of those duties from search engines that fall into category 2B.
There are two categories of search engines, 2A and 2B, and category 2B is the smaller search engines. We do not know the difference between them in greater detail than that because the schedule that relates to them reserves to the Secretary of State the power to set the thresholds that will define which category a search engine falls into, but I think it is clear that category 2B is the smaller ones.
These amendments pursue a theme that I brought up in Committee earlier in the week when I argued that the Bill would put excessively onerous and unnecessary obligations on smaller businesses. The particular duty that these amendments would take away from smaller search engines is referred to in Clause 23(2):
“A duty, in relation to a service, to take or use proportionate measures relating to the design or operation of the service to effectively mitigate and manage the risks of harm to individuals, as identified in the most recent illegal content risk assessment of the service”.
The purpose of that is to recognise that very large numbers of smaller businesses do not pose a risk, according to the Government’s own assessment of the market, and to allow them to get on with their business without taking these onerous and difficult measures. They are probing amendments to try to find out what the Government are willing to do in relation to smaller businesses that will make this a workable Bill.
I can already imagine that there are noble Lords in the Chamber who will say that small does not equal safe, and that small businesses need to be covered by the same rigorous regulations as larger businesses. But I am not saying that small equals safe. I am saying—as I attempted to say when the Committee met earlier—that absolute safety is not attainable. It is not attainable in the real world, nor can we expect it to be attainable in the online world. I imagine that objection will be made. I see it has some force, but I do not think it has sufficient compelling force to put the sort of burden on small businesses that this Bill would do, and I would like to hear more about it.
I will say one other thing. Those who object to this approach need to be sure in their own minds that they are not contributing to creating a piece of legislation that, when it comes into operation, is so difficult to implement that it becomes discredited. There needs to be a recognition that this has to work in practice. If it does not—if it creates resentment and opposition—we will find the Government not bringing sections of it into force, needing to repeal them or going easy on them once the blowback starts, so to speak. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and others, since the noble Lord is unavoidably absent. It is along the same lines as Amendment 13; it is relatively minor and straightforward, and asks the Government to recognise that search services such as Google are enormously important as an entry to the internet. They are different from social media companies such as Twitter. We ask that the Government be consistent in applying their stated terms when these are breached in respect of harm to users, whether that be through algorithms, through auto-prompts or otherwise.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill treats user-to-user services, such as Meta, and search services, such as Google, differently. The so-called third shield or toggle proposed for shielding users from legal but harmful content, should they wish to be shielded, does not apply when it comes to search services, important though they are. Indeed, at present, large, traditional search services, including Google and Microsoft Bing, and voice search assistants, including Alexa and Siri, will be exempted from several of the requirements for large user-to-user services—category 1 companies. Why the discrepancy? Though search services rightly highlight that the content returned by a search is not created or published by them, the algorithmic indexing, promotion and search prompts provided in search bars—the systems they design and employ—are their responsibility, and these have been proven to do harm.
Some of the examples of such harm have already been cited in the other place, but not before this Committee. I do not want to give them too much of an airing because they were in the past, and the search people have taken them down after complaints, but some of the dreadful things that emerge from searching on Google et cetera are a warning of what could occur. It has been pointed out that search engines would in the past have thrown up, for example, swastikas, SS bolts and other Nazi memorabilia when people searched for desk ornaments. If George Soros’s name came up, he would be included in a list of people responsible for world evils. The Bing service, which I dislike anyway, has been directing people—at last, it did in the past—to anti-Semitic and homophobic searches through its auto-complete, while Google’s image carousel highlighted pictures of portable barbecues to those searching for the term “Jewish baby stroller”.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 157, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and others, including my own. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, indicated, it is specific in the nature of what it concentrates on. The greatest concern that arises through the amendment is with reference to category 2A. It is not necessarily incompatible with what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, proposes; I do not intend to make any direct further comment on his amendments. While the amendment is specific, it has a resonance with some of the other issues raised on the Bill.
I am sure that everyone within this Committee would want to have a Bill that is as fit for purpose as possible. The Bill was given widespread support at Second Reading, so there is a determination across the Chamber to have that. Where we can make improvements to the Bill, we should do that and, as much as possible, try to future-proof the Bill. The wider resonance is the concern that if the Bill is to be successful, we need as much consistency and clarity within it as possible, particularly for users. Where we have a level of false dichotomy of regulations, that runs contrary to the intended purposes of the Bill and creates inadvertent opportunities for loopholes. As such, and as has been indicated, the concern is that in the Bill at present, major search engines are effectively treated in some of the regulations on a different basis from face-to-face users. For example, some of the provisions around risk assessment, the third shield and the empowerment tools are different.
As also indicated, we are not talking about some of the minor search engines. We are talking about some of the largest companies in the world, be it Google, Microsoft through Bing, Amazon through its devices or Apple through its Siri voice tool, so it is reasonable that they are brought into line with what is there is for face-to-face users. The amendment is therefore appropriate and the rationale for it is that there is a real-world danger. Mention has been made—we do not want to dwell too long on some of the examples, but I will use just one—of the realms of anti-Semitism, where I have a particular interest. For example, on search tools, a while ago there was a prompt within one search engine that Jews are evil. It was found that when that prompt was there, searches of that nature increased by 10% and when it was removed, they were reduced. It is quite fixable and it goes into a wide range of areas.
One of the ways in which technology has changed, I think for us all, is the danger that it can be abused by people who seek to radicalise others and make them extreme, particularly young children. Gone are the days when some of these extremists or terrorists were lonely individuals in an attic, with no real contact with the outside world, or hanging around occasionally in the high street while handing out poorly produced A4 papers with their hateful ideology. There is a global interconnection here and, in particular, search engines and face-to-face users can be used to try to draw young people into their nefarious activities.
I mentioned the example of extremism and radicalisation when it comes to anti-Semitism. I have seen it from my own part of the world, where there is at times an attempt by those who still see violence as the way forward in Northern Ireland to draw new generations of young people into extremist ideology and terrorist acts. There is an attempt to lure in young people and, sadly, search engines have a role within that, which is why we need to see that level of protection. Now, the argument from search engines is that they should have some level of exemptions. How can they be held responsible for everything that appears through their searches, or indeed through the web? But in terms of content, the same argument could be used for face-to-face users. It is right, as the proposer of this amendment has indicated, that there are things such as algorithmic indexing and prompt searches where they do have a level of control.
The use of algorithms has moved on considerably since my schooldays, as they surely have for everyone in this Committee, and I suspect that none of us felt that they would be used in such a fashion. We need a level of protection through an amendment such as this and, as its proposers, we are not doctrinaire on the precise form in which this should take place. We look, for example, at the provisions within Clause 11—we seek to hear what the Government have to say on that—which could potentially be used to regulate search engines. Ensuring that that power is given, and will be used by Ofcom, will go a long way to addressing many of the concerns.
I think all of us in this Committee are keen to work together to find the right solutions, but we feel that there is a need to make some level of change to the regulations that are required for search engines. None of us in this Committee believes that we will ultimately have a piece of legislation that reflects perfection, but there is a solemn duty on us all to produce legislation that is as fit for purpose and future-proofed as possible, while providing children in particular with the maximum protection in what is at times an ever-changing and sometimes very frightening world.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I was the person who said that small was not safe, and I still feel that. I certainly do not think that anything in the Bill will make the world online 100% safe, and I think that very few noble Lords do, so it is important to say that. When we talk about creating a high bar or having zero tolerance, we are talking about ensuring that there is a ladder within the Bill so that the most extreme cases have the greatest force of law trying to attack them. I agree with the noble Lord on that.
I also absolutely agree with the noble Lord about implementation: if it is too complex and difficult, it will be unused and exploited in certain ways, and it will have a bad reputation. The only part of his amendment that I do not agree with is that we should look at size. Through the process of Committee, if we can look at risk rather than size, we will get somewhere. I share his impatience—or his inquiry—about what categories 2A and 2B mean. If category 2A means the most risky and category 2B means those that are less risky, I am with him all the way. We need to look into the definition of what they mean.
Finally, I mentioned several times on Tuesday that we need to look carefully at Ofcom’s risk profiles. Is this the answer to dealing with where risk gets determined, rather than size?
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak along similar lines to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will address my noble friend Lord Moylan’s comments. I share his concern that we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good but, like the noble Baroness, I do not think that size is the key issue here, because of how tech businesses grow. Tech businesses are rather like building a skyscraper: if you get the foundations wrong, it is almost impossible to change how safe the building is as it goes up and up. As I said earlier this week, small tech businesses can become big very quickly, and, if you design your small tech business with the risks to children in mind at the very beginning, there is a much greater chance that your skyscraper will not wobble as it gets taller. On the other hand, if your small business begins by not taking children into account at all, it is almost impossible to address the problem once it is huge. I fear that this is the problem we face with today’s social media companies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, hit the nail on the head, as she so often does, in saying that we need to think about risk, rather than size, as the means of differentiating the proportionate response. In Clause 23, which my noble friend seeks to amend, the important phrase is “use proportionate measures” in subsection (2). Provided that we start with a risk assessment and companies are then under the obligation to make proportionate adjustments, that is how you build safe technology companies—it is just like how you build safe buildings.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will build on my noble friend’s comments. We have what I call the Andrew Tate problem. That famous pornographer and disreputable character started a business in a shed in Romania with a dozen employees. By most people’s assessment, it would have been considered a small business but, through his content of pornography and the physical assault of women, he extremely quickly built something that served an estimated 3 billion pages, and it has had a huge impact on the children of the English-speaking world. A small business became a big, nasty business very quickly. That anecdote reinforces the point that small does not mean safe, and, although I agree with many of my noble friend’s points, the lens of size is perhaps not the right one to look through.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in full flow as he introduced the amendments, but I believe he made an error in terms of the categorisation. The error is entirely rational, because he took the logical position rather than the one in the Bill. It is a helpful error because it allows us to quiz the Minister on the rationale for the categorisation scheme.
As I read it, in Clause 86, the categories are: category 1, which is large user-to-user services; category 2A, which is search or combined services; and category 2B, which is small user-to-user services. To my boring and logical binary brain, I would expect it to be: “1A: large user-to-user”; “1B: small user-to-user”; “2A: large search”; and “2B: small search”. I am curious about why a scheme like that was not adopted and we have ended up with something quite complicated. It is not only that: we now have this Part 3/Part 5 thing. I feel that we will be confused for years to come: we will be deciding whether something is a Part 3 2B service or a Part 5 service, and we will end up with a soup of numbers and letters that do not conform to any normal, rational approach to the world.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate, which revisits some of the areas discussed in earlier debates about the scope of the Bill, as many noble Lords said. It allows your Lordships’ House to consider what has to be the primary driver for assessment. In my view and as others said, it ought to be about risk, which has to be the absolute driver in all this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, businesses do not remain static: they start at a certain size and then change. Of course, we hope that many of the businesses we are talking about will grow, so this is about preparation for growth and the reality of doing businesses.
As we discussed, there certainly are cases where search providers may, by their very nature, be almost immune from presenting users with content that could be considered either harmful or illegal under this legislative framework. The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan—I am grateful to him for allowing us to explore these matters—and its various consequential amendments, would limit the duty to prevent access to illegal content to core category 2A search providers, rather than all search providers, as is currently the case under Clause 23(3).
The argument that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, put forward is that the illegal content duty is unduly wide, placing a disproportionate and otherwise unacceptable burden on smaller and/or supposedly safer search providers. He clearly said he was not saying that small was safe—that is now completely understood—but he also said that absolute safety is not achievable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, that is indeed so. If this legislation is too complex and creates the wrong provisions, we will clearly be a long way away from our ambition, which here has to be to have in place the best legislative framework, one that everyone can work with and that provides the maximum opportunity for safety and what we all seek to achieve.
Of course, the flip side of the argument about an unacceptable burden on smaller, or on supposedly safer, search providers may be that they would in fact have very little work to do to comply with the illegal content duty, at least in the short term. But the duty would act as an important safeguard, should the provider’s usual systems prove ineffective with the passage of time. Again, that point was emphasised in this and the previous debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.
We look forward to the Minister’s response to find out which view he and his department subscribe to or, indeed, whether they have another view they can bring to your Lordships’ House. But, on the face of it, the current arrangements do not appear unacceptably onerous.
Amendment 157 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, deals with search by a different approach by inserting requirements about search services’ publicly available statements into Clause 65. In the debate, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, raised very important, realistic examples of where search engines can take us, including to material that encourages racism directed at Jews and other groups and encourages hatred of various groups, including Jews. The amendment talks about issues such as the changing of algorithms or the hiding of content and the need to ensure that the terms of providers’ publicly available statements are applied as consistently.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister in response to Amendment 157 as the tech certainly moves us beyond questions of scope and towards discussion of the conduct of platforms when harm is identified.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I must first apologise for my slightly dishevelled appearance as I managed to spill coffee down my shirt on my way to the Chamber. I apologise for that—as the fumes from the dried coffee suffuse the air around me. It will certainly keep me caffeinated for the day ahead.
Search services play a critical role in users’ online experience, allowing them easily to find and access a broad range of information online. Their gateway function, as we have discussed previously, means that they also play an important role in keeping users safe online because they have significant influence over the content people encounter. The Bill therefore imposes stringent requirements on search services to tackle the risks from illegal content and to protect children.
Amendments 13, 15, 66 to 69 and 73 tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan seek to narrow the scope of the Bill so that its safety search duties apply only to the largest search services—categorised in the Bill as category 2A services—rather than to all search services. Narrowing the scope in this way would have an adverse impact on the safety of people using search services, including children. Search services, including combined services, below the category 2A threshold would no longer have a duty to minimise the risk of users encountering illegal content or children encountering harmful content in or via search results. This would increase the likelihood of users, including children, accessing illegal content and children accessing harmful content through these services.
The Bill already takes a targeted approach and the duties on search services will be proportionate to the risk of harm and the capacity of companies. This means that services which are smaller and lower-risk will have a lighter regulatory burden than those which are larger and higher-risk. All search services will be required to conduct regular illegal content risk assessments and, where relevant, children’s risk assessments, and then implement proportionate mitigations to protect users, including children. Ofcom will set out in its codes of practice specific steps search services can take to ensure compliance and must ensure that these are proportionate to the size and capacity of the service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe asked how search services should conduct their risk assessments. Regulated search services will have a duty to conduct regular illegal content risk assessments, and where a service is likely to be accessed by children it will have a duty to conduct regular children’s risk assessments, as I say. They will be required to assess the level and nature of the risk of individuals encountering illegal content on their service, to implement proportionate mitigations to protect people from illegal content, and to monitor them for effectiveness. Services likely to be accessed by children will also be required to assess the nature and level of risk of their service specifically for children to identify and implement proportionate mitigations to keep children safe, and to monitor them for effectiveness as well.
Companies will also need to assess how the design and operation of the service may increase or reduce the risks identified and Ofcom will have a duty to issue guidance to assist providers in carrying out their risk assessments. That will ensure that providers have, for instance, sufficient clarity about what an appropriate risk assessment looks like for their type of service.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, and others asked about definitions and I congratulate noble Lords on avoiding the obvious
“To be, or not to be”
pun in the debate we have just had. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, is right in the definition he set out. On the rationale for it, it is simply that we have designated as category 1 the largest and riskiest services and as category 2 the smaller and less risky ones, splitting them between 2A, search services, and 2B, user-to-user services. We think that is a clear framework. The definitions are set out a bit more in the Explanatory Notes but that is the rationale.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I take it then that the Government’s working assumption is that all search services, including the biggest ones, are by definition less risky than the larger user-to-user services. It is just a clarification that that is their thinking that has informed this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, the largest and riskiest sites may involve some which have search functions, so the test of large and most risky applies. Smaller and less risky search services are captured in category 2A.
Amendment 157 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pickles, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, seeks to apply new duties on the largest search services. I agree with the objectives in my noble friend’s amendment of increasing transparency about the search services’ operations and enabling users to hold them to account. It is not, however, an amendment I can accept because it would duplicate existing duties while imposing new duties which we do not think are appropriate for search services.
As I say, the Bill will already require search services to set out how they are fulfilling their illegal content and child safety duties in publicly available statements. The largest search services—category 2A—will also be obliged to publish a summary of their risk assessments and to share this with Ofcom. That will ensure that users know what to expect on those search services. In addition, they will be subject to the Bill’s requirements relating to user reporting and redress. These will ensure that search services put in place effective and accessible mechanisms for users to report illegal content and content which is harmful to children.
My noble friend’s amendment would ensure that the requirements to comply with its publicly available statements applied to all actions taken by a search service to prevent harm, not just those relating to illegal content and child safety. This would be a significant expansion of the duties, resulting in Ofcom overseeing how search services treat legal content which is accessed by adults. That runs counter to the Government’s stated desire to avoid labelling legal content which is accessed by adults as harmful. It is for adult users themselves to determine what legal content they consider harmful. It is not for us to put in place measures which could limit their access to legal content, however distasteful. That is not to say, of course, that where material becomes illegal in its nature that we do not share the determination of the noble Baroness, my noble friend and others to make sure that it is properly tackled. The Secretary of State and Ministers have had extensive meetings with groups making representations on this point and I am very happy to continue speaking to my noble friend, the noble Baroness and others if they would welcome it.
I hope that that provides enough reassurance for the amendment to be withdrawn at this stage.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, will forgive me if I do not comment on the amendment they spoke to in the name of my noble friend Lord Pickles, except to say that of course they made their case very well.
I will briefly comment on the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am glad to see a degree of common ground among us in terms of definitions and so forth—a small piece of common ground that we could perhaps expand in the course of the many days we are going to be locked up together in your Lordships’ House.
I am grateful too to the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. I am less clear on “2B or not 2B”, if that is the correct way of referring to this conundrum, than I was before. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that size does not matter and that it is all about risk, but my noble friend the Minister cunningly conflated the two and said at various points “the largest” and “the riskiest”. I do not see why the largest are necessarily the riskiest. On the whole, if I go to Marks & Spencer as opposed to going to a corner shop, I might expect rather less risk. I do not see why the two run together.
I address the question of size in my amendment because that is what the Bill focuses on. I gather that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, may want to explore at some stage in Committee why that is the case and whether a risk threshold might be better than a size threshold. If she does that, I will be very interested in following and maybe even contributing to that debate. However, at the moment, I do not think that any of us is terribly satisfied with conflating the two—that is the least satisfactory way of explaining and justifying the structure of the Bill.
On the remarks of my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe, I do not want in the slightest to sound as if there is any significant disagreement between us—but there is. She suggested that I was opening the way to businesses building business models “not taking children into account at all”. My amendment is much more modest than that. There are two ways of dealing with harm in any aspect of life. One is to wait for it to arrive and then to address it as it arises; the other is constantly to look out for it in advance and to try to prevent it arising. The amendment would leave fully in place the obligation to remove harm, which is priority illegal content or other illegal content, that the provider knows about, having been alerted to it by another person or become aware of it in any other way. That duty would remain. The duty that is removed, especially from small businesses—and really this is quite important—is the obligation constantly to be looking out for harm, because it involves a very large, and I suggest possibly ruinous, commitment to constant monitoring of what appears on a search engine. That is potentially prohibitive, and it arises in other contexts in the Bill as well.
There should be occasions when we can say that knowing that harmful stuff will be removed as soon as it appears, or very quickly afterwards, is adequate for our purposes, without requiring firms to go through a constant monitoring or risk-assessment process. The risk assessment would have to be adjudicated by Ofcom, I gather. Even if no risk was found, of course, that would not be the end of the matter, because I am sure that Ofcom would, very sensibly, require an annual renewal of that application, or after a certain period, to make sure that things had not changed. So even to escape the burden is quite a large burden for small businesses, and then to implement the burden is so onerous that it could be ruinous, whereas taking stuff down when it appears is much easier to do.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
Perhaps I might briefly come in. My noble friend Lord Moylan may have helped explain why we disagree: our definition of harm is very different. I am most concerned that we address the cumulative harms that online services, both user-to-user services and search, are capable of inflicting. That requires us to focus on the design of the service, which we need to do at the beginning, rather than the simpler harm that my noble friend is addressing, which is specific harmful content—not in the sense in which “content” is used in the Bill but “content” as in common parlance; that is, a piece of visual or audio content. My noble friend makes the valid point that that is the simplest way to focus on removing specific pieces of video or text; I am more concerned that we should not exclude small businesses from designing and developing their services such that they do not consider the broader set of harms that are possible and that add up to the cumulative harm that we see our children suffering from today.
So I think our reason for disagreement is that we are focusing on a different harm, rather than that we violently disagree. I agree with my noble friend that I do not want complex bureaucratic processes imposed on small businesses; they need to design their services when they are small, which makes it simpler and easier for them to monitor harm as they grow, rather than waiting until they have grown. That is because the backwards re-engineering of a technology stack is nigh-on impossible.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very interesting point, and there is much to ponder in it—too much to ponder for me to respond to it immediately. Since I am confident that the issue is going to arise again during our sitting in Committee, I shall allow myself the time to reflect on it and come back later.
While I understand my noble friend’s concern about children, the clause that I propose to remove is not specific to children; it relates to individuals, so it covers adults as well. I think I understand what my noble friend is trying to achieve—I shall reflect on it—but this Bill and the clauses we are discussing are a very blunt way of going at it and probably need more refinement even than the amendments we have seen tabled so far. But that is for her to consider.
I think this debate has been very valuable. I did not mention it, but I am grateful also for the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Merron. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Having listened to the Minister, I think we need clarification on the issue of duplication and what is illegal as opposed to just harmful. If we can clarify that, I shall not move my Amendment 157.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
When we come to Amendment 157, that will be noted.
Amendments 13A to 13C
Member’s explanatory statement
This technical amendment ensures that the duties imposed on providers of combined services in relation to the search engine are correct following the changes to clause 20 arising from the new duties in clauses 23, 25 and 29 which are imposed on providers of Category 2A services only.
Member’s explanatory statement
This technical amendment ensures that the duties imposed on providers of combined services in relation to the search engine are correct following the changes to clause 20 arising from the new duties in clauses 23, 25 and 29 which are imposed on providers of Category 2A services only.
“(c) if the service is a Category 2A service not likely to be accessed by children, the duties set out in Chapter 3 referred to in section 20(2) and (3A);(d) if the service is a Category 2A service likely to be accessed by children, the duties set out in Chapter 3 referred to in section 20(2), (3) and (3A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the new duties set out in the amendments in the Minister’s name to clauses 23, 25 and 29 below (duties to summarise risk assessments in a publicly available statement and to supply records of risk assessments to OFCOM) are imposed on providers of combined services that are Category 2A services in relation to the search engine.
Lord Allan of Hallam
“(6A) Providers of regulated user-to-user services are required to comply with duties under subsections (2) to (6) for each such service which they provide to the extent that is proportionate and technically feasible without making fundamental changes to the nature of the service (for example, by removing or weakening end-to-end encryption on an end-to-end encrypted service).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is part of a series of amendments by Lord Clement-Jones intended to ensure risk assessments are not used as a tool to undermine users’ privacy and security.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I propose Amendment 14 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who are not able to be present today due to prior commitments. I notice that the amendment has been signed also by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who I am sure will speak to it herself. I shall speak to the group of amendments as a whole.
I shall need to speak at some length to this group, as it covers some quite complex issues, even for this Bill, but I hope that the Committee will agree that this is appropriate given the amendments’ importance. I also expect that this is one area where noble Lords are receiving the most lobbying from different directions, so we should do it justice in our Committee.
We should start with a short summary of the concern that lies behind the amendments: that the Bill, as drafted, particularly under Clause 110, grants Ofcom the power to issue technical notices to online services that could, either explicitly or implicitly, require them to remove privacy protections—and, in particular, that this could undermine a technology that is increasingly being deployed on private messaging services called end-to-end encryption. The amendments in this group use various mechanisms to reduce the likelihood of that being an outcome. Amendments 14 and 108 seek to make it clear in the Bill that end-to-end encryption would be out of scope—and, as I understand it, Amendment 205, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to do something similar.
A second set of amendments would add in extra controls over the issuing of technical notices. While not explicitly saying that these could not target E2EE—if noble Lords will excuse the double negative—they would make it less likely by ensuring that there is more scrutiny. They include a whole series of amendments—Amendments 202 and 206, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and Amendment 207—that have the effect of ensuring that there is more scrutiny and input into issuing such a notice.
The third set of amendments aim to ensure that Ofcom gives weight more generally to privacy and to all the actions it takes in relation to it. In particular, Amendment 190 talks about a broader privacy duty, and Amendment 285—which I think noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will be excited about—seeks to restrict general monitoring.
I will now dig into why this is important. Put simply, there is a risk that under the Bill a range of internet services will feel that they are unable to offer their products in the UK. This speaks to a larger question as we debate the measures in the Bill, as it can sometimes feel as though we are comfortable ratcheting up the requirements in the Bill under the assumption that services will have no choice but to meet them and carry on. While online services will not have a choice about complying if they wish to be lawfully present in the UK, they will be free to exit the market altogether if they believe that the requirements are excessively onerous or impossible to meet.
In the Bill, we are constructing, in effect, a de facto licensing mechanism, where Ofcom will contact in-scope services—the category 2A, category 2B, Part 3 and Part 5 services we discussed in relation to the previous group of amendments—will order them to follow all the relevant regulation and guidance and will instruct them to pay a fee for that supervision. We have to consider that some services, on receipt of that notice, will take steps to restrict access by people in the UK rather than agree to such a licence. Where those are rogue services, this reaction is consistent with the aims of the Bill. We do not want services which are careless about online safety to be present in the UK market. But I do not believe that it is our aim to force mainstream services out of the UK market and, if there is a chance of that happening, it should give us pause for thought.
As a general rule, I am not given to apocalyptic warnings, but I believe there is a real risk that some of the concerns that noble Lords will be receiving in their inboxes are genuine, so I want to unpick why that may be the case. We should reflect for a moment on the assumptions we may have about the people involved in this debate and their motivations. We often see tech people characterised as oblivious to harms, and security services people as uncaring about human rights. In my experience, both caricatures are off the mark, as tech people hate to see their services abused and security service representatives understand that they need to be careful about how they exercise the great powers we have given them. We should note that, much of the time, those two communities work well together in spaces such the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism.
If this characterisation is accurate, why do I think we may have a breakdown over the specific technology of end-to-end encryption? To understand this subject, we need to spend a few moments looking at trends in technology and regulation over recent years. First, we can look at the growth of content-scanning tools, which I think may have been in the Government’s mind when they framed and drafted the new Clause 110 notices. As social media services developed, they had to consider the risks of hosting content on the services that users had uploaded. That content could be illegal in all sorts of ways, including serious forms, such as child sexual abuse material and terrorist threats, as well as things such as copyright infringement, defamatory remarks and so on. Platforms have strong incentives to keep that material off their servers for both moral and legal reasons, so they began to develop and deploy a range of tools to identify and remove it. As a minimum, most large platforms now deploy systems to capture child sexual abuse material and copyright-infringing material, using technologies such as PhotoDNA and Audible Magic.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 285 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. That is not to say that I do not have a great deal of sympathy for the incredibly detailed and expert speech we have just heard, but I want to say just a couple of things.
First, I think we need to have a new conversation about privacy in general. The privacy that is imagined by one community is between the state and the individual, and the privacy that we do not have is between individuals and the commercial companies. We live in a 3D world and the argument remains 2D. We cannot do that today, but I agree with the noble Lord that many in the enforcement community do have one hand on human rights, and many in the tech world do care about human rights. However, I do not believe that the tech sector has fully fessed up to its role and the contribution it could make around privacy. I hope that, as part of the debate on the Bill, and the debate that we will have subsequently on the data Bill No. 2, we come to untangle some of the things that they defend—in my view, unnecessarily and unfairly.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I point out that one of the benefits of end-to-end encryption is that it precisely stops companies doing things such as targeted advertising based on the content of people’s communications. Again, I think there is a very strong and correct trend to push companies in that direction.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for the intervention. For those noble Lords who are not following the numbers, Amendment 285, which I support, would prevent general monitoring. Apart from anything else, I am worried about equivalence and other issues in relation to general monitoring. Apart from a principled position against it, I think to be explicit is helpful.
Ofcom needs to be very careful, and that is what Amendment 190 sets out. It asks whether the alternatives have been thought about, whether the conditions have been thought about, and whether the potential impact has been thought about. That series of questions is essential. I am probably closer to the community that wants to see more powers and more interventions, but I would like that to be in a very monitored and regulated form.
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. Some of these amendments must be supported because it is worrying for us as a country to have—what did the noble Lord call it?—ambiguity about whether something is possible. I do not think that is a useful ambiguity.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendment 203 in this group, along with those of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones, Lord Strathcarron and Lord Moylan. I shall speak in general terms about the nature of the group, because it is most usefully addressed through the fundamental issues that arise. I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for his careful and comprehensive introduction to the group, which gave us a strong foundation. I have crossed out large amounts of what I had written down and will try not to repeat, but rather pick up some points and angles that I think need to be raised.
As was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, this debate and the range of these amendments shows that the Bill is currently extremely deficient and unclear in this area. It falls to this Committee to get some clarity and cut-through to see where we could end up and change where we are now.
I start by referring to a briefing, which I am sure many noble Lords have received, from a wide range of organisations, including Liberty, Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group, Article 19, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reset and Fair Vote. It is quite a range of organisations but very much in the human rights space, particularly the digital human rights space. The introduction of the briefing includes a sentence that gets to the heart of why many of us have received so many emails about this element of the Bill:
“None of us want to feel as though someone is looking over our shoulder when we are communicating”.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I want to take advantage of the noble Baroness having raised that point to say that perhaps I was not clear enough in my speech. While I absolutely agree about not everything, everybody, all the time, for my specific concerns around child sexual abuse, abuse of women and so on, we have to find new world order ways of creating targeted approaches so it does not have to be everything, everybody, all the time.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am glad I gave the noble Baroness the opportunity for that intervention. I have a reasonable level of technical knowledge—I hand-coded my first website in 1999, so I go back some way—but given the structures we are dealing with, I question the capacity and whether it is possible to create the tools and say they will be used only in a certain way. If you break the door open, anyone can walk through the door—that is the situation we are in.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, this is a crucial part of the Bill that was not properly examined and worked through in the other place. I will conclude by saying that it is vital we have a full and proper debate in this area. I hope the Minister can reassure us that he and the department will continue to be in dialogue with noble Lords as the Bill goes forward.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 205 in my name, but like other noble Lords I will speak about the group as a whole. After the contributions so far, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, there is not a great deal left for me to add. However, I will say that we have to understand that privacy is contextual. At one extreme, I know the remarks I make in your Lordships’ House are going to be carefully preserved and cherished; for several centuries, if not millennia, people will be able to see what I said today. If I am in my sitting room, having a private conversation, I expect that not to be heard by somebody, although at the same time I am dimly aware that there might be somebody on the other side of the wall who can hear what I am saying. Similarly, I am aware that if I use the telephone, it is possible that somebody is listening to the call. Somebody may have been duly authorised to do so by reference to a tribunal, having taken all the lawful steps necessary in order to listen to that call, because there are reasons that have persuaded a competent authority that the police service, or whatever, listening to my telephone call has a reason to do so, to avoid public harm or meet some other justified objective agreed on through legislation.
Here, we are going into a sphere of encryption where one assumes privacy and feels one is entitled to some privacy. However, it is possible that the regulator could at any moment step in and demand records from the past—records up to that point—without the intervention of a tribunal, as far as I can see, or without any reference to a warrant or having to explain to anybody their basis for doing so. They would be able to step in and do it. This is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle: unlike the telephone conversation, where it does not have to be everyone, everywhere, all the time—they are listening to just me and the person to whom I am talking—the provider has to have the capacity to go back, get all those records and be able to show Ofcom what it is that Ofcom is looking for. To do that requires them to change their encryption model fundamentally. It is not really possible to get away from everyone, everywhere, all the time, because the model has to be changed in order to do it.
That is why this is such an astonishing thing for the Government to insert in this Bill. I can understand why the security services and so forth want this power, and this is a vehicle to achieve something they have been trying to achieve for a long time. But there is very strong public resistance to it, and it is entirely understood, and to do it in this space is completely at odds with the way in which we felt it appropriate to authorise listening in on private conversations in the past—specific conversations, with the authority of a tribunal. To do it this way is a very radical change and one that needs to be considered almost apart from the Bill, not slipped in as a mere clause and administrative adjunct to it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches so far. The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, brilliantly laid out why these amendments matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explained why this has gained popular interest outside of the House. Not everything that goes on in this House is of interest and people do not study all of the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, even though they are always in the public sphere, but this particular group of amendments has elicited a huge amount of discussion.
We should remember that encrypted chat has become an indispensable part of the way that we live in this country and around the world. According to the Open Rights Group it has replaced the old-fashioned wired telephone—a rather quaint phrase. The fact that the citizens of the United Kingdom think that chat services matter so much that they are used by 60% of the total population should make us think about what we are doing regarding these services.
End-to-end encryption—the most secure form of encryption available—means that your messages are stored on your phone; people feel that they are in control because they are not on some server somewhere. Even WhatsApp cannot read your WhatsApp messages; that is the point of encryption. That is why people use it: the messages are secured with a lock which only you and the recipient have the special key to unlock to read them.
Obviously, there are certain problems. Certain Government Ministers wanted to voluntarily share all of their WhatsApp messages with a journalist who would then share them with the rest of us. If your Lordships were in that group you might have thought that was a rude thing to do. People have their WhatsApp messages leaked all the time, and when it happens we all think, “Oh my God, I’m glad I wasn’t in that WhatsApp group”, because you assume a level of privacy, even though as a grown-up you need to remember that somebody might leak them. But the main point is that they are a secure form of conversation that is widely used.
Everyone has a right to private conversations. I was thinking about how, when society closed down during the lockdown period, we needed technology in order to communicate with each other. We understood that we needed to WhatsApp message or Zoom call our friends and family, and the idea that this would involve the state listening in would have appalled us—we considered that our private life.
We want to be able to chat in confidence and be confident that only ourselves and the recipients can see what we are sharing and hear what we are saying. That is true of everyday life, but there are very good specific cases to be made for its importance, ranging through everything from Iranian women resisting the regime and communicating with each other, to all the civil liberties organisations around the world that use WhatsApp. The security of knowing that you can speak without Putin listening in or that President Xi will not be sent your WhatsApp messages is important.
The Government keep assuring us that we do not need to worry, but the Bill gives Ofcom the power to require services to install tools that would require the surveillance of encrypted communications regarding child exploitation and terrorism content, for example. Advocates and people on my side argue that this is not possible without undermining encryption because, just as you cannot be half pregnant, you cannot be half encrypted once you install tools for scanning for certain content. There is a danger that we say, “We’re only doing it for those things”, but actually it would be an attack on encryption itself.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, I know nothing about the technical aspects of this, as noble Lords can hear from the way I am speaking about it. But I can see from a common-sense point of view what encryption is: you cannot say, “We’re only going to use it a little bit”. That is my point.
I want to tackle the issue of child abuse, because I know that it lurks around here. It is what really motivates the people who say, “It’s ok as long as we can deal with that”. This is put forward as a proposed solution to the problem of encrypted chat services that send messages of that nature and the question of what we can do about it. Of course I stress that images of child abuse and exploitation are abhorrent—that is a very important background to this conversation—but I want to draw attention to the question of what we are prepared to do about child abuse, because I think it was referred to in an earlier group. I am nervous that we are promising a silver bullet through this Bill that it will all be solved through some of these measures.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
No one in the Committee or anyone standing behind us who speaks up for children thinks that this is going to be a silver bullet. It is unacceptable to suggest that we take that position. Much child abuse takes place offline and is then put online, but the exponential way in which it is consumed, created, and spread is entirely new because of the services we are talking about. Later in Committee I will explain some of the new ways in which it is creating child abuse—new forms, new technologies, new abuse.
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. I have made my feelings clear that I am not an end-to-end encryption “breaker”. There are amendments covering this; I believe some of them will come up later in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on safety by design and so on. I also agree with the noble Baroness that we need more resources in this area for the police, teachers, social workers and so on. However, I do not want child sexual abuse to be a football in this conversation.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I agree with the noble Baroness, which is precisely why I am suggesting that we need to consider whether privacy should be sacrificed totally in relation to the argument around encryption. It is difficult, and I feel awkward saying it. When I mentioned a silver bullet I was not talking about the noble Baroness or any other noble Lords present, but I have heard people say that we need this Bill because it will deal with child abuse. In this group of amendments, I am raising the fact that when I have talked about encryption with people outside of the House they have said that we need to do something to tackle the fact that these messages are being sent around. It is not just child abuse; it is also terrorism. There is a range of difficult situations.
Things can go wrong with this, and that is what I was trying to raise. For example, we have a situation where some companies are considering using, or are being asked to use, machine learning to detect nudity. Just last year, a father lost his Google account and was reported to the police for sending a naked photo of their child to the doctor for medical reasons. I am raising these as examples of the problems that we have to consider.
Child abuse is so abhorrent that we will do anything to protect children, but let me say this to the Committee, as it is where the point on privacy lies: children are largely abused in their homes, but as far as I understand it we are not as yet arguing that the state should put CCTV cameras in every home for 24/7 surveillance to stop child abuse. That does not mean that we are glib or that we do not understand the importance of child abuse; it means that we understand the privacy of your home. There are specialist services that can intervene when they think there is a problem. I am worried about the possibility of putting a CCTV camera in everyone’s phone, which is the danger of going down this route.
My final point is that these services, such as WhatsApp, will potentially leave the UK. It is important to note that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan: this is not like threatening to storm off. It is not done in any kind of pique in that way. In putting enormous pressure on these platforms to scan communications, we must remember that they are global platforms. They have a system that works for billions of people all around the world. A relatively small market such as the UK is not something for which they would compromise their billions of users around the world. As I have explained, they would not put up with it if the Chinese state said, “We have to see people’s messages”. They would just say, “We are encrypted services”. They would walk out of China and we would all say, “Well done”. There is a real, strong possibility of these services leaving the UK so we must be very careful.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I just want to add to the exchange between the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Fox. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to WhatsApp’s position. Again, it is important for the public out there also to understand that if someone sends them illegal material—in particular child sexual abuse material; I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that this is a real problem—and they report it to WhatsApp, which has a reporting system, that material is no longer encrypted. It is sent in clear text and WhatsApp will give it to the police. One of the things I am suggesting is that, rather than driving WhatsApp out of the country, because it is at the more responsible end of the spectrum, we should work with it to improve these kinds of reporting systems and put the fear of God into people so that they know that this issue is not cost-free.
As a coda to that, if you ever receive something like that, you should report it to the police straightaway because, once it is on your phone, you are liable and you have a problem. The message from here should be: if you receive it, report it and, if it is reported, make sure that it gets to the police. We should be encouraging services to put those systems in place.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord has concluded with my conclusion, which was to say that those services will be driven out, but not because they are irresponsible around horrible, dangerous messages. They do not read our messages because they are private. However, if we ever receive anything that makes us feel uncomfortable, they should be put under pressure to act. Many of them already do and are actually very responsible, but that is different from demanding that they scan our messages and we breach that privacy.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, that last exchange was incredibly helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for what he just said and the way in which he introduced this group. I want to make only a few brief remarks.
I have put my name to two amendments in this group: Amendment 202 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which seeks to ensure that Ofcom will be subject to the same kind of requirements and controls as exist under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act before issuing a technology notice
“to a regulated service which offers private messaging with end-to-end encryption”;
and Amendment 285, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. This amendment would make sure that no social media platforms or private end-to-end messaging services have an obligation generally to monitor what is going on across their platforms. When I looked at this group and the various amendments in it, those were the two issues that I thought were critical. These two amendments seemed to approach them in the most simple and straightforward manner.
Like other noble Lords, my main concern is that I do not want search and social media platforms to have an obligation to become what we might describe as thought police. I do not want private messaging firms to start collecting and storing the content of our messages so that they have what we say ready to hand over in case they are required to do so. What the noble Lord, Lord Allan, just said is an important point to emphasise. Some of us heard from senior representatives from WhatsApp a few weeks ago. I was quite surprised to learn how much they are doing in this area to co-operate with the authorities; I felt very reassured to learn about that. I in no way want to discourage that because they are doing an awful amount of good stuff.
Basically, this is such a sensitive matter, as has been said, that it is important for the Government to be clear what their policy intentions are by being clear in the Bill. If they do not intend to require general monitoring that needs to be made explicit. It is also important that, if Ofcom is to be given new investigatory powers or powers to insist on things through these technology notices, it is clear that its powers do not go beyond those that are already set out in law. As we have heard from noble Lords, there is widespread concern about this matter not just from the social media platforms and search engines themselves but from news organisations, journalists and those lobby groups that often speak out on liberty-type matters. These topics go across a wide range of interest groups, so I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond constructively and open-mindedly on them.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to intervene on this group because my noble friend Lord Stevenson will address these amendments in their entirety, but listening in to this public conversation about this group of amendments has stimulated a question that I want both to put on the record and to give the Minister time to reflect on.
If we get the issues of privacy and encrypted messaging wrong, it will push more people into using VPN—virtual private network—services. I went into the app store on my phone to search for VPN software. There is nothing wrong with such software—our parliamentary devices have it to do general monitoring and make sure that we do not use services such as TikTok—but it is used to circumnavigate much of the regulatory regime that we are seeking to put together through this Bill. When I search for VPNs in the app store, the first one that comes up that is not a sponsored, promoted advertisement has an advisory age limit of four years old. Several of them are the same; some are 17-plus but most are four-plus. Clearly, the app promotes itself very much on the basis that it offers privacy and anonymity, which are the key features of a VPN. However, a review of it says, “I wouldn’t recommend people use this because it turns out that this company sends all its users’ data to China so that it can do general monitoring”.
I am not sure how VPNs are being addressed by the Bill, even though they seem really pertinent to the issues of privacy and encryption. I would be interested to hear whether—and if we are, how—we are bringing the regulation and misuse of VPNs into scope for regulation by Ofcom.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I would like to say something very quickly on VPN. I had a discussion with some teenagers recently, who were all prepared for this Bill—I was quite surprised that they knew a lot about it. They said, “Don’t worry, we’ve worked out how to get around it. Have you heard of VPN?” It reminded me of a visit to China, where I asked a group of students how they dealt with censorship and not being able to google. They said, “Don’t worry about it”, and showed me VPN. It is right that we draw attention to that. There is a danger of inadvertently forcing people on to the unregulated dark web and into areas that we might not imagine. That is why we have to be careful and proportionate in our response.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I have long been on record as being for radical reform of the House of Lords, but I do not think there are many Chambers in the world that could have had such an interesting debate on such a key subject—certainly not the House of Commons, sadly. Without falling into the old trap of saying what a wonderful lot we all are, it is important that, in such an important Bill, covering so many important areas of civil liberties and national security, there should be an opportunity, before we get to voting, to have this kind of debate and get some of the issues into the public domain.
I am on the same side as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on knowledge of the technology—looking back to 20 years ago, when I was on the committee that worked on the communications Bill which set up Ofcom, I see that we were genuinely innocents abroad. We deliberately decided not to try regulating the internet, because we did not know what it was going to do. I do not think that we can have that excuse today.
Perhaps an even more frightening background is that, for three and a half years, during the coalition Government, I was Minister for Digital Protection—a less equipped Minister to protect your digital I cannot imagine. However, I remember being taken to some place over the river to have a look at our capacities in this area. Having seen some of the things that were being done, I rather timidly asked the expert who was showing me round, “Aren’t there civil liberty issues in what you’re doing?” He said, “Oh no, sir. Tesco know far more about you than we do”.
There is this element about what is secret. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in her last contribution, said that children look with contempt at some of the safeguards and blockages that keep them away from things. I do not think anybody is deluding themselves that there is some silver bullet. As always, Parliament must do its best to address real national concerns and real problems in the best way that we see at this time. There is a degree of cross-party and Cross-Bench unity, in that there are real and present dangers in how these technologies are being used, and real and present abuses of a quite horrific kind. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is right. This technology has given a quantum leap to the damage that the abuser and the pornographer can do to our society, in the same way that it has given a quantum leap to those who want to undermine the truth and fairness of our election system. There are real problems that must be addressed.
Although it has not been present in this debate, it is no help to polarise the argument as being between the state wanting to accrue more and more powers and brave defenders of civil liberties. As somebody who has practised some of these dark arts myself, I advise those who are organising letters to ensure that those sending them do not leave in the paragraph that says, “Here you may want to include some personal comments”. It waters down the credibility of this as some independent exercising of a democratic right.
I make a plea, as someone on the edges of the debate who at times had some direct responsibilities, to use what the Bill has thrown up to address whether it is now in the right shape—I hope the Minister hears it. The Government should not be ashamed to take it away and think a bit. It may be that we can add some of the protections that we quite often do, such as allowing certain interventions after a judge or senior police officer or others have been involved. That may already be in other parts of the Bill. However, it would be wrong to allow the Bill to polarise this, given that there was no one who spoke this morning who is not trying to deal with very real difficulties, problems and challenges, within the framework of a democratic society, in a way that protects our freedoms but also protects us from real and present dangers.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill in Committee. I know noble Lords are keen to move on and get through the groups as quickly as possible, but I hope they will forgive me if I say that I will speak only about twice on the Bill, and this is one of the groups that I want to speak to. I will try not to make your Lordships impatient.
I should tell the Committee a little about where I am coming from. I was very geeky as a kid. I learned to program and code. I did engineering at university and coded there. My master’s degree in the late 1980s was about technology and policy, so I have been interested in technology policy since then, having followed it through in my professional life. In 1996, I wrote a book on EU telecoms—it sold so well that no one has ever heard of it. One thing I said in that book, which though not an original thought is pertinent today, is that the regulation will always be behind the technology. We will always play catch-up, and we must be concerned about that.
Interestingly, when you look at studies of technology adoption—pioneers, early adopters and then the rest of the population—quite often you see that the adult industry is at the leading edge, such as with cable TV, satellite TV, video cassettes, online conferencing, et cetera. I assure your Lordships that I have not done too much primary research into this, but it is an issue that we ought to be aware of.
I will not speak often in this debate, because there are many issues that I do not want to disagree on. For example, I have already had a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and we all agree that we need to protect children. We also know that we need to protect vulnerable adults; there is no disagreement on that. However, in these discussions there will be inevitable trade-offs between security and safety and freedom. It is right to have these conversations to ensure that we get the balance right, with the wisdom of noble Lords. Sacrifices will be made on either side of the debate, and we should be very careful as we navigate this.
I am worried about some of the consequences for freedom of expression. When I was head of a research think tank, one of the phenomena that I became interested in was that of unintended consequences. Well-meaning laws and measures have often led to unintended consequences. Some people call it a law of unintended consequences, and some call it a principle, and we should be careful about this. The other issue is subjectivity of harms. Given that we have taken “legal but harmful” out and there are amendments to the Bill to tackle harms, there will be a debate on the subjectivity of harms.
One reason I wanted to speak on this group is that some of the amendments tabled by noble Lords—too many to mention—deal with technology notices and ensuring that we are consistent between the offline and online worlds, particularly regarding the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I welcome and support those amendments.
We also have to be aware that people will find a way around it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. When I was looking at terrorism and technology, one of the issues that people raised with me was not to forget that one way around it was to create an email account and store stuff in a draft folder. You could then share the username and password with others who could then access that data, those pictures or those instructions in a draft folder. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, has gone some way to addressing that issue.
The other issue that we have to be clear about is how the tech sector can do more. It was interesting when my noble friend Lady Stowell organised a meeting with Meta, which was challenged particularly on having access to information and pictures from coroners. It was very interesting when Meta told us what it could access: it does not know what is in the messages, but there are things that it can access, or advise people to access, on the user’s phone or at the other end. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has had the conversation with Meta, but it would be helpful and important to find some common ground there, and to probe and push Meta and others to make sure that they share that information more quickly, so we do not have to wait five years to get it via the coroner or whatever. We ought to push that as much as possible.
I want to talk in particular about unintended consequences, particularly around end-to-end encryption. Even if you do not believe the big businesses and think that they are crying wolf when they say that they will quit the UK—although I believe that there is a threat of that, particularly when we continually want the UK to be a global hub for technology and innovation and so cannot afford for companies such as Meta, Signal and others to leave—you should listen to the journalists who are working with people, quite often dissidents, in many countries, and rely on encrypted communications to communicate with them.
The other risk we should be aware of is that it is very difficult to keep technology to a few people. In my academic career, I also looked at technology transfer, both intentional and unintentional. We should look at the intelligence services and some of the innovations that happened: for example, when Concorde was designed, it was not very long after that the Soviets got their hands on that equipment. Just as there used to be a chap called Bob in the exchange who could share information, there is always a weak spot in chains: the humans. Lots of humans have a price and can be bought, or they can be threatened, and things can be shared. The unintended consequence I am worried about is that this technology will get into the hands of totalitarian regimes. At the same time, it means people over here who are really trying desperately to help dissidents and others speak up for freedom in other countries will be unable to support them. We should be very careful and think about unintended consequences. For that reason, I support this group of amendments.
I really am looking forward to the responses from the Minister. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said that he was a Minister for three years on data protection; I was a Minister in this department for one month. I was so pleased that I had my dream job, as Minister for Civil Society and Heritage, and so proud of my party and this country because we had elected the first Asian Prime Minister; then, six days later, I got sacked. So, as they say, be careful what you wish for.
In this particular case, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken up in this debate. I do not want to repeat any other points but just wanted to add that. I will not speak often, but I want to say that it is really critical that, when we look at this trade-off between security, safety and freedom, we get it right. One way of doing that is to make sure that, on technology notices and RIPA, we are consistent between the online and offline worlds.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a very good debate indeed. When I first saw this grouping, my heart sank: the idea that we should be able to encompass all that within the space of just over an hour seemed a bit beyond all of us, however skilled and experienced we were, and whatever background we were able to bring to the debate today. I agree with both noble Lords who observed that we have an expertise around here that is very unusual and extremely helpful in trying to drill down into some of these issues.
The good thing that has come out from this debate, which was summed up very well by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is that we are now beginning to address some of the underlying currents that the Bill as a boat is resting on—and the boat is a bit shaky. We have a very strong technological bias, and we are grateful for the masterclass from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, on what is actually going on in the world that we are trying to legislate for. It leaves me absolutely terrified that we are in a situation where we appear to be trying to future-proof, possibly in the wrong direction. We should be very careful about that. We will want to reflect on the point he made on where the technology is driving this particular aspect of our social media and search engine operations.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has indeed been a very good debate on a large group of amendments. We have benefited from two former Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and my noble friend Lord Kamall. I hope it is some solace to my noble friend that, such a hard act is he to follow, his role has been taken on by two of us on the Front Bench—myself at DCMS and my noble friend Lord Camrose at the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
The amendments in this group are concerned with the protection of user privacy under the Bill and the maintenance of end-to-end encryption. As noble Lords have noted, there has been some recent coverage of this policy in the media. That reporting has not always been accurate, and I take this opportunity to set the record straight in a number of areas and seek to provide the clarity which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, asked for just now.
Encryption plays a crucial role in the digital realm, and the UK supports its responsible use. The Bill does not ban any service design, nor will it require services materially to weaken any design. The Bill contains strong safeguards for privacy. Broadly, its safety duties require platforms to use proportionate systems and processes to mitigate the risks to users resulting from illegal content and content that is harmful to children. In doing so, platforms must consider and implement safeguards for privacy, including ensuring that they are complying with their legal responsibilities under data protection law.
With regard to private messaging, Ofcom will set out how companies can comply with their duties in a way that recognises the importance of protecting users’ privacy. Importantly, the Bill is clear that Ofcom cannot require companies to use proactive technology, such as automated scanning, on private communications in order to comply with their safety duties.
In addition to these cross-cutting protections, there are further safeguards concerning Ofcom’s ability to require the use of proactive technology, such as content identification technology on public channels. That is in Clause 124(6) of the Bill. Ofcom must consider a number of matters, including the impact on privacy and whether less intrusive measures would have the equivalent effect, before it can require a proactive technology.
The implementation of end-to-end encryption in a way that intentionally blinds companies to criminal activity on their services, however, has a disastrous effect on child safety. The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in the United States of America estimates that more than half its reports could be lost if end-to-end encryption were implemented without preserving the ability to tackle child sexual abuse—a conundrum with which noble Lords grappled today. That is why our new regulatory framework must encourage technology companies to ensure that their safety measures keep pace with this evolving and pernicious threat, including minimising the risk that criminals are able to use end-to-end encrypted services to facilitate child sexual abuse and exploitation.
Given the serious risk of harm to children, the regulator must have appropriate powers to compel companies to take the most effective action to tackle such illegal and reprehensible content and activity on their services, including in private communications, subject to stringent legal safeguards. Under Clause 110, Ofcom will have a stand-alone power to require a provider to use, or make best endeavours to develop, accredited technology to tackle child sexual exploitation and abuse, whether communicated publicly or privately, by issuing a notice. Ofcom will use this power as a last resort only when all other measures have proven insufficient adequately to address the risk. The only other type of harm for which Ofcom can use this power is terrorist content, and only on public communications.
The use of the power in Clause 110 is subject to additional robust safeguards to ensure appropriate protection of users’ rights online. Ofcom will be able to require the use of technology accredited as being highly accurate only in specifically detecting illegal child sexual exploitation and abuse content, ensuring a minimal risk that legal content is wrongly identified. In addition, under Clause 112, Ofcom must consider a number of matters, including privacy and whether less intrusive means would have the same effect, before deciding whether it is necessary and proportionate to issue a notice.
The Bill also includes vital procedural safeguards in relation to Ofcom’s use of the power. If Ofcom concludes that issuing a notice is necessary and proportionate, it will need to publish a warning notice to provide the company an opportunity to make representations as to why the notice should not be issued or why the detail contained in it should be amended. In addition, the final notice must set out details of the rights of appeal under Clause 149. Users will also be able to complain to and seek action from a provider if the use of a specific technology results in their content incorrectly being removed and if they consider that technology is being used in a way that is not envisaged in the terms of service. Some of the examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, pertain in this instance.
The Bill also recognises that in some cases there will be no available technology compatible with the particular service design. As I set out, this power cannot be used by Ofcom to require a company to take any action that is not proportionate, including removing or materially weakening encryption. That is why the Bill now includes an additional provision for this scenario, to allow Ofcom to require technology companies to use their best endeavours to develop or find new solutions that work on their services while meeting the same high standards of accuracy and privacy protection. Given the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the sector, it is reasonable to ask it to do everything possible to protect children from abuse and exploitation. I echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, about the work being done across the sector to do that.
More broadly, the regulator must uphold the right to privacy under its Human Rights Act obligations when implementing the new regime. It must ensure that its actions interfere with privacy only where it is lawful, necessary and proportionate to do so. I hope that addresses the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. In addition, Ofcom will be required to consult the Information Commissioner’s Office when developing codes of practice and relevant pieces of guidance.
I turn now to Amendments 14—
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
Before the Minister does so, can he give a sense of what he means by “best endeavours” for those technology companies? If it is not going to be general monitoring of what is happening as the message moves from point to point—we have had some discussions about the impracticality and issues attached to monitoring at one end or the other—what, theoretically, could “best endeavours” possibly look like?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am hesitant to give too tight a definition, because we want to remain technology neutral and make sure that we are keeping an open mind to developing changes. I will think about that and write to the noble Lord. The best endeavours will inevitably change over time as new technological solutions present themselves. I point to the resourcefulness of the sector in identifying those, but I will see whether there is anything more I can add.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
While the Minister is reflecting, I note that the words “best endeavours” are always a bit of a worry. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, made the good point that once it is on your phone, you are in trouble and you must report it, but the frustration of many people outside this Chamber, if it has been on a phone and you cannot deal with it, is what comes next to find the journey of that piece of material without breaking encryption. I speak to the tech companies very often—indeed, I used to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, when he was in position at then Facebook—but that is the question that we would like answered in this Committee, because the frustration that “It is nothing to do with us” is where we stop with our sympathy.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness’s intervention has given me an opportunity to note that I am about to say a little more on best endeavours, which will not fully answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, but I hope fleshes it out a little more.
I do that in turning to Amendments 14, 108 and 205, which seek to clarify that companies will not be required to undertake fundamental changes to the nature of their service, such as the removal or weakening of end-to-end encryption. As I previously set out, the Bill does not require companies to weaken or remove any design and there is no requirement for them to do so as part of their risk assessments or in response to a notice. Instead, companies will need to undertake risk assessments, including consideration of risks arising from the design of their services, before taking proportionate steps to mitigate and manage these risks. Where relevant, assessing the risks arising from end-to-end encryption will be an integral part of this process.
This risk management approach is well established in almost every other industry and it is right that we expect technology companies to take user safety into account when designing their products and services. We understand that technologies used to identify child sexual abuse and exploitation content, including on private communications, are in some cases nascent and complex. They continue to evolve, as I have said. That is why Ofcom has the power through the Bill to issue a notice requiring a company to make best endeavours to develop or source technology.
This notice will include clear, proportionate and enforceable steps that the company must take, based on the relevant information of the specific case. Before issuing a warning notice, Ofcom is expected to enter into informal consultation with the company and/or to exercise information-gathering powers to determine whether a notice is necessary and proportionate. This consultation period will assist in establishing what a notice to develop a technology may require and appropriate steps for the company to take to achieve best endeavours. That dialogue with Ofcom is part of the process.
Lord Kamall (Con)
There are a lot of phrases here—best endeavour, proportionate, appropriate steps—that are rather subjective. The concern of a number of noble Lords is that we want to address this issue but it is a matter of how it is applied. That is one of the reasons why noble Lords were asking for some input from the legal profession, a judge or otherwise, to make those judgments.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
All the phrases used in the Bill are subject to the usual scrutiny through the judicial process—that is why we debate them now and think about their implications—but of course they can, and I am sure will, be tested in the usual legal ways. Once a company has developed a new technology that meets minimum standards of accuracy, Ofcom may require its use but not before considering matters including the impact on user privacy, as I have set out. The Bill does not specify which tools are likely to be required, as we cannot pre-empt Ofcom’s evidence-based and case-by-case assessment.
Amendment 285 intends to clarify that social media platforms will not be required to undertake general monitoring of the activity of their users. I agree that the protection of privacy is of utmost importance. I want to reassure noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston, who asked about it, that the Bill does not require general monitoring of all content. The clear and strong safeguards for privacy will ensure that users’ rights are protected.
Setting out clear and specific safeguards will be more effective in protecting users’ privacy than adopting the approach set out in Amendment 285. Ofcom must consider a number of matters, including privacy, before it can require the use of proactive technology. The government amendments in this group, Amendments 290A to 290G, further clarify that technology which identifies words, phrases or images that indicate harm is subject to all of these restrictions. General monitoring is not a clearly defined concept—a point made just now by my noble friend Lord Kamall. It is used in EU law but is not defined clearly in that, and it is not a concept in UK law. This lack of clarity could create uncertainty that some technology companies might attempt to exploit in order to avoid taking necessary and proportionate steps to protect their users. That is why we resist Amendment 285.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I understand the point the Minister is making, but it is absolutely crystal clear that, whatever phrase is used, the sensibility is quite clear that the Government are saying on record, at the Dispatch Box, that the Bill can in no way be read as requiring anybody to provide a view into private messaging or encrypted messaging unless there is good legal cause to suspect criminality. That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made very clearly. One may not like the phrasing used in other legislatures, but could we find a form of words that will make it clear that those who are operating in this legal territory are absolutely certain about where they stand on that?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I want to give clear reassurance that the Bill does not require general monitoring of all content. We have clear and strong safeguards for privacy in the Bill to ensure that users’ rights are protected. I set out the concerns about use of the phrase “general monitoring”. I hope that provides clarity, but I may have missed the noble Lord’s point. The brief answer to the question I think he was asking is yes.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Let the record stand clear: yes. It was the slight equivocation around how the Minister approached and left that point that I was worried about, and that people might seek to use that later. Words from the Dispatch Box are never absolute and they are never meant to be, but the fact that they have been said is important. I am sure that everybody understands that point, and the Minister did say “yes” to my question.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I did, and I am happy to say it again: yes.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Perhaps I might go back to an earlier point. When the Minister said the Government want to make sure, I think he was implying that certain companies would try to avoid obligations to keep their users safe by threatening to leave or whatever. I want it to be clear that the obligations to the users of the service are, in the instance of encrypted services, to protect their privacy, and they see that as keeping them safe. It would be wrong to make that a polar opposite. I think that companies that run unencrypted services believe that to be what their duties are—so that in a way is a clash.
Secondly, I am delighted by the clarity in the Minister’s “yes” answer, but I think that maybe there needs to be clearer communication with people outside this Chamber. People are worried about whether duties placed on Ofcom to enact certain things would lead to some breach of encryption. No one thinks that the Government intend to do this or want to spy on anyone, but that the unintended consequences of the duty on Ofcom might have that effect. If that is not going to be the case, and that can be guaranteed by the Government, and they made that clear, it would reassure not just the companies but the users of messaging services, which would be helpful.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The points the noble Baroness has just made bring me neatly to what I was about to say in relation to the question raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. But first, I would say that Ofcom as a public body is subject to public law principles already, so those apply in this case.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about virtual private networks and the risk of displacing people on to VPNs or other similar alternatives. That is a point worth noting, not just in this group but as we consider all these amendments, particularly when we talk later on about age verification, pornography and so on. Services will need to think about how safety measures could be circumvented and take steps to prevent that, because they need to mitigate risk effectively. There may also be a role in enforcement action, too; Ofcom will be able to apply to the courts to require these services where appropriate to apply business disruption measures. We should certainly be mindful of the incentives for people to do that, and the example the noble Lord, Lord Knight, gave earlier is a useful lesson in the old adage “Caveat emptor” when looking at some of these providers.
I want to say a little bit about Amendments 205A and 290H in my name. Given the scale of child sexual abuse and exploitation that takes place online, and the reprehensible nature of these crimes, it is important that Ofcom has effective powers to require companies to tackle it. This brings me to these government amendments, which make small changes to the powers in Clause 110 to ensure that they are effective. I will focus particularly, in the first instance, on Amendment 290H, which ensures that Ofcom considers whether a service has features that allow content to be shared widely via another service when deciding whether content has been communicated publicly or privately, including for the purposes of issuing a notice. This addresses an issue highlighted by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall, and Professor Stuart Macdonald in a recent paper. The separate, technical amendment, Amendment 205A, clarifies that Clause 110(7) refers only to a notice on a user-to-user service.
Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to introduce a new privacy duty on Ofcom when considering whether to use any of its powers. The extensive privacy safeguards that I have already set out, along with Ofcom’s human rights obligations, would make this amendment unnecessary. Ofcom must also explicitly consult persons whom it considers to have expertise in the enforcement of the criminal law and the protection of national security, which is relevant to online safety matters in the course of preparing its draft codes. This may include the integrity and security of internet services where relevant.
Amendments 202 and 206, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and Amendments 207, 208, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249 and 250 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, all seek to deliver privacy safeguards to notices issued under Clause 110 through additional review and appeals processes. There are already strong safeguards concerning this power. As part of the warning notice process, companies will be able to make representations to Ofcom which it is bound to consider before issuing a notice. Ofcom must also review any notice before the end of the period for which it has effect.
Amendment 202 proposes mirroring the safeguards of the investigatory powers Act when issuing notices to encrypted messaging services under this power. First, this would be inappropriate, because the powers in the investigatory powers Act serve different purposes from those in this Bill. The different legal safeguards in the investigatory powers Act reflect the potential intrusion by the state into an individual’s private communications; that is not the case with this Bill, which does not grant investigatory powers to state bodies, such as the ability to intercept private communications. Secondly, making a reference to encryption would be—
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Is that right? I do not need a yes or no answer. It was rhetorical; I am just trying to frame the right question. The Minister is making a very strong point about the difference between RIPA requirements and those that might be brought in under this Bill. But it does not really get to the bottom of the questions we were asking. In this situation, whatever the exact analogy between the two systems is, it is clear that Ofcom is marking its own homework—which is fair enough, as there are representations, but it is not getting external advice or seeking judicial approval.
The Minister’s point was that that was okay because it was private companies involved. But we are saying here that these would be criminal offences taking place and therefore there is bound to be interest from the police and other agencies, including anti-terrorism agencies. It is clearly similar to the RIPA arrangements, so he could he just revisit that?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I think it is right. The investigatory powers Act is a tool for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, whereas the Bill is designed to regulate technology companies—an important high-level distinction. As such, the Bill does not grant investigatory powers to state bodies. It does not allow the Government or the regulator to access private messages. Instead, it requires companies to implement proportionate systems and processes to tackle illegal content on their platforms. I will come on to say a little about legal redress and the role of the courts in looking at Ofcom’s decisions so, if I may, I will respond to that in a moment.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
The investigatory powers Act includes a different form of technical notice, which is to put in place surveillance equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has a good point: we need to ensure that we do not have two regimes, both requiring companies to put in place technical equipment but with quite different standards applying.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will certainly take that point away and I understand, of course, that different Acts require different duties of the same platforms. I will take that away and discuss it with colleagues in other departments who lead on investigatory powers.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Before my noble friend moves on, when he is reviewing that back in the office, could he also satisfy himself that the concerns coming from the journalism and news organisations in the context of RIPA are also understood and have been addressed? That is another angle which, from what my noble friend has said so far, I am not sure has really been acknowledged. That is not a criticism but it is worth him satisfying himself on it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am about to talk about the safeguards for journalists in the context of the Bill and the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. However, I take my noble friend’s point about the implications of other Acts that are already on the statute book in that context as well.
Just to finish the train of thought of what I was saying on Amendment 202, making a reference to encryption, as it suggests, would be out of step with the wider approach of the Bill, which is to remain technology-neutral.
I come to the safeguards for journalistic protections, as touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. The Government are fully committed to protecting the integrity of journalistic sources, and there is no intention or expectation that the tools required to be used under this power would result in a compromising of those sources. Any tools required on private communications must be accredited by Ofcom as highly accurate only in detecting child sexual abuse and exploitation content. These minimum standards of accuracy will be approved and published by the Secretary of State, following advice from Ofcom. We therefore expect it to be very unlikely that journalistic content will be falsely detected by the tools being required.
Under Clause 59, companies are obliged to report child sexual abuse material which is detected on their service to the National Crime Agency; this echoes a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, in an earlier contribution. That would include child sexual abuse and exploitation material identified through tools required by a notice and, even in this event, the appropriate protections in relation to journalistic sources would be applied by the National Crime Agency if it were necessary to identify individuals involved in sharing illegal material.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I want to flag that in the context of terrorist content, this is quite high risk for journalists. It is quite common for them, for example, to be circulating a horrific ISIS video not because they support ISIS but because it is part of a news article they are putting together. We should flag that terrorist content in particular is commonly distributed by journalists and it could be picked up by any system that is not sufficiently sophisticated.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I see that my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has joined the Front Bench in anticipation of the lunch-break business for the Home Office. That gives me the opportunity to say that I will discuss some of these points with him, my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and others at the Home Office.
Amendment 246 aims to ensure that there is no requirement for a provider to comply with a notice until the High Court has determined the appeal. The Government have ensured that, in addition to judicial review through the High Court, there is an accessible and relatively affordable alternative means of appealing Ofcom’s decisions via the Upper Tribunal. We cannot accept amendments such as this, which could unacceptably delay Ofcom’s ability to issue a notice, because that would leave children vulnerable.
To ensure that Ofcom’s use of its powers under Clause 110, and the technology that underpins it, are transparent, Ofcom will produce an annual report about the exercise of its functions using these powers. This must be submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. The report must also provide the details of technology that has been assessed as meeting minimum standards of accuracy, and Ofcom may also consider other factors, including the impact of technologies on privacy. That will be separate to Ofcom’s annual report to allow for full scrutiny of this power.
The legislation also places a statutory requirement on Ofcom to publish guidance before its functions with regard to Clause 110 come into force. This will be after Royal Assent, given that the legislation is subject to change until that point. Before producing the guidance, Ofcom must consult the Information Commissioner. As I said, there are already strong safeguards regarding Ofcom’s use of these powers, so we think that this additional oversight is unnecessary.
Amendments 203 and 204, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seek to probe the privacy implications of Ofcom’s powers to require technology under Clause 110. I reiterate that the Bill will not ban or weaken any design, including end-to-end encryption. But, given the scale of child sexual abuse and exploitation taking place on private communications, it is important that Ofcom has effective powers to require companies to tackle this abhorrent activity. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that in nearly three-quarters of cases where children are contacted online by someone they do not know, this takes place by private message. This highlights the scale of the threat and the importance of technology providers taking steps to safeguard children in private spaces online.
As already set out, there are already strong safeguards regarding the use of this power, and these will prevent Ofcom from requiring the use of any technology that would undermine a platform’s security and put users’ privacy at risk. These safeguards will also ensure that platforms will not be required to conduct mass scanning of private communications by default.
Until the regime comes into force, it is of course not possible to say with certainty which tools would be accredited. However, some illustrative examples of the kinds of current tools we might expect to be used—providing that they are highly accurate and compatible with a service’s design—are machine learning or artificial intelligence, which assess content to determine whether it is illegal, and hashing technology, which works by assigning a unique number to an image that has been identified as illegal.
Given the particularly abhorrent nature of the crimes we are discussing, it is important that services giving rise to a risk of child sexual abuse and exploitation in the UK are covered, wherever they are based. The Bill, including Ofcom’s ability to issue notices in relation to this or to terrorism, will therefore have extraterritorial effect. The Bill will apply to any relevant service that is linked to the UK. A service is linked to the UK if it has a significant number of UK users, if UK users form a target market or if the service is capable of being used in the UK and there is a material risk of significant harm to individuals in the UK arising from the service. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, on behalf of his noble friend, about why that amendment is not needed.
Amendments 209 to 214 seek to place additional requirements on Ofcom to consider the effect on user privacy when using its powers under Clause 110. I agree that tackling online harm needs to take place while protecting privacy and security online, which is why Ofcom already has to consider user privacy before issuing notices under Section 110, among the other stringent safeguards I have set out. Amendment 202A would impose a duty on Ofcom to issue a notice under Clause 110, where it is satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to do so—this will have involved ensuring that the safeguards have been met.
Ofcom will have access to a wide range of information and must have the discretion to decide the most appropriate course of action in any particular scenario, including where this action lies outside the powers and procedures conferred by Clause 110; for instance, an initial period of voluntary engagement. This is an in extremis power. It is essential that we balance users’ rights with the need to enable a strong response, so Ofcom must be able to assess whether any alternative, less intrusive measures would effectively reduce the level of child sexual exploitation and abuse or terrorist content occurring on a service before issuing a notice.
I hope that that provides reassurance to noble Lords on the amendments in this group, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 14.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate and serves as a good appetite builder for lunch, which I understand we will be able to take shortly.
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, gave us a balanced view of digital rights—the right to privacy and to security—and the fact that we should be trying to advance these two things simultaneously. She was right again to remind us that this is a real problem and there is a lot we can do. I know she has worked on this through things such as metadata—understanding who is communicating with whom—which might strike that nice balance where we are not infringing on people’s privacy too grossly but are still able to identify those who wish harm on our society and in particular on our children.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was right to pick up this tension between everything, everywhere, all at once and targeted surveillance. Again, that is really interesting to tease out. I am personally quite comfortable with quite intrusive targeted surveillance. I do not know whether noble Lords have been reading the Pegasus spyware stories: I am not comfortable with some Governments placing such spyware on the phones of human rights defenders but I would be much more relaxed about the British authorities placing something similar on the phones of people who are going to plant bombs in Manchester. We need to be really honest about where we are drawing our red lines if we want to go in the direction of targeted surveillance.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was right again to remind us about the importance of private conversations. I cited the example of police officers whose conversations have been exposed. Although it is hard, we should remember that if ordinary citizens want to exchange horrible racist jokes with each other and so on in private groups that is not a matter for the state, but it is when it is somebody in a position of public authority; we have a right to intervene there. Again, we have to remember that as long as it is not illegal people can say horrible things in private, and we should not encourage any situation where we suggest that the state would interfere unless there are legitimate grounds—for example, it is a police officer or somebody is doing something that crosses the line of legality.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, reminded us that it is either encrypted or it is not. That is really helpful, as things cannot be half encrypted. If a service provider makes a commitment it is critical that it is truthful. That is what our privacy law tells us. If I say, “This service is encrypted between you and the person you send the message to”, and I know that there is somebody in between who could access it, I am lying. I cannot say it is a private service unless it is truly private. We have to bear that in mind. Historically, people might have been more comfortable with fudging it, but not in 2023, when have this raft of privacy legislation.
The noble Baroness is also right to remind us that privacy can be safety. There is almost nothing more devastating than the leaking of intimate images. When services such as iCloud move to encrypted storage that dramatically reduces the risk that somebody will get access to your intimate images if you store them there, which you are legally entitled to do. Privacy can be a critical part of an individual maintaining their own security and we should not lose that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, was right again to talk about general monitoring. I am pleased that she found the WhatsApp briefing useful. I was unable to attend but I know from previous contact that there are people doing good work and it is sad that that often does not come out. We end up with this very polarised debate, which my noble friend Lord McNally was right to remind us is unhelpful. The people south of the river are often working very closely in the public interest with people in tech companies. Public rhetoric tends to focus on why more is not being done; there are very few thanks for what is being done. I would like to see the debate move a little more in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, opened up a whole new world of pain with VPNs, which I am sure we will come back to. I say simply that if we get the regulatory frameworks right, most people in Britain will continue to use mainstream services as long as they are allowed to be offered. If those services are regulated by the European Union under its Digital Services Act and pertain to the UK and the US in a similar way, they will in effect have global standards, so it will not matter where you VPN from. The scenario the noble Lord painted, which I worry about, is where those mainstream services are not available and we drive people into small, new services that are not regulated by anyone. We would then end up inadvertently driving people back to the wild west that we complain about, when most of them would prefer to use mainstream services that are properly regulated by Ofcom, the European Commission and the US authorities.
Illegal Migration Bill
Thursday 27th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 April 2023 - large print - (26 Apr 2023)
Online Safety Bill
Thursday 27th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Online Safety Act 2023 View all Online Safety Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87(Rev)-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (27 Apr 2023)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that “design and operation of a service” includes its terms of service.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns terms of service. All the amendments either have the phrase “terms of service” in them or imply that we wish to see more use of the phrase in the Bill, and seek to try to tidy up some of the other bits around that which have crept into the Bill.
Why are we doing that? Rather late in the day, terms of service has suddenly become a key fulcrum, under which much of the operations of the activity relating to people’s usage of social media and service functions on the internet will be expressed in relation to how they view the material coming to them. With the loss of the adult “legal but harmful” provisions, we also lost quite a considerable amount of what would have been primary legislation, which no doubt would have been backed up by codes of practice. The situation we are left with, and which we need to look at very closely, is the triple shield at the heart of the new obligations on companies, and, in particular, on their terms of service. That is set out primarily in Clauses 64, 65, 66 and 67, and is a subject to which my amendments largely refer.
Users of the services would be more confident that the Government have got their focus on terms of service right, if they actually said what should be said on the tin, as the expression goes. If it is the case that something in a terms of service was so written and implemented so that material which should be taken down was indeed taken down, these would become reliable methods of judging whether or not the service is the one people want to have, and the free market would be seen to be working to empower people to make their own decisions about what level of risk they can assume by using a service. That is a major change from the way the Bill was originally envisaged. Because this was done late, we have one or two of the matters to which I have referred already, which means that the amendments focus on changing what is currently in the Bill.
It is also true that the changes were not consulted upon; I do not recall there being any document from government about whether this was a good way forward. The changes were certainly not considered by the Joint Committee, of which several of those present were members—we did not discuss it in the Joint Committee and made no recommendation on it. The level of scrutiny we have enjoyed on the Bill has been absent in this area. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford will speak shortly to amendments about terms of service, and we will be able to come back to it. I think it would have been appropriate had the earlier amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, been in this group because the issue was the terms of service, even though it had many other elements that were important and that we did discuss.
The main focus of my speech is that the Government have not managed to link this new idea of terms of service and the responsibilities that will flow from that to the rest of the Bill. It does not seem to fit into the overall architecture. For example, it is not a design feature, and does not seem to work through in that way. This is a largely self-contained series of clauses. We are trying to ask some of the world’s largest companies, on behalf of the people who use them, to do things on an almost contractual basis. Terms of service are not a contract that you sign up to, but you certainly click something—or occasionally click it, if you remember to—by which you consent to the company operating in a particular set of ways. In a sense, that is a contract, but is it really a contract? At the heart of that contract between companies and users is whether the terms of service are well captured in the way the Bill is organised. I think there are gaps.
The Bill does have something that we welcome and want to hold on to, which is that the process under which the risks are assessed and decisions taken about how companies operate and how Ofcom relates to those decisions is about the design and operation of the service—both the design and the operation, something that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is very keen to emphasise at all times. It all starts and ends with design, and the operation is a consequence of design choices. Other noble Baronesses have mentioned in the debate that small companies get it right and so, when they grow, can be confident that what they are doing is something that is worth doing. Design, and operating that design to make a service, is really important. Are terms of service part of that or are they different, and does it matter? It seems to me that they are downstream from the design: something can be designed and then have terms of service that were not really part of the original process. What is happening here?
My Amendments 16, 21, 66DA, 75 and 197 would ensure that the terms of service are included within the list of matters that constitute “design and operation” of the service at each point that it occurs. I have had to go right through the Bill to add it in certain areas—in a rather irritating way, I am sure, for the Bill team—because sometimes we find that what I think should be a term of service is actually described as something else, such as a “a publicly available statement”, whatever that is. It would be an advantage if we went through it again and defined terms of service and made sure that that was what we were talking about.
Amendments 70 to 72, 79 to 81 and 174 seek to help the Government and their officials with tidying up the drafting, which probably has not been scrutinised enough to pick up these issues. It may not matter, at the end of the day, but what is in the Bill is going to be law and we may as well try to get it right as best we can. I am sure the Minister will say we really do not need to worry about this because it is all about risks and outcomes, and if a company does not protect children or has illegal content, or the user-empowerment duties—the toggling—do not work, Ofcom will find a way of driving the company to sort it out. What does that mean in practice? Does it mean that Ofcom has a role in defining what terms of service are? It is not in the Bill and may not reach the Bill, but it is something that will be a bit of problem if we do not resolve what we mean by it, even if it is not by changing the legislation.
If the Minister were to disagree with my approach, it would be quite nice to have it said at the Dispatch Box so that we can look at that. The key question is: are terms of service an integral part of the design and operation of a service and, if so, can we extend the term to make sure that all aspects of the services people consume are covered by adequate and effective terms of service? There is probably going to be division in the way we approach this because, clearly, whether they are terms of service or have another name, the actual enforcement of illegal and children’s duties will be effected by Ofcom, irrespective of the wording of the Bill—I do not want to question that. However, there is obviously an overlap into questions about adults and others who are affected by the terms of service. If you cannot identify what the terms of service say in relation to something you might not wish to receive because the terms of service are imprecise, how on earth are you going to operate the services, the toggles and things, around it? If you look at that and accept there will be pressure within the market to get these terms of service right, there will be a lot of dialogue with Ofcom. I accept that all that will happen, but it would be good if the position of the terms of service was clarified in the Bill before it becomes law and that Ofcom’s powers in relation to those are clarified—do they or do they not have the chance to review terms of service if they turn out to be ineffective in practice? If that is the case, how are we going to see this work out in practice in terms of what people will be able to do about it, either through redress or by taking the issue to court? I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I support these amendments, which were set out wonderfully by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I want to raise a point made on Tuesday when the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said that only 3% of people read terms of service and I said that 98% of people do not read them, so one of us is wrong, but I think the direction of travel is clear. She also used a very interesting phrase about prominence, and I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister whether there is some lever whereby Ofcom can insist on prominence for certain sorts of material—a hierarchy of information, if you like—because these are really important pieces of information, buried in the wrong place so that even 2% or 3% of people may not find them.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has given us the opportunity to talk about terms of service, and I will make three points again, in a shorter intervention than on the previous group.
First, terms of service are critical as the impact of terms of service will generally be much greater in terms of the amount of intervention that occurs on content than it will ever be under the law. Terms of service create, in effect, a body of private law for a community, and they are nearly always a superset of the public law—indeed, it is very common for the first items of a terms of service to say, “You must not do anything illegal”. This raises the interesting question of “illegal where?”—what it generally means is that you must not do anything illegal in the jurisdiction in which the service provider is established. The terms of service will say, “Do not do anything illegal”, and then they will give a whole list of other things, as well as illegality, that you cannot do on the platform, and I think this is right because they have different characteristics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for this short and focused debate, which has been helpful, and for the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I think we all share the same objective: ensuring that terms of service promote accountability and transparency, and empower users.
One of the Bill’s key objectives is to ensure that the terms of service of user-to-user platforms are suitable and effective. Under the Bill, companies will be required both to set out clearly how they will tackle illegal content and protect children and to ensure that their terms of service are properly enforced. The additional transparency and accountability duties on category 1 services will further ensure that users know what to expect on the largest platforms. This will put an end to these services arbitrarily removing content or, conversely, failing to remove content that they profess to prohibit.
The Bill will also ensure that search services are clear to their users about how they are complying with their adult and child safety duties under this new law. Given the very different way in which search services operate, however, this will be achieved through a publicly available statement rather than through terms of service. The two are meant distinctly.
Noble Lords are right to point to the question of intelligibility. It struck me that, if it takes 10 days to read terms of service, perhaps we should have a race during the 10 days allotted to this Committee stage to see which is quicker—but I take the point. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, is also right that the further requirements imposed through this Bill will only add to that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked a fair question about what “accessibility” means. The Bill requires all platforms’ terms of service for illegal content and child safety duties to be clear and accessible. Ofcom will provide guidance on what that means, including ensuring that they are suitably prominent. The same applies to terms of service for category 1 services relating to content moderation.
I will focus first on Amendments 16, 21, 66DA, 75 and 197, which seek to ensure that both Ofcom and platforms consider the risks associated with platforms’ terms of service with regard to the illegal content and child safety duties in the Bill. We do not think that these amendments are needed. User-to-user services will already be required to assess the risks regarding their terms of service for illegal content. Clause 8 requires companies to assess the “design and operation” of a service in relation to illegal content. As terms of service are integral to how a service operates, they would be covered by this provision. Similarly, Clause 10 sets out that companies likely to be accessed by children will be required to assess the “design and operation” of a service as part of their child risk assessments, which would include the extent to which their terms of service may reduce or increase the risk of harm to children.
In addition to those risk assessment duties, the safety duties will require companies to take proportionate measures effectively to manage and mitigate the risk of harm to people whom they have identified through risk assessments. This will include making changes to their terms of service, if appropriate. The Bill does not impose duties on search services relating to terms of service, as search services’ terms of service play a less important role in determining how users can engage on a platform. I will explain this point further when responding to specific amendments relating to search services but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that search services will have comprehensive duties to understand and mitigate how the design and operation of their service affects risk.
Amendment 197 would require Ofcom to assess how platforms’ terms of service affect the risk of harm to people that the sector presents. While I agree that this is an important risk factor which Ofcom must consider, it is already provided for in Clause 89, which requires Ofcom to undertake an assessment of risk across regulated services. That requires Ofcom to consider which characteristics of regulated services give rise to harm. Given how integral terms of service are to how many technology companies function, Ofcom will necessarily consider the risk associated with terms of service when undertaking that risk assessment.
However, elevating terms of service above other systems and processes, as mentioned in Clause 89, would imply that Ofcom needs to take account of the risk of harm on the regulated service, more than it needs to do so for other safety-by-design systems and processes or for content moderation processes, for instance. That may not be suitable, particularly as the service delivery methods will inevitably change over time. Instead, Clause 89 has been written to give Ofcom scope to organise its risk assessment, risk register and risk profiles as it thinks suitable. That is appropriate, given that it is best placed to develop detailed knowledge of the matters in question as they evolve over time.
Amendments 70, 71, 72, 79, 80, 81, 174 and 302 seek to replace the Bill’s references to publicly available statements, in relation to search services, with terms of service. This would mean that search services would have to publish how they are complying with their illegal content and child protection duties in terms of service rather than in publicly available statements. I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Lord has tabled and introduced these amendments. However, they do not consider the very different ways in which search services operate.
User-to-user services’ terms of service fulfil a very specific purpose. They govern a user’s behaviour on the service and set rules on what a user is allowed to post and how they can interact with others. If a user breaks these terms, a service can block his or her access or remove his or her content. Under the status quo, users have very few mechanisms by which to hold user-to-user platforms accountable to these terms, meaning that users can arbitrarily see their content removed with few or no avenues for redress. Equally, a user may choose to use a service because its terms and conditions lead them to believe that certain types of content are prohibited while in practice the company does not enforce the relevant terms.
The Bill’s duties relating to user-to-user services’ terms of service seek to redress this imbalance. They will ensure that people know what to expect on a platform and enable them to hold platforms accountable. In contrast, users of search services do not create content or interact with other users. Users can search for anything without restriction from the search service provider, although a search term may not always return results. It is therefore not necessary to provide detailed information on what a user can and cannot do on a search service. The existing duties on such services will ensure that search engines are clear to users about how they are complying with their safety duties. The Bill will require search services to set out how they are fulfilling them, in publicly available statements. Their actions must meet the standards set by Ofcom. Using these statements will ensure that search services are as transparent as user-to-user services about how they are complying with their safety duties.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 174 also seeks to expand the transparency reporting requirements to cover the scope and application of the terms of service set out by search service providers. This too is unnecessary because, via Schedule 8, the Bill already ensures transparency about the scope and application of the provisions that search services must make publicly available. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance that the concerns he has raised are already covered. With that, I invite him to withdraw Amendment 16.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that very detailed response, which I will have to read very carefully because it was quite complicated. That is the answer to my question. Terms of service will not be very easy to identify because to answer my questions he has had to pray in aid issues that Ofcom will necessarily have to assess—terms of services—to get at whether the companies are performing the duties that the Bill requires of them.
I will not go further on that. We know that there will be enough there to answer the main questions I had about this. I take the point about search being distinctively different in this area, although a tidy mind like mine likes to see all these things in one place and understand all the words. Every time I see “publicly available statement”, I do not know why but I think about people being hanged in public rather than a term of service or a contract.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a signpost to the new duty in clause 19 about supplying records of risk assessments to OFCOM.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment needed because the new duty to summarise illegal content risk assessments in the terms of service (see the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting new subsection (8A) below) is imposed only on providers of Category 1 services.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides clarification because the new duty to summarise illegal content risk assessments in the terms of service (see the amendment inserting new subsection (8A) below) is imposed only on providers of Category 1 services.
Lord Moylan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with the other amendment to Clause 9 in the name of Lord Moylan, adds a requirement to protect individuals from harm, rather than monitoring, prior restraint and/or denial of access. Further obligations to mitigate and manage harm, including to remove unlawful content that is signalled to the service provider, are unchanged by this amendment.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this is a very large and wide-ranging group of amendments. Within it, I have a number of amendments that, on their own, span three separate subjects. I propose to address these one after the other in my opening remarks, but other subjects will be brought in as the debate continues and other noble Lords speak to their own amendments.
If I split the amendments that I am speaking to into three groups, the first is Amendments 17 and 18. These relate to Clause 9, on page 7, where safety duties about illegal content are set out. The first of those amendments addresses the obligation to prevent individuals encountering priority illegal content by means of the service.
Earlier this week in Committee, I asked the Minister whether the Government understood “prevent” and “protect”, both of which they use in the legislation, to have different weight. I did not expect my noble friend to give an answer at that point, but I know that he will have reflected on it. We need clarity about this at some point, because courts will be looking at, listening to and reading what the Government say at the Dispatch Box about the weight to be given to these words. To my mind, to prevent something happening requires active measures in advance that ensure as far as reasonably and humanly possible that it does not actually happen, but one could be talking about something more reactive to protect someone from something happening.
This distinction is of great importance to internet companies—I am not talking about the big platforms—which will be placed, as I say repeatedly, under very heavy burdens by the Bill. It is possible that they simply will not be able to discharge them and will have to go out of business.
Let us take Wikipedia, which was mentioned earlier in Committee. It operates in 300 languages but employs 700 moderators globally to check what is happening. If it is required by Clause 9 to
“prevent individuals from encountering priority illegal content by means of the service”,
it will have to scrutinise what is put up on this community-driven website as or before it appears. Quite clearly, something such as Welsh Wikipedia—there is Wikipedia in Welsh—simply would not get off the ground if it had to meet that standard, because the number of people who would have to be employed to do that would be far more than the service could sustain. However, if we had something closer to the wording I suggest in my amendment, where services have to take steps to “protect” people—so they could react to something and take it down when they become aware of it—it all becomes a great deal more tolerable.
Similarly, Amendment 18 addresses subsection (3) of the same clause, where there is a
“duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes … to … minimise the length of time”
for which content is present. How do you know whether you are minimising the length of time? How is that to be judged? What is the standard by which that is to be measured? Would it not be a great deal better and more achievable if the wording I propose, which is that you simply are under an obligation to take it down, were inserted? That is my first group of amendments. I put that to my noble friend and say that all these amendments are probing to some extent at this stage. I would like to hear how he thinks that this can actually be operated.
My second group is quite small, because it contains only Amendment 135. Here I am grateful to the charity JUSTICE for its help in drawing attention to this issue. This amendment deals with Schedule 7, on page 202, where the priority offences are set out. Paragraph 4 of the schedule says that a priority offence includes:
“An offence under any of the following provisions of the Public Order Act 1986”.
One of those is Section 5 of that Act, “Harassment, alarm or distress”. Here I make a very different point and return to territory I have been familiar with in the past. We debated this only yesterday in Grand Committee, although I personally was unable to be there: the whole territory of hate crimes, harmful and upsetting words, and how they are to be judged and dealt with. In this case, my amendment would remove Section 5 of the Public Order Act from the list of priority offences.
If society has enough problems tolerating the police going round and telling us when we have done or said harmful and hurtful things and upbraiding us for it, is it really possible to consider—without the widest form of censorship—that it is appropriate for internet platforms to judge us, shut us down and shut down our communications on the basis of their judgment of what we should be allowed to say? We already know that there is widespread suspicion that some internet platforms are too quick to close down, for example, gender critical speech. We seem to be giving them something close to a legislative mandate to be very trigger-happy when it comes to closing down speech by saying that it engages, or could engage, Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I will come to the question of how they judge it in my third group, in a moment—but the noble Lord might be able to help me.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
Just to reinforce the point the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, made on that, I certainly had experience of where the police became the complainants. They would request, for example, that you take down an English Defence League event, claiming that it would be likely to cause a public order problem. I have no sympathy whatever with the English Defence League, but I am very concerned about the police saying “You must remove a political demonstration” to a platform and citing the legal grounds for doing that. The noble Lord is on to a very valid point to be concerned about that.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I really wonder whether the Government realise what they are walking into here. On the one hand, yesterday the Grand Committee was debating the statutory instrument putting in place new statutory guidance for the police on how to enforce, much more sensitively than in the past, non-crime hate incidents. However, on the other hand, the next day in this Chamber we are putting an obligation on a set of mostly foreign private companies to act as a police force to go around bullying us and closing us down if we say something that engages Section 5 of the Public Order Act. I think this is something the Government are going to regret, and I would very much like to hear what my noble friend has to say about that.
Finally, I come to my third group of amendments: Amendments 274, 278, 279 and 283. They are all related and on one topic. These relate to the text of the Bill on page 145, in Clause 170. Here we are discussing what judgments providers have to make when they come to decide what material to take down. Inevitably, they will have to make judgments. That is one of the unfortunate things about this Bill. A great deal of what we do in our lives is going to have to be based on judgments made by private companies, many of which are based abroad but which we are trying to legislate for.
It makes a certain sense that the law should say what they should take account of in making those judgments. But the guidance—or rather, the mandate—given to those companies by Clause 170 is, again, very hair-trigger. Clause 170(5), which I am proposing we amend, states:
“In making such judgements, the approach to be followed is whether a provider has reasonable grounds to infer that content is … of the kind in question”.
I am suggesting that “reasonable grounds to infer” should be replaced with “sufficient evidence to infer”, so that they have to be able to produce some evidence that they are justified in taking content down. The test should be higher than simply having “reasonable grounds”, which may rest on a suspicion and little evidence at all. So one of those amendments relates to strengthening that bar so that they must have real evidence before they can take censorship action.
I add only two words to subsection (6), which talks about reasonable grounds for the inference—it defines what the reasonable grounds are—that
“exist in relation to content and an offence if, following the approach in subsection (2)”
and so on. I am saying “if and only if”—in other words, I make it clear that this is the only basis on which material can be censored using the provisions in this section, so as to limit it from going more widely. The third amendment in my group is essentially consequential to that.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 128, 130 and 132, as well as Amendments 143 to 153 in this grouping. They were tabled in the name of my right reverend colleague the Bishop of Derby, who is sorry that she cannot be here today.
The Church of England is the biggest provider of youth provision in our communities and educates around 1 million of our nation’s children. My colleague’s commitment to the principles behind these amendments also springs from her experience as vice chair of the Children’s Society. The amendments in this grouping are intended to strengthen legislation on online grooming for the purpose of child criminal exploitation, addressing existing gaps and ensuring that children are properly protected. They are also intended to make it easier for evidence of children being groomed online for criminal exploitation to be reported by online platforms to the police and the National Crime Agency.
Research from 2017 shows that one in four young people reported seeing illicit drugs advertised for sale on social media—a percentage that is likely to be considerably higher six years on. According to the Youth Endowment Fund in 2022, 20% of young people reported having seen online content promoting gang membership in the preceding 12 months, with 24% reporting content involving the carrying, use or promotion of weapons.
In relation to drugs, that later research noted that these platforms provide opportunities for dealers to build trust with potential customers, with young people reporting that they are more likely to see a groomer advertising drugs as a friend than as a dealer. This leaves young people vulnerable to exploitation, thereby reducing the scruples or trepidation they might feel about buying drugs in the first place. Meanwhile, it is also clear that social media is changing the operation of the county lines model. There is no longer the need to transport children from cities into the countryside to sell drugs, given that children who live in less populated areas can be groomed online as easily as in person. A range of digital platforms is therefore being used to target potential recruits among children and young people, with digital technologies also being deployed—for example, to monitor their whereabouts on a drugs run.
More research is being carried out by the Children’s Society, whose practitioners reported a notable increase in the number of perpetrators grooming children through social media and gaming sites during the first and second waves of the pandemic. Young people were being contacted with promotional material about lifestyles they could lead and the advantages of working within a gang, and were then asked to do jobs in exchange for money or status within this new group. It is true that some such offences could be prosecuted under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but there remains a huge disparity between the scale of exploitation and the number of those being charged under the Act. Without a definition of child exploitation for criminal purposes, large numbers of children are being groomed online and paying the price for crimes committed by some of their most dangerous and unscrupulous elders.
It is vital that we protect our children from online content which facilitates that criminal exploitation, in the same way that we are looking to protect them from sexual exploitation. Platforms must be required to monitor for illegal content related to child criminal exploitation on their sites and to have mechanisms in place for users to flag it with those platforms so it can be removed. This can be achieved by including modern slavery and trafficking, of which child criminal exploitation is a form, into the scope of illegal content within the Bill, which is what these amendments seek to do. It is also vital that the law sets out clear expectations on platforms to report evidence of child criminal exploitation to the National Crime Agency in the same way as they are expected to report content involving child sexual exploitation and abuse to enable child victims to be identified and to receive support. Such evidence may enable action against the perpetrators without the need of a disclosure from child victims. I therefore fully support and endorse the amendments standing in the name of the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, this is again a very helpful set of amendments. I want to share some experience that shows that legality tests are really hard. Often from the outside there is an assumption that it is easy to understand what is legal and illegal in terms of speech, but in practice that is very rarely the case. There is almost never a bright line, except in a small class of child sexual abuse material where it is always illegal and, as soon as you see the material, you know it is illegal and you can act on it. In pretty much every other case, you have to look at what is in front of you.
I will take a very specific example. Something we had to deal with was images of Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK in Turkey. If somebody shared a picture of Abdullah Öcalan, were they committing a very serious offence, which is the promotion of terrorism? Were they indicating support for the peace process that was taking place in Turkey? Were they showing that they support his socialist and feminist ideals? Were they supporting the YPG, a group in Syria to which we were sending arms, that venerates him? This is one example of many I could give where the content in front of you does not tell you very clearly whether or not the speech is illegal or speech that should be permitted. Indeed, we would take speech like that down and I would get complaints, including from Members of Parliament, saying, “Why have you removed that speech? I’m entitled to talk about Abdullah Öcalan”, and we would enter into an argument with them.
We would often ask lawyers in different countries whether they could tell us whether a speech was legal or illegal. The answer would come back as probably illegal, likely illegal, maybe illegal and, occasionally, definitely not illegal, but it was nearly always on the spectrum. The amendments we are proposing today are to try to understand where the Government intend people to draw that line when they get that advice. Let us assume the company wants to do the right thing and follow the instructions of the Bill and remove illegal content. At what level do they say it has met the test sufficiently, given that in the vast majority of cases, apart from the small class of illegal content, they are going to be given only a likelihood or a probability? As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, we have to try to insert this notion of sufficient evidence with Amendments 273, 275, 277, 280 and 281 in the names of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who is unable to be in his place today. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, may also have signed them. We are trying to flesh out the point at which that illegality standard should kick in.
Just to understand again how this often works when the law gets involved, I say that there is a law in Germany; the short version is NetzDG. If there are any German speakers who can pronounce the compound noun that is its full title, there will be a prize. It is a long compound word that means “network enforcement Act”. It has been in place for a few years and it tells companies to do something similar—to remove content that is illegal in Germany. There would be cases where we would get a report from somebody saying, “This is illegal”, and we would take action; then it went into the German system and three months later we would finally get told whether it was actually illegal in a 12-page judgment that a German court had figured out. In the meantime, all we could do was work on our best guess while that process was going on. I think we need to be very clear that illegality is hard.
Cross-jurisdictional issues present us with another set of challenges. If both the speaker and the audience are in the United Kingdom, it is fairly clear. But in many cases, when we are talking about online platforms, one or other, or even both the speaker and the audience, may be outside the United Kingdom. Again, when does the speech become illegal? It may be entirely legal speech between two people in the United States. I think—and I would appreciate clarification from the Minister—that the working assumption is that if the speech was reported by someone not in the United State but in the UK, the platform would be required to restrict access to it from the UK, even though the speech is entirely legal in the jurisdiction in which it took place. Because the person in the UK encountered it, there would be a duty to restrict it. Again, it has been clarified that there is certainly not a duty to take the speech down, because it is entirely legal speech outside the UK. These cross-jurisdictional issues are interesting; I hope the Minister can clarify that.
The amendments also try to think about how this would work in practice. Amendment 287 talks about how guidance should be drawn up in consultation with UK lawyers. That is to avoid a situation where platforms are guessing too much at what UK lawyers want; they should at least have sought UK legal advice. That advice will then be fed into the guidance given to their human reviewers and their algorithms. That is the way, in practice, in which people will carry out the review. There is a really interesting practical question—which, again, comes up under NetzDG—about the extent to which platforms should be investing in legal review of content that is clearly against their terms of service.
There will be two kinds of platform. There will be some platforms that see themselves as champions of freedom of expression and say they will only remove stuff that is illegal in the UK, and everything else can stay up. I think that is a minority of platforms—they tend to be on the fringes. As soon as a platform gets a mainstream audience, it has to go further. Most platforms will have terms of service that go way beyond UK law. In that case, they will be removing the hate speech, and they will be confident that they will remove UK-illegal hate speech within that. They will remove the terrorist content. They will be confident and will not need to do a second test of the legality in order to be able to remove that content. There is a practical question about the extent to which platforms should be required to do a second test if something is already illegal under their terms.
There will be, broadly speaking again, four buckets of content. There will be content that is clearly against a platform’s terms, which it will want to get rid of immediately. It will not want to test it again for legality; it will just get rid of it.
There will be a second bucket of content that is not apparently against a platform’s terms but clearly illegal in the UK. That is a very small subset of content: in Germany, that is Holocaust denial content; in the United Kingdom, this Parliament has looked at Holocaust denial and chosen not to criminalise it, so that will not be there, but an equivalent for us would be migration advice. Migration advice will not be against the terms of service of most platforms, but in the Government’s intention, the Illegal Migration Bill is to make it illegal and require it to be removed, and the consequent effect will be that it will have to be removed under the terms of this Bill. So there will be that small set of content that is illegal in the UK but not against terms of service.
There will be a third bucket of content that is not apparently against the terms or the law, and that actually accounts for most of the complaints that a platform gets. I will choose my language delicately: complaint systems are easy, and people complain to make a point. They use complaint systems such as dislike buttons. The reality is that one of the most common sets of complaints you get is when there is a football match and the two opposing teams report the content on each other’s pages as illegal. They will do that every time, and you get used to it, and that is why you learn to discount mass-volume complaints. But again, we should be clear that there are a great many complaints that are merely vexatious.
The final bucket is of content that is unclear and legal review will be needed. Our amendment is intended to deal with those. A platform will go out and get advice. It is trying to understand at what point something like migration advice tips over into the illegal as opposed to being advice about going on holiday, and it is trying to understand that based on what it can immediately see. Once it has sought that advice, it will feed that back into the guidance to reviewers and the algorithms to try and remove content more effectively and be compliant with the Bill as a whole and not get into trouble with Ofcom.
Some areas are harder than others. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, already highlighted one: public order offences, which are extremely hard. If somebody says something offensive or holds an offensive political view—I suspect the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, may have something to say on this—people may well make contact and claim that it is in breach of public order law. On the face of it, they may have a reasonably arguable case but again, as a platform, you are left to make a decision.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 137, I want to put a marker down to say that I strongly support Amendment 135 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will not repeat anything that he said but I agree with absolutely every word.
Amendment 137 is in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham. This amendment is one of five which I have tabled with the purpose of meeting a core purpose of the Bill. In the words of my noble friend the Minister in response to Amendment 1, it is
“to protect users of all ages from being exposed to illegal content”—[Official Report, 19/4/23; col. 724.]
—in short, to ensure that what is illegal offline is illegal online.
If accepted, this small group of amendments would, I strongly believe, make a really important difference to millions of people’s lives—people who are not necessarily listed in Clause 12. I therefore ask the Committee to allow me to briefly demonstrate the need for these amendments through the prism of millions of people and their families working and living in rural areas. They are often quite isolated and working alone in remote communities, and are increasingly at risk of or are already suffering awful online abuse and harassment. This abuse often goes way beyond suffering; it destroys businesses and a way of life.
I find it extraordinary that the Bill seems to be absent of anything to do with livelihoods. It is all about focusing on feelings, which of course are important—and the most important focus is children—but people’s businesses and livelihoods are being destroyed through abuse online.
Research carried out by the Countryside Alliance has revealed a deeply disturbing trend online that appears to be disproportionately affecting people who live in rural areas and who are involved in rural pursuits. Beyond direct abuse, a far more insidious tactic that activists have adopted involves targeting businesses involved in activities of which they disapprove, such as livestock farming or hosting shoots. They post fake reviews on platforms including Tripadvisor and Google Maps, and their aim is to damage the victim, their business and their reputation by, to put it colloquially, trashing their business and thereby putting off potential customers. This is what some call trolling.
Let me be clear that I absolutely defend, to my core, the right to freedom of expression and speech, and indeed the right to offend. Just upsetting someone is way below the bar for the Bill, or any legislation. I am deeply concerned about the hate crime—or non-crime—issue we debated yesterday; in fact, I put off reading the debate because I so disagree with this nonsense from the College of Policing.
Writing a negative review directly based on a negative experience is entirely acceptable in my book, albeit unpleasant for the business targeted. My amendments seek to address something far more heinous and wrong, which, to date, can only be addressed as libel and, therefore, through the civil courts. Colleagues in both your Lordships’ House and in another place shared with me tremendously upsetting examples from their constituents and in their neighbourhoods of how anonymous activists are ruining the lives of hard-working people who love this country and are going the extra mile to defend our culture, historic ways of life and freedoms.
Fortunately, through the Bill, the Government are taking an important step by introducing a criminal offence of false communications. With the leave of the Committee, I will briefly cite and explain the other amendments in order to make sense of Amendment 137. One of the challenges of the offence of false communications is the need to recognise that so much of the harm that underpins the whole reason why the Bill is necessary is the consequence of allowing anonymity. It is so easy to destroy and debilitate others by remaining anonymous and using false communications. Why be anonymous if you have any spine at all to stand up for what you believe? It is not possible offline—when writing a letter to a newspaper, for example—so why is it acceptable online? The usual tech business excuse of protecting individuals in rogue states is no longer acceptable, given the level of harm that anonymity causes here at home.
Therefore, my Amendment 106 seeks to address the appalling effect of harm, of whatever nature, arising from false or threatening communications committed by unverified or anonymous users—this is what we refer to as trolling. Amendments 266 and 267, in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and my noble friend Lord Leicester, would widen the scope of this new and welcome offence of false communications to include financial harm, and harm to the subject of the false message arising from its communication to third parties.
The Bill will have failed unless we act beyond feelings and harm to the person and include loss of livelihood. As I said, I am amazed that it is not front and centre of the Bill after safety for our children. Amendment 268, also supported by my noble and learned friend, would bring within the scope of the communications offences the instigation of such offences by others—for example, Twitter storms, which can involve inciting others to make threats without doing so directly. Currently, we are unsure whether encouraging others to spread false information—for example, by posting fake reviews of businesses for ideologically motivated reasons—would become an offence under the Bill. We believe that it should, and my Amendment 268 would address this issue.
I turn briefly to the specifics of my Amendment 137. Schedule 7 lists a set of “priority offences” that social media platforms must act to prevent, and they must remove messages giving rise to certain offences. However, the list does not include the new communications offences created elsewhere in Part 10. We believe that this is a glaring anomaly. If there is a reason why the new communications offences are not listed, it is important that we understand why. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain.
The practical effect of Amendment 137 would be to include the communications offences introduced in the Bill and communications giving rise to them within the definition of “relevant offence” and “priority illegal content” for the purposes of Clause 53(4) and (7) and otherwise.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I ask the Committee to have a level of imagination here because I have been asked to read the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I do not know who advised the noble Baroness—and forgive me for getting up and getting all former Leader on her—but this is a practice that we seem to have adopted in the last couple of years and that I find very odd. It is perfectly proper for the noble Baroness to deploy the noble Viscount’s arguments, but to read his speech is completely in contravention of our guidance.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I beg the pardon of the Committee. I asked about it and was misinformed; I will do as the noble Baroness says.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is unable to be with us. He put his name to Amendments 273, 275, 277 and 280. His concern is that the Bill sets the threshold for illegality too low and that in spite of the direction provided by Clause 170, the standards for determining illegality are too vague.
I will make a couple of points on that thought. Clause 170(6) directs that a provider must have
“reasonable grounds to infer that all elements necessary for the commission of the offence, including mental elements, are present or satisfied”,
but that does not mean that the platform has to be certain that the content is illegal before it takes it down. This is concerning when you take it in combination with what or who will make judgments on illegality.
If a human moderator makes the decision, it will depend on the resources and time available to them as to how much information they gather in order to make that judgment. Unlike in a court case, when a wide range of information and context can be gathered, when it comes to decisions about content online, these resources are very rarely available to human moderators, who have a vast amount of content to get through.
If an automated system makes the judgment, it is very well established that algorithms are not good at context—the Communications and Digital Committee took evidence on this repeatedly when I was on it. AI simply uses the information available in the content itself to make a decision, which can lead to significant missteps. Clause 170(3) provides the requirement for the decision-makers to judge whether there is a defence for the content. In the context of algorithms, it is very unclear how they will come to such a judgment from the content itself.
I understand that these are probing amendments, but I think the concern is that the vagueness of the definition will lead to too much content being taken down. This concern was supported by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which wrote to the former Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, on that matter. I apologise again.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that probe how removing illegal material is understood and will be used under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, explained a lot of my concerns, as indeed did the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, via his avatar. We have heard a range of very interesting contributions that need to be taken seriously by the Government. I have put my name to a number of amendments.
The identification of illegal material might be clear and obvious in some cases—even many cases. It sounds so black and white: “Don’t publish illegal material”. But defining communications of this nature can be highly complex, so much so that it is traditionally reserved for law enforcement bodies and the judicial system. We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that, despite Home Secretaries, this House, regulations and all sorts of laws having indicated that non-crime hate incidents, for example, should not be pursued by the police, they continue to pursue them as though they are criminal acts. That is exactly the kind of issue we have.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
In talking about individuals and investigations, the noble Baroness reminded me of one class of content where we do have clarity, and that is contempt of court. That is a frequent request. We know that it is illegal in that case because a judge writes to the company and says, “You must not allow this to be said because it is in contempt of court”, but that really is the exception. In most other cases, someone is saying, “I think it is illegal”. In live proceedings, in most cases it is absolutely clear because a judge has told you.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
That is very helpful.
I am concerned that removing so-called illegal content for the purpose of complying with the regulatory system covers not only that which reaches conviction in a criminal court but possibly anything that a platform determines could be illegal, and therefore it undermines our own legal system. As I have said, that marks a significant departure from the rule of law. It seems that the state is asking or mandating private companies to make determinations about what constitutes illegality.
The obligations on a platform to determine what constitutes illegality could obviously become a real problem, particularly in relation to limitations on free expression. As we have already heard, the Public Order Act 1986 criminalises, for example, those who stir up hatred through the use of words, behaviour or written material. That is contentious in the law offline. By “contentious”, I mean that it is a matter of difficulty that requires the full rigour of the criminal justice system, understanding the whole history of established case law. That is all necessary to make a conviction under that law for offences of this nature.
Now we appear to be saying that, without any of that, social media companies should make the decision, which is a nerve-racking situation to be in. We have already heard the slippery phrase “reasonable grounds to infer”. If that was the basis on which you were sent to prison—if they did not have to prove that you were guilty but they had reasonable grounds to infer that you might be, without any evidence—I would be worried, yet reasonable grounds to infer that the content could be illegal is the basis on which we are asking for those decisions to be made. That is significantly below the ordinary burden of proof required to determine that an illegal act has been committed. Under this definition, I fear that platforms will be forced to overremove and censor what ultimately will be entirely lawful speech.
Can the Minister consider what competency social media companies have to determine what is lawful? We have heard some of the dilemmas from somebody who was in that position—let alone the international complications, as was indicated. Will all these big tech companies have to employ lots of ex-policemen and criminal lawyers? How will it work? It seems to me that there is a real lack of qualifications in that sphere— that is not a criticism, because those people decided to work in big tech, not in criminal law, and yet we are asking them to pursue this. That is a concern.
I will also make reference to what I think are the controversies around government Amendments 136A and 136B to indicate the difficulties of these provisions. They concern illegal activity—such as “assisting unlawful immigration”, illegal entry, human trafficking and similar offences—but I am unsure as to how this would operate. While it is the case that certain entrances to the UK are illegal, I suddenly envisage a situation where a perfectly legitimate political debate—for example, about the small boats controversy—would be taken down, and that people advocating for a position against the Government’s new Illegal Migration Bill could be accused of supporting illegality. What exactly will be made illegal in those amendments to the Online Safety Bill?
The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a fascinating speech about an interesting group of amendments. Because of the way the amendments are grouped, I feel that we have moved to a completely different debate, so I will not go into any detail on this subject. Anonymous trolling, Twitter storms and spreading false information are incredibly unpleasant. I am often the recipient of them—at least once a week—so I know personally that you feel frustrated that people tell lies and your reputation is sullied. However, I do not think that these amendments offer the basis on which that activity should be censored, and I will definitely argue against removing anonymity clauses—but that will be in another group. It is a real problem, but I do not think that the solution is contained in these amendments.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, my contribution will be less officious than my intervention earlier in this group. In the last couple of years since I returned to the House—as I describe it—having spent time at the Charity Commission, I have noticed a new practice emerging of noble Lords reading out other people’s speeches. Every time I had seen it happen before, I had not said anything, but today I thought, “I can’t sit here and not say anything again”. I apologise for my intervention.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for bringing forward his amendments and for introducing them in the incredibly clear way he did; they cover some very complex and diverse issues. I know that there are other amendments in the group which might be described as similar to his.
There are a couple of things I want to highlight. One interesting thing about the debate on this group is the absence of some of our legal friends—I apologise to my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who is of course a very distinguished lawyer. The point I am making is that we are so often enriched by a lot of legal advice and contributions on some of the more challenging legal issues that we grapple with, but we do not have that today, and this is a very difficult legal issue.
It is worth highlighting again, as has been touched on a little in some of the contributions, the concern, as I understand it, with how the Bill is drafted in relation to illegal content and the potential chilling effect of these clauses on social media platforms. As has already been said, there is a concern that it might lead them to take a safety-first approach in order to avoid breaking the law and incurring the sanctions and fines that come with the Bill, which Ofcom will have the power to apply. That is the point we are concerned with here. It is the way in which this is laid out, and people who are much better equipped than I am have already explained the difference between evidence versus reasonable grounds to infer.
What the noble Lord, Lord Allan, hit on in his contribution is also worth taking into account, and that is the role of Ofcom in this situation. One of the things I fear, as we move into an implementation phase and the consequences of the Bill start to impact on the social media firms, is the potential for the regulator to be weaponised in a battle on the cultural issues that people are becoming increasingly exercised about. I do not have an answer to this, but I think it is important to understand the danger of where we might get to in the expectations of the regulator if we create a situation where the social media platforms are acting in a way that means people are looking for recourse or a place to generate further an argument and a battle that will not be helpful at all.
I am not entirely sure, given my lack of legal expertise —this is why I would have been very grateful for some legal expertise on this group—whether what my noble friend is proposing in his amendments is the solution, but I think we need to be very clear that this is a genuine problem. I am not sure, as things stand in the Bill, that we should be comfortable that it is not going to create problems. We need to find a way to be satisfied that this has been dealt with properly.
Lord Bethell (Con)
It is a great honour to follow my noble friend. I completely agree with her that this is a powerful discussion and there are big problems in this area. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Moylan for raising this in the first place. It has been a very productive discussion.
I approach the matter from a slightly different angle. I will not talk about the fringe cases—the ones where there is ambiguity, difficulty of interpretation, or responsibility or regulatory override, all of which are very important issues. The bit I am concerned about is where primary priority content that clearly demonstrates some kind of priority offence is not followed up by the authorities at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, referred to this point, although he did slightly glide over it, as though implying, if I understood him correctly, that this was not an area of concern because, if a crime had clearly been committed, it would be followed up on. My fear and anxiety is that the history of the internet over the last 25 years shows that crimes—overt and clear crimes that are there for us to see—are very often not followed up by the authorities. This is another egregious example of where the digital world is somehow exceptionalised and does not have real-world rules applied to it.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I want to clarify one point. I have had a slightly different experience, which is that for many people—women, at least—whom I have talked to recently, there is an over-enthusiasm and an over-zealous attitude to policing the speech of particular women and, as we have already heard, gender-critical women. It is often under the auspices of hate speech and there is all sorts of discussion about whether the police are spending too long trawling through social media. By contrast, if you want to get a policeman or policewoman involved in a physical crime in your area, you cannot get them to come out. So I am not entirely convinced. I think policing online speech at least is taking up far too much of the authorities’ time, not too little time, and distracting them from solving real social and criminal activity.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I defer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on speech crime. That is not the area of my expertise, and it is not the purpose of my points. My points were to do with the kinds of crime that affect children in particular. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services is very specific about that point. It says that “unacceptable delays are commonplace” and it gives a very large number of case studies. I will not go through them now because it is Thursday afternoon, but I think noble Lords can probably imagine the kinds of things we are talking about. They include years of delay, cases not taken seriously or overlooked, evidence lost, and so forth. The report found that too often children were put at risk because of this, and offenders were allowed to escape justice, and it gave 17 recommendations for how the police force should adapt in order to meet this challenge.
So my questions to the Minister are these. When we talk about things such as age verification for hardcore porn, we are quite often told that we do not need to worry about some of this because it is covered by illegal content provisions, and we should just leave it to the police to sort out. His Majesty’s Inspectorate gives clear evidence—this is a recent report from last month—that this is simply not happening in the way it should be. I therefore wondered what, if anything, is in the Bill to try to close down this particular gap. That would be very helpful indeed.
If it is really not for the purposes of this Bill at all—if this is actually to do with other laws and procedures, other departments and the way in which the resources for the police are allocated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, alluded to—what can the Government do outside the boundaries of this legislation to mobilise the police and the prosecution services to address what I might term “digital crimes”: that is, crimes that would be followed up with energy if they occurred in the real world but, because they are in the digital world, are sometimes overlooked or forgotten?
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I would like to mention one issue that I forgot to mention, and I think it would be more efficient to pose the question now to the Minister rather than interject when he is speaking.
On the Government’s Amendments 136A, 136B and 136C on the immigration offences, the point I want to make is that online services can be literal life-savers for people who are engaged in very dangerous journeys, including journeys across the Channel. I hope the Minister will be clear that the intention here is to require platforms to deal only with content, for example, from criminals who are offering trafficking services, and that there is no intention to require platforms somehow to withdraw services from the victims of those traffickers when they are using those services in the interest of saving their own lives or seeking advice that is essential to preserving their own safety.
That would create—as I know he can imagine—real ethical and moral dilemmas, and we should not be giving any signal that we intend to require platforms to withdraw services from people who are in desperate need of help, whatever the circumstances.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, we seem to have done it again—a very long list of amendments in a rather ill-conceived group has generated a very interesting discussion. We are getting quite good at this, exchanging views across the table, across the Committee, even within the Benches—Members who perhaps have not often talked together are sharing ideas and thoughts, and that is a wonderful feeling.
I want to start with an apology. I think I may be the person who got the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, shopped by the former leader—once a leader, always a leader. What I thought I was being asked was whether the Committee would be interested in hearing the views of the noble Viscount who could not be present, and I was very keen, because when he does speak it is from a point of view that we do not often hear. I did not know that it was a transgression of the rules—but of course it is not, really, because we got round it. Nevertheless, I apologise for anything that might have upset the noble Baroness’s blood pressure—it did not stop her making a very good contribution later.
We have covered so much ground that I do not want to try and summarise it in one piece, because you cannot do that. The problem with the group as it stands is that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and myself must have some secret connection, because we managed to put down almost the same amendments. They were on issues that then got overtaken by the Minister, who finally got round to—I mean, who put down a nice series of amendments which exactly covered the points we made, so we can lose all those. But this did not stop the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford making some very good additional points which I think we all benefited from.
I welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, after her illness; she gave us a glimpse of what is to come from her and her colleagues, but I will leave the particular issue that she raised for the Minister to respond to. It raises an issue that I am not competent on, but it is a very important one—we need to get the right balance between what is causing the alarm and difficulty outside in relation to what is happening on the internet, and I think we all agree with her that we should not put any barrier in the way of dealing with that.
Indeed, that was the theme of a number of the points that have been raised on the question of what is or can constitute illegal content, and how we judge it. It is useful to hear again from the master about how you do it in practice. I cannot imagine being in a room of French lawyers and experts and retaining my sanity, let alone making decisions that affect the ability of people to carry on, but the noble Lord did it; he is still here and lives to tell the tale—bearded or otherwise.
The later amendments, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, are taking us round in a circle towards the process by which Ofcom will exercise the powers that it is going to get in this area. These are probably worth another debate on their own, and maybe it will come up in a different form, because—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made this point as well—there is a problem in having an independent regulator that is also the go-to function for getting advice on how others have to make decisions that are theirs to rule on at the end if they go wrong. That is a complicated way of saying that we may be overloading Ofcom if we also expect it to provide a reservoir of advice on how you deal with the issues that the Bill puts firmly on the companies—I agree that this is a problem that we do not really have an answer to.
My amendments were largely overtaken by the Government’s amendments, but the main one I want to talk about was Amendment 272. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is not here, because her expertise is in an area that I want to talk about, which is fraud—cyber fraud in particular—and how that is going to be brought into the Bill. The issue, which I think has been raised by Which?, but a number of other people have also written to us about it, is that the Bill in Clauses 170 and 171 is trying to establish how a platform should identify illegal content in relation to fraud—but it is quite prescriptive. In particular, it goes into some detail which I will leave for the Minister to respond to, but uniquely it sets out a specific way for gathering information to determine whether content is illegal in this area, although it may have applicability in other areas.
One of the points that have to be taken into account is whether the platform is using human moderators, automated systems or a combination of the two. I am not quite sure why that is there in the Bill; that is really the basis for the tabling of our amendments. Clearly, one would hope that the end result is whether or not illegality has taken place, not how that information has been gathered. If one must make concessions to the process of law because a judgment is made that, because it is automated, it is in some way not as valid as if it had been done by a human moderator, there seems to be a whole world there that we should not be going into. I certainly hope that that is not going to be the case if we are talking about illegality concerning children or other vulnerable people, but that is how the Bill reads at present; I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.
There is a risk of consumers being harmed here. The figures on fraud in the United Kingdom are extraordinary; the fact that it is not the top priority for everybody, let alone the Government, is extraordinary. It is something like the equivalent of consumers being scammed at the rate of around £7.5 billion per year. A number of awful types of scamming have emerged only because of the internet and social media. They create huge problems of anxiety and emotional distress, with lots of medical care and other things tied in if you want to work out the total bill. So we have a real problem here that we need to settle. It is great that it is in the Bill, but it would be a pity if the movement towards trying to resolve it is in any way infringed on by there being imperfect instructions in the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to respond to that; I would be happy to discuss it with him later, if that is possible.
As a whole, this is an interesting question as we move away from what a crime is towards how people judge how to deal with what they think is a crime but may not be. The noble Lord, Lord Allan, commented on how to do it in practice but one hopes that any initial problems will be overcome as we move forward and people become more experienced with this.
When the Joint Committee considered this issue, we spent a long time talking about why we were concerned about having certainty on the legal prescription in the Bill; that is why we were very much against the idea of “legal but harmful” because it seemed too subjective and too subject to difficulties. Out of that came another thought, which answers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell: so much of this is about fine judgments on certain things that are there in stone and that you can work to but you then have to interpret them.
There is a role for Parliament here, I think; we will come on to this in later amendments but, if there is a debate to be had on this, let us not forget the points that have been made here today. If we are going to think again about Ofcom’s activity in practice, that is the sort of thing that either a Joint Committee or Select Committees of the two Houses could easily take on board as an issue that needs to be reflected on, with advice given to Parliament about how it might be taken forward. This might be the answer in the medium term.
In the short term, let us work to the Bill and make sure that it works. Let us learn from the experience but let us then take time out to reflect on it; that would be my recommendation but, obviously, that will be subject to the situation after we finish the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as well as throwing up some interesting questions of law, this debate has provoked some interesting tongue-twisters. The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, offered a prize to the first person to pronounce the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz; I shall claim my prize in our debate on a later group when inviting him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord.
I was pleased to hear about Wicipedia Cymraeg—there being no “k” in Welsh. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, there has been a very good conversational discussion in this debate, as befits Committee and a self-regulating House. My noble friend Lady Stowell is right to point out matters of procedure, although we were grateful to know why the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, supports the amendments in question.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I am struggling a little to understand why the Minister thinks that sufficient evidence is subjective, and therefore, I assume, reasonable grounds to infer is objective. Certainly, in my lexicon, evidence is more objective than inference, which is more subjective. I was reacting to that word. I am not sure that he has fully made the case as to why his wording is better.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s point and my noble friend’s further contribution. I will see whether I can give a clearer and more succinct description in writing to flesh that out, but that it is the reason that we have alighted on the words that we have.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, also asked about jurisdiction. If an offence has been committed in the UK and viewed by a UK user, it can be treated as illegal content. That is set out in Clause 53(11), which says:
“For the purposes of determining whether content amounts to an offence, no account is to be taken of whether or not anything done in relation to the content takes place in any part of the United Kingdom”.
I hope that that bit, at least, is clearly set out to the noble Lord’s satisfaction. It looks like it may not be.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
Again, I think that that is clear. I understood from the Bill that, if an American says something that would be illegal were they to be in the United Kingdom, we would still want to exclude that content. But that still leaves it open, and I just ask the question again, for confirmation. If all of the activities are outside the United Kingdom—Americans talking to each other, as it were—and a British person objects, at what point would the platform be required to restrict the content of the Americans talking to each other? Is it pre-emptively or only as and when somebody in the United Kingdom objects to it? We should flesh out that kind of practical detail before this becomes law.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
If it has been committed in the UK and is viewed by a UK user, it can be treated as illegal. I will follow up on the noble Lord’s further points ahead of the next stage.
Amendment 272 explicitly provides that relevant information that is reasonably available to a provider includes information submitted by users in complaints. Providers will already need to do this when making judgments about content, as it will be both relevant and reasonably available.
My noble friend Lord Moylan returned to the question that arose on day 2 in Committee, querying the distinction between “protect” and “prevent”, and suggesting that a duty to protect would or could lead to the excessive removal of content. To be clear, the duty requires platforms to put in place proportionate systems and processes designed to prevent users encountering content. I draw my noble friend’s attention to the focus on systems and processes in that. This requires platforms to design their services to achieve the outcome of preventing users encountering such content. That could include upstream design measures, as well as content identification measures, once content appears on a service. By contrast, a duty to protect is a less stringent duty and would undermine the proactive nature of the illegal content duties for priority offences.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Before he moves on, is my noble friend going to give any advice to, for example, Welsh Wikipedia, as to how it will be able to continue, or are the concerns about smaller sites simply being brushed aside, as my noble friend explicates what the Bill already says?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will deal with all the points in the speech. If I have not done so by the end, and if my noble friend wants to intervene again, I would be more than happy to hear further questions, either to answer now or write to him about.
Amendments 128 to 133 and 143 to 153, in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, seek to ensure that priority offences relating to modern slavery and human trafficking, where they victimise children, are included in Schedule 6. These amendments also seek to require technology companies to report content which relates to modern slavery and the trafficking of children—including the criminal exploitation of children—irrespective of whether it is sexual exploitation or not. As noble Lords know, the strongest provisions in the Bill relate to children’s safety, and particularly to child sexual exploitation and abuse content. These offences are captured in Schedule 6. The Bill includes a power for Ofcom to issue notices to companies requiring them to use accredited technology or to develop new technology to identify, remove and prevent users encountering such illegal content, whether communicated publicly or privately.
These amendments would give Ofcom the ability to issue such notices for modern slavery content which affects children, even when there is no child sexual exploitation or abuse involved. That would not be appropriate for a number of reasons. The power to tackle illegal content on private communications has been restricted to the identification of content relating to child sexual exploitation and abuse because of the particular risk to children posed by content which is communicated privately. Private spaces online are commonly used by networks of criminals to share illegal images—as we have heard—videos, and tips on the commitment of these abhorrent offences. This is highly unlikely to be reported by other offenders, so it will go undetected if companies do not put in place measures to identify it. Earlier in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, suggested that those who receive it should report it, but of course, in a criminal context, a criminal recipient would not do that.
Extending this power to cover the identification of modern slavery in content which is communicated privately would be challenging to justify and could represent a disproportionate intrusion into someone’s privacy. Furthermore, modern slavery is usually identified through patterns of behaviour or by individual reporting, rather than through content alone. This reduces the impact that any proactive technology required under this power would have in tackling such content. Schedule 6 already sets out a comprehensive list of offences relating to child sexual exploitation and abuse which companies must tackle. If these offences are linked to modern slavery—for example, if a child victim of these offences has been trafficked—companies must take action. This includes reporting content which amounts to an offence under Schedule 6 to the National Crime Agency or another reporting body outside of the UK.
My noble friend Lord Moylan’s Amendment 135 seeks to remove the offence in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 from the list of priority offences. His amendment would mean that platforms were not required to take proactive measures to reduce the risk of content which is threatening or abusive, and intended to cause a user harassment, alarm or distress, from appearing on their service. Instead, they would be obliged to respond only once they are made aware of the content, which would significantly reduce the impact of the Bill’s framework for tackling such threatening and abusive content. Given the severity of the harm which can be caused by that sort of content, it is right that companies tackle it. Ofcom will have to include the Public Order Act in its guidance about illegal content, as provided for in Clause 171.
Government Amendments 136A to 136C seek to strengthen the illegal content duties by adding further priority offences to Schedule 7. Amendments 136A and 136B will add human trafficking and illegal entry offences to the list of priority offences in the Bill. Crucially, this will mean that platforms will need to take proactive action against content which encourages or assists others to make dangerous, illegal crossings of the English Channel, as well as those who use social media to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person with a view to their exploitation.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked whether these amendments would affect the victims of trafficking themselves. This is not about going after the victims. Amendment 136B addresses only content which seeks to help or encourage the commission of an existing immigration offence; it will have no impact on humanitarian communications. Indeed, to flesh out a bit more detail, Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person, including through recruitment, with a view to their exploitation. Facilitating a victim’s travel includes recruiting them. This offence largely appears online in the form of advertisements to recruit people into being exploited. Some of the steps that platforms could put in place include setting up trusted flagger programmes, signposting users to support and advice, and blocking known bad actors. Again, I point to some of the work which is already being done by social media companies to help tackle both illegal channel crossings and human trafficking.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is genuinely difficult to summarise such a wide-ranging debate, which was of a very high standard. Only one genuinely bright idea has emerged from the whole thing: as we go through Committee, each group of amendments should be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, because it is only after I have heard his contribution on each occasion that I have begun to understand the full complexity of what I have been saying. I suspect I am not alone in that and that we could all benefit from hearing the noble Lord before getting to our feet. That is not meant to sound the slightest bit arch; it is absolutely genuine.
The debate expressed a very wide range of concerns. Concerns about gang grooming and recruiting were expressed on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and my noble friend Lady Buscombe expressed concerns about trolling of country businesses. However, I think it is fair to say that most speakers focused on the following issues. The first was the definition of legality, which was so well explicated by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. The second was the judgment bar that providers have to pass to establish whether something should be taken down. The third was the legislative mandating of private foreign companies to censor free speech rights that are so hard-won here in this country. These are the things that mainly concern us.
I was delighted that I found myself agreeing so much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, even though she was speaking in another voice or on behalf of another person. If her own sentiments coincide with the sentiments of the noble Viscount—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I am sorry to intrude, but I must say now on the record that I was speaking on my own behalf. The complication of measuring and those particular things are terribly important to establish, so I am once again happy to agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am delighted to hear the noble Baroness say that, and it shows that that pool of common ground we share is widening every time we get to our feet. However, the pool is not particularly widening, I am afraid to say—at least in respect of myself; other noble Lords may have been greatly reassured—as regards my noble friend the Minister who, I am afraid, has not in any sense addressed the issues about free speech that I and many other noble Lords raised. On some issues we in the Committee are finding a consensus that is drifting away from the Minister. We probably need to put our heads together more closely on some of these issues with the passage of time in Committee.
My noble friend also did not say anything that satisfied me in respect of the practical operation of these obligations for smaller sites. He speaks smoothly and persuasively of risk-based proactive approaches without saying that, for a large number of sites, this legislation will mean a complete re-engineering of their business model. For example, where Wikipedia operates in a minority language, such as in Welsh Wikipedia, which is the largest Welsh language website in the world, if its model is to involve monitoring what is put out by the community and correcting it as it goes along, rather than having a model in advance that is designed to prevent things being put there in the first place, then it is very likely to close down. If that is one of the consequences of this Bill the Government will soon hear about it.
Finally, although I remain concerned about public order offences, I have to say to the Minister that if he is so concerned about the dissemination of alarm among the population under the provisions of the Public Order Act, what does he think that His Majesty’s Government were doing on Sunday at 3 pm? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(8A) A duty to summarise in the terms of service the findings of the most recent illegal content risk assessment of a service (including as to levels of risk and as to nature, and severity, of potential harm to individuals).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires providers of Category 1 services to summarise (in their terms of service) the findings of their latest risk assessment regarding illegal content and activity. The limitation to Category 1 services is achieved by an amendment in the name of the Minister to clause 6.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
If Amendment 20 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 21 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 20
Baroness Kidron
“(a) the level of risk that children who are users of the service encounter the harms as outlined in Schedule (Online harms to children) by means of the service;(b) any of the level of risks to children encountered singularly or in combination, having regard to—(i) the design of functionalities, algorithms and other features that present or increase risk of harm, such as low-privacy profile settings by default;(ii) the business model, revenue model, governance, terms of service and other systems and processes or mitigation measures that may reduce or increase the risk of harm;(iii) risks which can build up over time;(iv) the ways in which level of risks can change when experienced in combination with others;(v) the level of risk of harm to children in different age groups;(vi) the level of risk of harm to children with certain characteristics or who are members of certain groups; and(vii) the different ways in which the service is used including but not limited to via virtual and augmented reality technologies, and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children;(c) whether the service has shown regard to the rights of children as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (see general comment 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require providers to look at and assess risks on their platform in the round and in line with the 4 Cs of online risks to children (content, contact, conduct and contractual/commercial risks). Although these risks will not be presented on every service, this amendment requires providers to reflect on these risks, so they are not forgotten and can be built into future development of the service.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, this amendment and Amendments 74, 93 and 123 are part of a larger group that have been submitted as a package loosely referred to as the AV and harms package. They have been the subject of much private debate with the Government, for which we are grateful, and among parliamentarians, and have featured prominently in the media. The amendments are in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, but enjoy the support of a vast array of Members of both Houses. I thank all those who have voiced their support.
The full package of amendments defines and sets out the rules of the road for age assurance, including the timing of its introduction, and the definition of terms such as age verification and age assurance. They introduce the concept of measuring the efficacy of systems with one eye on the future so that we as parliamentarians can indicate where and when we feel that proportionality is appropriate and where it is simply not—for example, in relation to pornography. In parallel, we have developed a schedule of harms, which garners rather fewer column inches but is equally important in establishing Parliament’s intention. It is that schedule of harms that is up for debate today.
Before I lay out the amendment, I thank the 26 children’s charities which have so firmly got behind this package and acknowledge, in particular, Barnardo’s, CEASE and 5Rights, of which I am chair, which have worked tirelessly to ensure that the full expertise of children’s charities has been embedded in these amendments. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who in this area of policy has shown us all the way.
The key amendment in this group is Amendment 93, which would place a schedule of harms to children in the Bill. There are several reasons for doing so, the primary one being that by putting them in the Bill we are stating the intention of Parliament, which gives clarity to companies and underlines the authority of Ofcom to act on these matters. Amendments 20, 74 and 123 ensure that the schedule is mirrored in risk assessments and tasks Ofcom with updating its guidance every six months to capture new and emerging harms, and as such are self-evident.
The proposed harms schedule is centred around the four Cs, a widely used and understood taxonomy of harm used in legislation and regulation around the globe. Importantly, rather than articulate individual harms that may change over time, it sets its sight on categories of harm: content, contact, conduct and contract, which is sometimes referred to as commercial harm. It also accounts for cumulative harms, where two or more risk factors create a harm that is greater than any single harm or is uniquely created by the combination. The Government’s argument against the four Cs is that they are not future-proof, which I find curious since the very structure of the four Cs is to introduce broad categories of harm to which harms can be added, particularly emerging harms. By contrast, the Government are adding an ever-growing list of individual harms.
I wish to make three points in favour of our package of amendments relating first to language, secondly to the nature of the digital world, and finally to clarity of purpose. It is a great weakness of the Bill that it consistently introduces new concepts and language—for example, the terms “primary priority content”, “priority content” and “non-designated content”. These are not terms used in other similar Bills across the globe, they are not evident in current UK law and they do not correlate with established regimes, such as equalities legislation or children’s rights under the convention, more of which in group 7.
The question of language is non-trivial. It is the central concern of those who fight CSAE around the world, who frequently find that enforcement against perpetrators or takedown is blocked by legal systems that define child sexual abuse material differently—not differently in some theoretical sense but because the same image can be categorised differently in two countries and then be a barrier to enforcement across jurisdictions. Leadership from WeProtect, the enforcement community and representatives that I recently met from Africa, South America and Asia have all made this point. It undermines the concept of UK leadership in child protection that we are wilfully and deliberately rejecting accepted language which is embedded in treaties, international agreements and multilateral organisations to start again with our own, very likely with the same confused outcome.
Secondly, I am concerned that while both the Bill and the digital world are predicated on system design, the harms are all articulated as content with insufficient emphasis on systems harms, such as careless recommendations, spreading engagement and the sector-wide focus on maximising engagement, which are the very things that create the toxic and dangerous environment for children. I know, because we have discussed it, that the Minister will say that this is all in the risk assessment, but the risk assessment asks regulated companies to assess how a number of features contribute to harm, mostly expressed as content harm.
What goes through my mind is the spectre of Meta’s legal team, which I watched for several days during Molly Russell’s inquest; they stood in a court of law and insisted that hundreds, in fact thousands, of images of cut bodies and depressive messages did not constitute harm. Rather, they regarded them as cries for help or below the bar of harm as they interpreted it. Similarly, there was material that featured videos of people jumping off buildings—some of them sped-up versions of movie clips edited to suggest that jumping was freedom—and I can imagine a similar argument that says that kind of material cannot be considered harmful, because in another context it is completely legitimate. Yet this material was sent to Molly at scale.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I have listened intently today, and there is no doubt that this Bill not only presents many challenges but throws up the complexity of the whole situation. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, in an earlier group who raised the issues of security, safety and freedom. I would add the issue of rights, because we are trying to balance all these issues and characterise them in statute, vis-à-vis the Bill.
On Tuesday, we spoke about one specific harm—pornography—on the group of amendments that I had brought forward. But I made clear at that time that I believe this is not the only harm, and I fully support the principles of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I would obviously like to get some clarity from her on the amendments, particularly as to how they relate to other clauses in the Bill.
The noble Baroness has been the pioneer in this field, and her expertise is well recognised across the House. I believe that these amendments really take us to the heart of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve—namely, to identify online harms to children, counteract them and provide a level of safety to young people.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said on Tuesday,
“there is absolutely no doubt that across the Committee we all have the same intent; how we get there is the issue between us”.—[Official Report, 25/4/23; col. 1196.]
There is actually not that much between us. I fully agree with the principle of putting some of the known harms to children in the Bill. If we know the harms, there is little point in waiting for them to be defined in secondary legislation by Clause 54.
It is clear to me that there are harms to children that we know about, and those harms will not change. It would be best to name those harms clearly in the Bill when it leaves this House. That would allow content providers, search engines and websites in scope of the Bill to prepare to make any changes they need to keep children safe. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that aspect. We also know that parents will expect some harms to be in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, laid out what they are, and I agree with her analysis. These issues are known and we should not wait for them to be named.
While known harms should be placed into the Bill, I know, understand and appreciate that the Government are concerned about future-proofing. However, I am of the view that a short list of key topics will not undermine that principle. Indeed, the Joint Committee’s report on the draft Bill stated,
“we recommend that key, known risks of harm to children are set out on the face of the Bill”.
In its report on the Bill, the DCMS Select Committee in the other place agreed, saying
“that age-inappropriate or otherwise inherently harmful content and activity (like pornography, violent material, gambling and content that promotes or is instructive in eating disorders, self-harm and suicide) should appear on the face of the Bill”.
Has there been any further progress in discussions on those issues?
At the beginning of the year, the Children’s Commissioner urged Parliamentarians
“to define pornography as a harm to children on the fact of the … Bill, such that the regulator, Ofcom, may implement regulation of platforms hosting adult content as soon as possible following the passage of the Bill”.
I fully agree with the Children’s Commissioner. While the ways in which pornographic content is delivered will change over time, the fact that pornography is harmful to children will not change. Undoubtedly, with the speed of technology—something that the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, knows a lot more about than the rest of us, having worked in this field—it will no doubt change and we will be presented with new types of challenges.
I therefore urge the Government to support the principle that the key risks are in the Bill, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for raising this important principle. However, I hope she will indulge me as I seek to probe some of the detail of her amendments and their interactions with the architecture of other parts of the Bill. As I said when speaking to Clause 49 on Tuesday, the devil is obviously in the detail.
First, Clause 54 defines what constitutes
“Content that is harmful to children”,
and Clause 205 defines harm, and Amendment 93 proposes an additional new list of harms. As I have already said, I fully support the principle of harms being in the Bill, but I raise a question for the noble Baroness. How does she see these three definitions working together? That might refer back to a preliminary discussion that we had in the tearoom earlier.
These definitions of harms are in addition to the content to be defined as primary priority content and priority content. Duties in Clauses 11 and 25 continue to refer to these two types of content for Part 3 services, but Amendments 20 and 74 would remove the need for risk assessments in Clauses 10 and 24 to address these two types of content. It seems that the amendments could create a tension in the Bill, and I am interested to ascertain how the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, foresees that tension operating. Maybe she could give us some detail in her wind-up about that issue. An explanation of that point may bring some clarity to understanding how the new schedule that the noble Baroness proposes will work alongside the primary priority content and the priority content lists. Will the schedule complement primary priority content, or will it be an alternative?
Secondly, as I said, some harms are known but there are harms that are as yet unknown. Will the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, consider a function to add to the list of content in her Amendment 93, in advance of us coming back on Report? There is no doubt that the online space is rapidly changing, as this debate has highlighted. I can foresee a time when other examples of harm should be added to the Bill. I accept that the drafting is clear that the list is not exclusive, but it is intended to be a significant guide to what matters to the public and Parliament. I also accept that Ofcom can provide guidance on other content under Amendment 123, but, without a regulatory power added to Amendment 93, it feels that we are perhaps missing a belt-and-braces approach to online harms to children. After all, our principal purpose here is to protect children from online harm.
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on putting these important amendments before the Committee, and I fully support the principle of what she seeks to achieve. But I hope that, on further reflection, she will look at the points I have suggested. Perhaps she might suggest other ideas in her wind-up, and we could have further discussions in advance of Report. I also look forward to the Minister’s comments on these issues.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I support Amendments 20, 93 and 123, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Stevenson. I also support Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I pay tribute to the courage of all noble Lords and their teams, and of the Minister and the Bill team, for their work on this part of the Bill. This work involves the courage to dare to look at some very difficult material that, sadly, shapes the everyday life of too many young people. This group of amendments is part of a package of measures to strengthen the protections for children in the Bill by introducing a new schedule of harms to children and plugging a chronological gap between Part 3 and Part 5 services, on when protection from pornography comes into effect.
Every so often in these debates, we have been reminded of the connection with real lives and people. Yesterday evening, I spent some time speaking on the telephone with Amanda and Stuart Stephens, the mum and dad of Olly Stephens, who lived in Reading, which is part of the diocese of Oxford. Noble Lords will remember that Olly was tragically murdered, aged 13, in a park near his home, by teenagers of a similar age. Social media played a significant part in the investigation and in the lives of Olly and his friends—specifically, social media posts normalising knife crime and violence, with such a deeply tragic outcome.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I really appreciated the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, because she asked a lot of questions about this group of amendments. Although I might be motivated by different reasons, I found it difficult to fully understand the impact of the amendments, so I too want to ask a set of questions.
Harm is defined in the Bill as “physical or psychological harm”, and there is no further explanation. I can understand the frustration with that and the attempts therefore to use what are described as the
“widely understood and used 4 Cs of online risk to children”.
They are not widely understood by me, and I have ploughed my way through it. I might well have misunderstood lots in it, but I want to look at and perhaps challenge some of the contents.
I was glad that Amendment 20 recognises the level of risk of harm to different age groups. That concerns me all the time when we talk about children and young people, and then end up treating four year-olds, 14 year-olds and 18 year-olds. I am glad that that is there, and I hope that we will look at it again in future.
I want to concentrate on Amendment 93 and reflect and comment more generally on the problem of a definition, or a lack of definition, of harm in the Bill. For the last several years that we have been considering bringing this Bill to this House and to Parliament, I have been worried about the definition of psychological harm. That is largely because this category has become ever more expansive and quite subjective in our therapeutic age. It is a matter of some discussion and quite detailed work by psychologists and professionals, who worry that there is an expanding concept group of what is considered harmful and what psychological harm really means.
As an illustration, I was invited recently to speak to a group of sixth-formers and was discussing things such as trigger warnings and so on. They said, “Well, you know, you’ve got to understand what it’s like”—they were 16 year-olds. “When we encounter certain material, it makes us have PTSD”. I was thinking, “No, it doesn’t really, does it?” Post-traumatic stress disorder is something that you might well gain if you have been in the middle of a war zone. The whole concept of triggering came from psychological and medical insights from the First World War, which you can understand. If you hear a car backfiring, you think it is somebody shooting at you. But the idea here is that we should have trigger warnings on great works of literature and that if we do not it will lead to PTSD.
I am not being glib, because an expanded, elastic and pathologised view of harm is being used quite cavalierly and casually in relation to young people and protecting them, often by the young people themselves. It is routinely used to close down speech as part of the cancel culture wars, which, as noble Lords know, I am interested in. Is there not a danger that this concept of harm is not as obvious as we think, and that the psychological harm issue makes it even more complicated?
The other thing is that Amendment 93 says:
“The harms in this Schedule are a non-exhaustive list of categories and other categories may be relevant”.
As with the discussion on whose judgment decides the threshold for removing illegal material, I think that judging what is harmful is even more tricky for the young in relation to psychological harm. I was reminded of that when the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, complained that what she considered to be obviously and self-evidently harmful, Meta did not. I wondered whether that is just the case with Meta, or whether views will differ when it comes to—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
The report found—I will not give a direct quotation—that social media contributed to the death of Molly Russell, so it was the court’s judgment, not mine, that Meta’s position was indefensible.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I completely understand that; I was making the point that there will be disagreements in judgments. In that instance, it was resolved by a court, but we are talking about a situation where I am not sure how the judgment is made.
In these amendments, there are lists of particular harms—a variety are named, including self-harm—and I wanted to provide some counterexamples of what I consider to be harms. I have been inundated by algorithmic adverts for “Naked Education” on Channel 4, maybe because of the algorithms I am on. I think that the programme is irresponsible; I say that having watched it, rather than just having read a headline. Channel 4 is posing this programme with naked adults and children as educational by saying that it is introducing children to the naked body. I think it is harmful for children and that it should not be on the television, but it is advertised on social media—I have seen quite a lot of it.
The greatest example of self-harm we encounter at present is when gender dysphoric teenagers—as well as some younger than teenagers; they are predominately young women—are affirmed by adults, as a kind of social contagion, into taking body-changing and body-damaging hormones and performing self-mutilation, whether by breast binding or double mastectomies, which is advertised and praised by adults. That is incredibly harmful for young people, and it is reflected online at lot, because much of this is discussed, advertised or promoted online.
This is related to the earlier contributions, because I am asking: should those be added to the list of obvious harms? Although not many noble Lords are in the House now, if there were many more here, they would object to what I am saying by stating, “That is not harmful at all. What is harmful is what you’re saying, Baroness Fox, because you’re causing psychological harm to all those young people by being transphobic”. I am raising these matters because we think we all agree that there is a consensus on what is harmful material online for young people, but it is not that straightforward.
The amendment states that the Bill should target any platform that posts
“links to, or … encourages child users to seek”
out “dangerous or illegal activity”. I understand “illegal activity”, but on “dangerous” activities, I assume that we do not mean extreme sports, mountain climbing and so on, which are dangerous—that comes to mind probably because I have spent too much time with young people who spend their whole time looking at those things. I worry about the unintended consequences of things being banned or misinterpreted in that way.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
To respond briefly to the noble Baroness, I shall give a specific example of how Amendment 93 would help. Let us go back to the coroner’s courtroom where the parents of Molly Russell were trying to get the coroner to understand what had happened to their daughter. The legal team from Meta was there, with combined salaries probably in seven figures, and the argument was about the detail of the content. At one point, I recall Ian Russell saying that one of the Meta lawyers said, “We are topic agnostic”. I put it to the noble Baroness that, had the provisions in Amendment 93 been in place, first, under “Content harms” in proposed new paragraph 3(c) and (d), Meta would have been at fault; under “Contact harms” in proposed new paragraph 4(b), Meta would have been at fault; under “Conduct harms” in proposed new paragraph 5(b), Meta would have been at fault; and under “Commercial harms” in proposed new paragraph 6(a) and (b), Meta would have been at fault. That would have made things a great deal simpler.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I appreciate that that this is the case we all have in the back of our minds. I am asking whether, when Meta says it is content agnostic, the Bill is the appropriate place for us to list the topics that we consider harmful. If we are to do that, I was giving examples of contentious, harmful topics. I might have got this wrong—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I will answer the noble Baroness more completely when I wind up, but I just want to say that she is missing the point of the schedule a little. Like her, I am concerned about the way we concentrate on content harms, but she is bringing it back to content harms. If she looks at it carefully, a lot of the provisions are about contact and conduct: it is about how the system is pushing children to do certain things and pushing them to certain places. It is about how things come together, and I think she is missing the point by keeping going back to individual pieces of content. I do not want to take the place of the Minister, but this is a systems and processes Bill; it is not going to deal with individual pieces of content in that way. It asks, “Are you creating these toxic environments for children? Are you delivering this at scale?” and that is the way we must look at this amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I will finish here, because we have to get on, but I did not introduce content; it is in the four Cs. One of the four Cs is “content” and I am reacting to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness. I do not think I am harping on about content; I was responding to amendments in which content was one of the key elements.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments with hope in my heart. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for leading the charge with such vigour, passion and determination: I am with them all the way.
The Government have said that the purpose of the Bill is to protect children, and it rests on our shoulders to make sure it delivers on this mission. Last week, on the first day in Committee, the Minister said:
“Through their duties of care, all platforms will be required proactively to identify and manage risk factors associated with their services in order to ensure that users do not encounter illegal content and that children are protected from harmful content. To achieve this, they will need to design their services to reduce the risk of harmful content or activity occurring and take swift action if it does.—[Official Report, 19/4/23; cols. 274-75.]
This is excellent and I thank the Government for saying it. But the full range of harms and risk to children will not be mitigated by services if they do not know what they are expected to risk-assess for and if they must wait for secondary legislation for this guidance.
The comprehensive range of harms children face every day is not reflected in the Bill. This includes sexual content that does not meet the threshold of pornography. This was highlighted recently in an investigation into TikTok by the Telegraph, which found that a 13 year-old boy was recommended a video about the top 10 porn-making countries, and that a 13 year-old girl was shown a livestream of a pornography actor in her underwear answering questions from viewers. This content is being marketed to children without a user even seeking out pornographic content, but this would still be allowed under the Bill.
Furthermore, high-risk challenges, such as the Benadryl and blackout challenges, which encourage dangerous behaviour on TikTok, are not dealt with in the Bill. Some features, such as the ability of children to share their location, are not dealt with either. I declare an interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s, which has highlighted how these features can be exploited by organised criminal gangs that sexually exploit children to keep tabs on them and trap them in a cycle of exploitation.
It cannot be right that the user-empowerment duties in the Bill include a list of harmful content that services must enable adults to toggle off, yet the Government refuse to produce this list for children. Instead, we have to wait for secondary legislation to outline harms to children, causing further delay to the enforcement of services’ safety duties. Perhaps the Minister can explain why this is.
The four Cs framework of harm, as set out in these amendments, is a robust framework that will ensure service risk assessments consider the full range of harms children face. I will repeat it once again: childhood lasts a lifetime, so we cannot fail children any longer. Protections are needed now, not in years to come. We have waited far too long for this. Protections need to be fast-tracked and must be included in the Bill. That is why I fully support these amendments.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, in keeping with the Stevenson-Knight double act, I am leaving it to my noble friend to wind up the debate. I will come in at this point with a couple of questions and allow the Minister to have a bit of time to reflect on them. In doing so, I reinforce my support for Amendment 295 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, which refers to volume and frequency also being risk factors.
When I compare Amendment 20 with Clause 10(6), which refers to children’s risk assessments and what factors should be taken into account in terms of the risk profile, I see some commonality and then some further things which Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, adds. In my opinion, it adds value. I am interested in how the Minister sees the Bill, as it stands currently, covering some issues that I will briefly set out. I think it would be helpful if the Committee could understand that there may be ways that the Bill already deals with some of the issues so wonderfully raised by the noble Baroness; it would be helpful if we can flush those out.
I do not see proposed new subsection (b)(iii),
“risks which can build up over time”,
mentioned in the Bill, nor explicit mention of proposed new subsection (b)(iv),
“the ways in which level of risks can change when experienced in combination with others”,
which I think is critical in terms of the way the systems work. Furthermore, proposed new subsection (b)(vii),
“the different ways in which the service is used including but not limited to via virtual and augmented reality technologies”,
starts to anticipate some other potential harms that may be coming very rapidly towards us and our children. Again, I do not quite see it included. I see “the design of functionalities”, “the business model” and “the revenue model”. There is a lot about content in the original wording of the Bill, which is less so here, and, clearly, I do not see anything in respect of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been debated in separate amendments anyway. I wanted to give the Minister some opportunity on that.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I restate my commitment to Amendments 20, 93 and 123, which are in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness’s Amendment 74. It is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Knight. He put extremely well some key points about where there are gaps in the existing Bill. I will build on why we have brought forward these amendments in order to plug these gaps.
In doing so, I wish to say that it has been a privilege to work with the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. We are not from the same political geographies, but that collaboration demonstrates the breadth of the political concern, and the strength of feeling across the Committee, about these important gaps when it comes to harms—gaps that, if not addressed, will put children at great risk. In this matter we are very strongly united. We have been through a lot together, and I believe this unlikely coalition demonstrates how powerful the feelings are.
It has been said before that children are spending an increasing amount of their lives online. However, the degree of that inflection point in the last few years has been understated, as has how much further it has got to go. The penetration of mobile phones is already around 75% of 10 year-olds—it is getting younger, and it is getting broader.
In fact, the digital world is totally inescapable in the life of a child, whether that is for a young child who is four to six years old or an older child who is 16 or 17. It is increasingly where they receive their education—I do not think that is necessarily a good thing, but that is arguable—it is where they establish and maintain their personal relationships and it is a key forum for their self-expression.
For anyone who suspects otherwise, I wish to make it clear that I firmly believe in innovation and progress, and I regard the benefits of the digital world as really positive. I would never wish to prevent children accessing the benefits of the internet, the space it creates for learning and building community, and the opportunities it opens for them. However, environments matter. The digital world is not some noble wilderness free from original sin or a perfect, frictionless marketplace where the best, nicest, and most beautiful ideas triumph. It is a highly curated experience defined by the algorithms and service agreements of the internet companies. That is why we need rules to ensure that it is a safe space for children.
I started working on my first internet business in 1995, nearly 30 years ago. I was running the Ministry of Sound, and we immediately realised that the internet was an amazing way of getting through to young people. Our target audiences were either clubbers aged over 18 or the younger brothers and sisters of clubbers who bought our merchandise. The internet gave us an opportunity to get past all the normal barriers—past parents and regulation to reach a wonderful new market. I built a good business and it worked out well for me, but those were the days before GDPR and what we understand from the internet. I know from my experience that we need to ensure that children are protected and shielded from the harms that bombard them, because there are strong incentives—mainly financial but also other, malign incentives—for bad actors to use the internet to get through to children.
Unfortunately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, the Bill as it stands does not achieve that aim. Take, for example, contact harms, such as grooming and child sexual abuse. In February 2020, Bark, a US-based organisation that helps families manage and protect their children’s digital lives, launched an 11 year-old persona online who it called Bailey. Bailey’s online persona clearly shows that she is an ordinary 11 year-old, posting content that is ordinary for an 11 year-old. Within 30 seconds of her persona being launched online she received a like from a man whose profile picture was a penis. Within two minutes, multiple messages were received from men, and within five minutes a video call. Shortly afterwards, she received requests from men to meet up. I remind your Lordships that Bailey was 11 years old. These are not trivial content harms; these are attempts to contact a minor using the internet as a medium.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments, so ably introduced by my noble friend and other noble Lords this afternoon.
I am not a lawyer and I would not say that I am particularly experienced in this business of legislating. I found this issue incredibly confusing. I hugely appreciate the briefings and discussions—I feel very privileged to have been included in them—with my noble friend the Minister, officials and the Secretary of State herself in their attempt to explain to a group of us why these amendments are not necessary. I was so determined to try to understand this properly that, yesterday, when I was due to travel to Surrey, I took all my papers with me. I got on the train at Waterloo and started to work my way through the main challenges that officials had presented.
The first challenge was that, fundamentally, these amendments cut across the Bill’s definitions of “primary priority content” and “priority content”. I tried to find them in the Bill. Unfortunately, in Clause 54, there is a definition of primary priority content. It says that, basically, primary priority content is what the Secretary of State says it is, and that content that is harmful to children is primary priority content. So I was none the wiser on Clause 54.
One of the further challenges that officials have given us is that apparently we, as a group of noble Lords, were confusing the difference between harm and risk. I then turned to Clause 205, which comes out with the priceless statement that a risk of harm should be read as a reference to harm—so maybe they are the same thing. I am still none the wiser.
Yesterday morning, I found myself playing what I can only describe as a parliamentary game of Mornington Crescent, as I went round and round in circles. Unfortunately, it was such a confusing game of Mornington Crescent that I forgot that I needed to change trains, ended up in Richmond instead of Redhill, and missed my meeting entirely. I am telling the Committee this story because, as the debate has shown, it is so important that we put in the Bill a definition of the harms that we are intending to legislate for.
I want to address the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. She said that we might not all agree on what harms are genuinely harmful for children. That is precisely why Parliament needs to decide this, rather than abdicate it to a regulator who, as other noble Lords said earlier today, is then put into a political space. It is the job of Parliament to decide what is dangerous for our children and what is not. That is the approach that we take in the physical world, and it should be the approach that we take in the online world. We should do that in broad categories, which is why the four Cs is such a powerful framework. I know that we are all attempting to predict the known unknowns, which is impossible, but this framework, which gives categories of harm, is clear that it can be updated, developed and, as my noble friend Lord Bethell, said, properly consulted on. We as parliamentarians should decide; that is the purpose of voting in Parliament.
I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. Does he agree that Parliament needs to decide what the categories of online harms are that the Bill is attempting to protect our children from? If he does, why is it not the four Cs? If he really thinks it is not the four Cs, will he bring back an alternative schedule of harms?
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I will echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in my contribution to another very useful debate, which has brought to mind the good debate that we had on the first day in Committee, in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in which we were seeking to get into the Bill what we are actually trying to do.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was also welcoming additional clarity, specifically in the area of psychological harm, which I agree with. Certainly in its earlier incarnations, the Bill was scattered throughout with references, some of which have been removed, but they are very much open to interpretation. I hope that we will come back to that.
I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, around what took place in that coroner’s hearing. You had two different platforms with different interpretations of what they thought that their duty of care would be. That is very much the point. In my experience, platforms will follow what they are told to follow. The challenge is when each of them comes to their own individual view around what are often complex areas. There we saw platforms presenting different views about their risk assessments. If we clarify that for them through amendments such as these, we are doing everyone a favour.
I again compliment my noble friend Lady Benjamin for her work in this area. Her speech was also a model of clarity. If we can bring some of that clarity to the legislation and to explaining what we want, that will be an enormous service.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made some interesting points around how this would add value to the Bill, teasing out some of the specific gaps that we have there. I look forward to hearing the response on that.
I was interested in the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on mobile phone penetration. We should all hold in common that we are not going back to a time BC—before connection. Our children will be connected, which creates the imperative for us to get this right. There has perhaps been a tendency for us to bury our heads in the sand, and occasionally you hear that still—it is almost as if we would wish this world away. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is at the other end of the spectrum; she has come alive on this subject, precisely because she recognises that that will not happen. We are in a world where our children will be connected, so it is on us to figure out how we want those connections to work and to instruct the people who provide those connective services on what they should do. It is certainly not for us to imagine that somehow they will all go away. We will come to that in later groups when we talk about minimum ages; if younger children are online, there is a real issue around how we are going to deal with that.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford highlighted some really important challenges based on real experiences that families today are suffering—let us use the word as it should be—and made the case for clarity. I do not know how much we are allowed to talk in praise of EU legislation, but I am looking at the Digital Services Act—I have looked at a lot of EU legislation—and this Bill, and there is a certain clarity to EU regulation, particularly the process of adding recitals, which are attached to the law and explain what it is meant to do. That is sometimes missing here. I know that there are different legal traditions, but you can sometimes look at an EU regulation and the UK law and the former appears to be much clearer in its intent.
That brings me to the substance of my comments in response to this group, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I hope that the Government heed and recognise that, at present, no ordinary person can know what is happening in the Bill—other than, perhaps, the wife of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who will read it for fun—and what we intend to do.
I was thinking back to the “2B or not 2B” debate we had earlier about the lack of clarity around something even as simple as the classification of services. I was also thinking that, if you ask what the Online Safety Bill does to restrict self-harm content, the answer would be this: if it is a small social media platform, it will probably be categorised as a 2B service, then we can look at Schedule 7, where it is prohibited from assisting suicide, but we might want to come back to some of the earlier clauses with the specific duties—and it will go on and on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, described, you are leaping backwards and forwards in the Bill to try to understand what we are trying to do with the legislation. I think that is a genuine problem.
In effect, the Bill is Parliament setting out the terms of service for how we want Ofcom to regulate online services. We debated terms of service earlier. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We are currently failing our own tests of simplicity and clarity on the terms of service that we will give to Ofcom.
As well as platforms, if ordinary people want to find out what is happening, then, just like those platforms with the terms of service, we are going to make them read hundreds of pages before they find out what this legislation is intended to do. We can and should make this simpler for children and parents. I was able to meet Ian Russell briefly at the end of our Second Reading debate. He has been an incredibly powerful and pragmatic voice on this. He is asking for reasonable things. I would love to be able to give a Bill to Ian Russell, and the other families that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford referred to, that they can read and that tells them very clearly how Parliament has responded to their concerns. I think we are a long way short of that simple clarity today.
It would be extraordinarily important for service providers, as I already mentioned in response to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. They need that clarity, and we want to make sure that they have no reason to say, “I did not understand what I was being asked to do”. That should be from the biggest to the smallest, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, keeps rightly raising with us. Any small service provider should be able to very clearly and simply understand what we are intending to do, and putting more text into the Bill that does that would actually improve it. This is not about adding a whole load of new complications and the bells and whistles we have described but about providing clarity on our intention. Small service providers would benefit from that clarity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, rightly raised the issue of the speed of the development of technology. Again, we do not want the small service provider in particular to think it has to go back and do a whole new legal review every time the technology changes. If we have a clear set of principles, it is much quicker and simpler for it to say, “I have developed a new feature. How does it match up against this list?”, rather than having to go to Clause 12, Clause 86, Clause 94 and backwards and forwards within the Bill.
It will be extraordinarily helpful for enforcement bodies such as Ofcom to have a yardstick—again, this takes us back to our debate on the first day—for its prioritisation, because it will have to prioritise. It will not be able to do everything, everywhere, all at once. If we put that prioritisation into the legislation, it will, frankly, save potential arguments between Parliament, the Government and Ofcom later on, when they have decided to prioritise X and we wanted them to prioritise Y. Let us all get aligned on what we are asking them to do up front.
Dare I say—the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, reminded me of this—that it may also be extraordinarily helpful for us as politicians so that we can understand the state of the law. I mean not just the people who are existing specialists or are becoming specialists in this area and taking part in this debate but the other hundreds of Members of both Houses, because this is interesting to everyone. I have experience of being in the other place, and every Member of the other place will have constituents coming to them, often with very tragic circumstances, and asking what Parliament has done. Again, if they have the Online Safety Bill as currently drafted, I think it is hard for any Member of Parliament to be able to say clearly, “This is what we have done”. With those words and that encouraging wind, I hope the Government are able to explain, if not in this way, that they have a commitment to ensuring that we have that clarity for everybody involved in this process.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, over the last few hours I have praised us for having developed a style of discussion and debate that is certainly relatively new and not often seen in the House, where we have tried to reach out to each other and find common ground. That was not a problem in this last group of just over an hour; I think we are united around the themes that were so brilliantly introduced in a very concise and well-balanced speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has been a leading and inspirational force behind this activity for so long.
Although different voices have come in at different times and asked questions that still need to be answered, I sense that we have reached a point in our thinking, if not in our actual debates, where we need a plan. I too reached this point; that was exactly the motivation I had in tabling Amendment 1, which was discussed on the first day. Fine as the Bill is—it is a very impressive piece of work in every way—it lacks what we need as a Parliament to convince others that we have understood the issues and have the answers to their questions about what this Government, or this country as a whole, are going to do about this tsunami of difference, which has arrived in the wake of the social media companies and search engines, in the way we do our business and live our lives these days. There is consensus, but it is slightly different to the consensus we had in earlier debates, where we were reassuring ourselves about the issues we were talking about but were not reaching out to the Government to change anything so much as being happy that we were speaking the same language and that they were in the same place as we are gradually coming to as a group, in a way.
Just before we came back in after the lunch break, I happened to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Grade, who is the chair of Ofcom and is listening to most of our debates and discussions when his other duties allow. I asked him what he thought about it, and he said that it was fascinating for him to recognise the level of expertise and knowledge that was growing up in the House, and that it would be a useful resource for Ofcom in the future. He was very impressed by the way in which everyone was engaging and not getting stuck in the niceties of the legislation, which he admitted he was experiencing himself. I say that softly; I do not want to embarrass him in any way because he is an honourable man. However, the point he makes is really important.
I say to the Minister that I do not think we are very far apart on this. He knows that, because we have discussed it at some length over the last six to eight weeks. What I think he should take away from this debate is that this is a point where a decision has to be taken about whether the Government are going to go with the consensus view being expressed here and put deliberately into the Bill a repetitive statement, but one that is clear and unambiguous, about the intention behind the Government’s reason for bringing forward the Bill and for us, the Opposition and other Members of this House, supporting it, which is that we want a safe internet for our children. The way we are going to do that is by having in place, up front and clearly in one place, the things that matter when the regulatory structure sits in place and has to deal with the world as it is, of companies with business plans and business models that are at variance with what we think should be happening and that we know are destroying the lives of people we love and the future of our country—our children—in a way that is quite unacceptable when you analyse it down to its last detail.
It is not a question of saying back to us across the Dispatch Box—I know he wants to but I hope he will not—“Everything that you have said is in the Bill; we don’t need to go down this route, we don’t need another piece of writing that says it all”. I want him to forget that and say that actually it will be worth it, because we will have written something very special for the world to look at and admire. It is probably not in its perfect form yet, but that is what the Government can do: take a rough and ready potential diamond, polish it, chamfer it, and bring it back and set it in a diadem we would all be proud to wear—Coronations excepted—so that we can say, “Look, we have done the dirty work here. We’ve been right down to the bottom and thought about it. We’ve looked at stuff that we never thought in our lives we would ever want to see and survived”.
I shake at some of the material we were shown that Molly Russell was looking at. But I never want to be in a situation where I will have to say to my children and grandchildren, “We had the chance to get this right and we relied on a wonderful piece of work called the Online Safety Act 2023; you will find it in there, but it is going to take you several weeks and a lot of mental harm and difficulty to understand what it means”.
So, let us make it right. Let us not just say “It’ll be alright on the night”. Let us have it there. It is almost right but, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, it needs to be patched back into what is already in the Bill. Somebody needs to look at it and say, “What, out of that, will work as a statement to the world that we care about our kids in a way that will really make a difference?” I warn the Minister that, although I said at Second Reading that I wanted to see this Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible, I will not accept a situation where we do not have more on this issue.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this group and for the clarity with which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has concluded his remarks.
Amendments 20, 74, 93 and 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would mean a significant revising of the Bill’s approach to content that is harmful to children. It would set a new schedule of harmful content and risk to children—the 4 Cs—on the face of the Bill and revise the criteria for user-to-user and search services carrying out child safety risk assessments.
I start by thanking the noble Baroness publicly—I have done so privately in our discussions—for her extensive engagement with the Government on these issues over recent weeks, along with my noble friends Lord Bethell and Lady Harding of Winscombe. I apologise that it has involved the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, missing her stop on the train. A previous discussion we had also very nearly delayed her mounting a horse, so I can tell your Lordships how she has devoted hours to this—as they all have over recent weeks. I would like to acknowledge their campaigning and the work of all organisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, listed at the start of her speech, as well as the families of people such as Olly Stephens and the many others that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford mentioned.
I also reassure your Lordships that, in developing this legislation, the Government carried out extensive research and engagement with a wide range of interested parties. That included reviewing international best practice. We want this to be world-leading legislation, including the four Cs framework on the online risks of harm to children. The Government share the objectives that all noble Lords have echoed in making sure that children are protected from harm online. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for echoing the remarks I made earlier in Committee on this. I am glad we are on the same page, even if we are still looking at points of detail, as we should be.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, knows, it is the Government’s considered opinion that the Bill’s provisions already deliver these objectives. I know that she remains to be convinced, but I am grateful to her for our continuing discussions on that point, and for continuing to kick the tyres on this to make sure that this is indeed legislation of which we can be proud.
It is also clear that there is broad agreement across the House that the Bill should tackle harmful content to children such as content that promotes eating disorders, illegal behaviour such as grooming and risk factors for harm such as the method by which content is disseminated, and the frequency of alerts. I am pleased to be able to put on record that the Bill as drafted already does this in the Government’s opinion, and reflects the principles of the four Cs framework, covering each of those: content, conduct, contact and commercial or contract risks to children.
First, it is important to understand how the Bill defines content, because that question of definition has been a confusing factor in some of the discussions hitherto. When we talk in general terms about content, we mean the substance of a message. This has been the source of some confusion. The Bill defines “content”, for the purposes of this legislation, in Clause 207 extremely broadly as
“anything communicated by means of an internet service”.
Under this definition, in essence, all user communication and activity, including recommendations by an algorithm, interactions in the metaverse, live streams, and so on, is facilitated by “content”. So, for example, unwanted and inappropriate contact from an adult to a child would be treated by the Bill as content harm. The distinctions that the four Cs make between content, conduct and contact risks is therefore not necessary. For the purposes of the Bill, they are all content risks.
Secondly, I know that there have been concerns about whether the specific risks highlighted in the new schedule will be addressed by the Bill.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
Where are the commercial harms? I cannot totally get my head around my noble friend’s definition of content. I can sort of understand how it extends to conduct and contact, but it does not sound as though it could extend to the algorithm itself that is driving the addictive behaviour that most of us are most worried about.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
In that vein, will the noble Lord clarify whether that definition of content does not include paid-for content?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I was about to list the four Cs briefly in order, which will bring me on to commercial or contract risk. Perhaps I may do that and return to those points.
I know that there have been concerns about whether the specific risks highlighted in the new schedule will be addressed by the Bill. In terms of the four Cs category of content risks, there are specific duties for providers to protect children from illegal content, such as content that intentionally assists suicide, as well as content that is harmful to children, such as pornography. Regarding conduct risks, the child safety duties cover harmful conduct or activity such as online bullying or abuse and, under the illegal content safety duties, offences relating to harassment, stalking and inciting violence.
With regard to commercial or contract risks, providers specifically have to assess the risks to children from the design and operation of their service, including their business model and governance under the illegal content and child safety duties. In relation to contact risks, as part of the child safety risk assessment, providers will need specifically to assess contact risks of functionalities that enable adults to search for and contact other users, including children, in a way that was set out by my noble friend Lord Bethell. This will protect children from harms such as harassment and abuse, and, under the illegal content safety duties, all forms of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including grooming.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I agree that content, although unfathomable to the outside world, is defined as the Minister says. However, does that mean that when we see that
“primary priority content harmful to children”
will be put in regulations by the Secretary of State under Clause 54(2)—ditto Clause 54(3) and (4)—we will see those contact risks, conduct risks and commercial risks listed as primary priority, priority and non-designated harms?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I have tried to outline the Bill’s definition of content, which I think will give some reassurance that other concerns that noble Lords have raised are covered. I will turn in a moment to address priority and primary priority content, if the noble Baroness will allow me to do that, and then perhaps intervene again if I have not done so to her satisfaction. I want to set that out and try to keep track of all the questions which have been posed as I do so.
For now, I know there have been concerns from some noble Lords that if functionalities are not labelled as harm in the legislation they would not be addressed by providers, and I reassure your Lordships’ House that this is not the case. There is an important distinction between content and other risk factors such as, for instance, an algorithm, which without content cannot risk causing harm to a child. That is why functionalities are not covered by the categories of primary, priority and priority content which is harmful to children. The Bill sets out a comprehensive risk assessment process which will cover content or activity that poses a risk of harm to children and other factors, such as functionality, which may increase the risk of harm. As such, the existing children’s risk assessment criteria already cover many of the changes proposed in this amendment. For example, the duties already require service providers to assess the risk of harm to children from their business model and governance. They also require providers to consider how a comprehensive range of functionalities affect risk, how the service is used and how the use of algorithms could increase the risks to children.
Turning to the examples of harmful content set out in the proposed new schedule, I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that the Government’s proposed list of primary, priority and priority content covers a significant amount of this content. In her opening speech she asked about cumulative harm—that is, content sent many times or content which is harmful due to the manner of its dissemination. We will look at that in detail on the next group as well, but I will respond to the points she made earlier now. The definition of harm in the Bill under Clause 205 makes it clear that physical or psychological harm may arise from the fact or manner of dissemination of the content, not just the nature of the content—content which is not harmful per se, but which if sent to a child many times, for example by an algorithm, would meet the Bill’s threshold for content that is harmful to children. Companies will have to consider this as a fundamental part of their risk assessment, including, for example, how the dissemination of content via algorithmic recommendations may increase the risk of harm, and they will need to put in place proportionate and age-appropriate measures to manage and mitigate the risks they identify. I followed the exchanges between the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Fox, and I make it clear that the approach set out by the Bill will mean that companies cannot avoid tackling the kind of awful content which Molly Russell saw and the harmful algorithms which pushed that content relentlessly at her.
This point on cumulative harm was picked up by my noble friend Lord Bethell. The Bill will address cumulative risk where it is the result of a combination of high-risk functionality, such as live streaming, or rewards in service by way of payment or non-financial reward. This will initially be identified through Ofcom’s sector risk assessments, and Ofcom’s risk profiles and risk assessment guidance will reflect where a combination of risk in functionalities such as these can drive up the risk of harm to children. Service providers will have to take Ofcom’s risk profiles into account in their own risk assessments for content which is illegal or harmful to children. The actions that companies will be required to take under their risk assessment duties in the Bill and the safety measures they will be required to put in place to manage the services risk will consider this bigger-picture risk profile.
The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would remove references to primary priority and priority harmful content to children from the child risk assessment duties, which we fear would undermine the effectiveness of the child safety duties as currently drafted. That includes the duty for user-to-user providers to prevent children encountering primary priority harms, such as pornography and content that promotes self-harm or suicide, as well as the duty to put in place age-appropriate measures to protect children from other harmful content and activity. As a result, we fear these amendments could remove the requirement for an age-appropriate approach to protecting children online and make the requirement to prevent children accessing primary priority content less clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked in her opening remarks about emerging harms, which she was right to do. As noble Lords know, the Bill has been designed to respond as rapidly as possible to new and emerging harms. First, the primary priority and priority list of content can be updated by the Secretary of State. Secondly, it is important to remember the function of non-designated content that is harmful to children in the Bill—that is content that meets the threshold of harmful content to children but is not on the lists designated by the Government. Companies are required to understand and identify this kind of content and, crucially, report it to Ofcom. Thirdly, this will inform the actions of Ofcom itself in its review and report duties under Clause 56, where it is required to review the incidence of harmful content and the severity of harm experienced by children as a result of it. This is not limited to content that the Government have listed as being harmful, as it is intended to capture new and emerging harms. Ofcom will be required to report back to the Government with recommendations on changes to the primary priority and priority content lists.
I turn to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, helpfully raised earlier about things that are in the amendments but not explicitly mentioned in the Bill. As he knows, the Bill has been designed to be tech-neutral, so that it is future-proof. That is why there is no explicit reference to the metaverse or virtual or augmented reality. However, the Bill will apply to service providers that enable users to share content online or interact with each other, as well as search services. That includes a broad range of services such as websites, applications, social media sites, video games and virtual reality spaces such as the metaverse; those are all captured. Any service that allows users to interact, as the metaverse does, will need to conduct a children’s access assessment and comply with the child safety duties if it is likely to be accessed by children.
Amendment 123 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, seeks to amend Clause 48 to require Ofcom to create guidance for Part 3 service providers on this new schedule. For the reasons I have just set out, we do not think it would be workable to require Ofcom to produce guidance on this proposed schedule. For example, the duty requires Ofcom to provide guidance on the content, whereas the proposed schedule includes examples of risky functionality, such as the frequency and volume of recommendations.
I stress again that we are sympathetic to the aim of all these amendments. As I have set out, though, our analysis leads us to believe that the four Cs framework is simply not compatible with the existing architecture of the Bill. Fundamental concepts such as risk, harm and content would need to be reconsidered in the light of it, and that would inevitably have a knock-on effect for a large number of clauses and timing. The Bill has benefited from considerable scrutiny—pre-legislative and in many discussions over many years. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been a key part of that and of improving the Bill. The task is simply unfeasible at this stage in the progress of the Bill through Parliament and risks delaying it, as well as significantly slowing down Ofcom’s implementation of the child safety duties. We do not think that this slowing down is a risk worth taking, because we believe the Bill already achieves what is sought by these amendments.
Even so, I say to the Committee that we have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others and have worked to identify changes which would further address these concerns. My noble friend Lady Harding posed a clear question: if not this, what would the Government do instead? I am pleased to say that, as a result of the discussions we have had, the Government have decided to make a significant change to the Bill. We will now place the categories of primary priority and priority content which is harmful to children on the face of the Bill, rather than leaving them to be designated in secondary legislation, so Parliament will have its say on them.
We hope that this change will reassure your Lordships that protecting children from the most harmful content is indeed the priority for the Bill. That change will be made on Report. We will continue to work closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, my noble friends and others, but I am not able to accept the amendments in the group before us today. With that, I hope that she will be willing to withdraw.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I thank all the speakers. There were some magnificent speeches and I do not really want to pick out any particular ones, but I cannot help but say that the right reverend Prelate described the world without the four Cs. For me, that is what everybody in the Box and on the Front Bench should go and listen to.
I am grateful and pleased that the Minister has said that the Government are moving in this direction. I am very grateful for that but there are a couple of things that I have to come back on. First, I have swiftly read Amendment 205’s definition of harm and I do not think it says that you do not have to reach a barrier of harm; dissemination is quite enough. There is always the problem of what the end result of the harm is. The thing that the Government are not listening to is the relationship between the risk assessment and the harm. It is about making sure that we are clear that it is the functionality that can cause harm. I think we will come back to this at another point, but that is what I beg them to listen to. Secondly, I am not entirely sure that it is correct to say that the four Cs mean that you cannot have primary priority, priority and so on. That could be within the schedule of content, so those two things are not actually mutually exclusive. I would be very happy to have a think about that.
What was not addressed in the Minister’s answer was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, in supporting the proposal that we should have in the schedule: “This is what you’ve got to do; this is what you’ve got to look at; this is what we’re expecting of you; and this is what Parliament has delivered”. That is immensely important, and I was so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for putting his marker down on this set of amendments. I am absolutely committed to working alongside him and to finding ways around this, but we need to find a way of stating it.
Ironically, that is my answer to both the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Fox: we should have our arguments here and now, in this Chamber. I do not wish to leave it to the Secretary of State, whom I have great regard for, as it happens, but who knows: I have seen a lot of Secretaries of State. I do not even want to leave it to the Minister, because I have seen a lot of Ministers too—ditto Ofcom, and definitely not the tech sector. So here is the place, and we are the people, to work out the edges of this thing.
Not for the first time, my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, read out what would have been my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I have gone round and round, and it is like the Marx brothers’ movie: in the end, harm is defined by subsection (4)(c), but that says that harm will defined by the Secretary of State. It goes around like that through the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a signpost to the new duty in clause 19 about supplying records of risk assessments to OFCOM.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides clarification because the new duty to summarise children’s risk assessments in the terms of service (see the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting new subsection (10A) below) is imposed only on providers of Category 1 services.