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, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Government continue to deliver on our commitment to get maximum value for taxpayers’ money in public spending. The Cabinet Office is one of the engines of efficiency in government. In the most recent financial year for which we have the data, the Cabinet Office, working with colleagues across Whitehall and the cross-Government functions, saved the British taxpayer £3.4 billion, a record we are proud of.
Richard Burgon
It is not just the lies by the former Prime Minister that have damaged trust in our politics; the contracts handed out to Tory friends and donors through VIP lanes did great damage too, yet the Government last week voted down attempts to shut down VIP lanes for good. No doubt Tory donors are rubbing their hands with glee, but with polls showing three quarters of the public are worried about corruption in Government, does the Minister not agree that the refusal to shut down VIP lanes for good will simply add to these grave concerns?
Alex Burghart
Last week we debated the Procurement Bill. I was very sorry not to see the hon. Gentleman in his place at the time, but if he had been present on that day he would have heard us say that the Bill prevents VIP lanes.
Scott Benton
I am sure the Minister is aware of the recent report stating that up to £7 billion of taxpayers’ money is squandered on so-called woke projects, including an Arts Council programme on unlearning whiteness. My constituents would argue that this money is far better spent on frontline services such as our NHS. I am sure the Minister agrees, so will he update the House on what steps he is taking to eliminate such appalling waste and to ensure every penny of taxpayer money is well spent?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the need for us to ensure every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent appropriately, and he will have heard or read the Health Secretary’s comments in March, when he wrote to the health community saying:
“I would ask that you, as a member of the wider health family, now review whether your organisation is getting value for money from your diversity and inclusion memberships and, if not, consider any steps that you could take to address that”.
Andrew Selous
Central London is a very expensive place in which to employ civil servants, and it is expensive for them to live in central London, so what are we doing to allow all parts of the United Kingdom to have the civil service based in their areas, particularly smaller towns, not just large ones, and across the UK—not just in the north, but across the whole of the UK?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are the Government who committed to relocating 22,000 civil servants from London to the regions by 2030, and we are making excellent progress on that. We have already achieved half that number, and the other day I was pleased to be in Sheffield opening our new policy unit, which brings people together, and not just entry-level civil servants, but the senior managers and decision makers who are going to inform the decisions that drive government in the future.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Minister been looking at the evidence given by George Osborne and Oliver Letwin? I think they were here briefly on an old Etonian work experience scheme, but the evidence they have been giving is a great revelation about what went on in Cabinet and at the highest levels of Government Departments. Will he look and learn?
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Am I standing? My goodness, does the Pope wear red socks?
On value for money, what recent discussions have there been with our European counterparts to ease the cost of living by removing the costly Northern Ireland protocol measures on admin and accountancy for small and medium-sized business, and will the hon. Gentleman undertake to resume discussions if they are not ongoing?
Alex Burghart
The Windsor framework made significant progress and took a substantial burden off businesses, but I believe conversations are ongoing and if the hon. Gentleman has any particular questions he would like to bring to my attention, I will be very happy to have a conversation with him.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Thank you; good morning, Mr Speaker.
I frequently stand at this Dispatch Box and ask the Minister about value for taxpayers’ money, because his Department is responsible for making sure that every penny is treated with the respect it deserves, especially during the cost of living crisis. With that in mind, can he give us an official estimate of the total cost of fraud to the UK across all sectors in 2022?
Alex Burghart
We are engaged in a constant battle against fraud. We do so with colleagues across Whitehall, and particularly in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury. I look forward to the right hon. Lady’s next question.
Angela Rayner
I thank the Minister for that non-answer, but the public deserve to know. While he ducks and dives the question, I have discovered the answer. At a conference in Portsmouth last week, the UK fraud costs measurement committee distributed hard copies of its new report with a fresh new estimate: £219 billion is lost each year as a result of fraud. That is equivalent to this year’s entire central Government running costs budget for health, defence and policing put together. The figure does not even include covid fraud. Can he tell me how much of that money he has clawed back?
Alex Burghart
We have established the Public Sector Fraud Authority to clamp down on fraud. As a former DWP Minister, I assure the right hon. Lady that this Government go after fraud wherever it is found. Every time we find new opportunities for fraud, we come forward with new means of clamping down on them. We are a Government committed to efficiency, which we are delivering. As the right hon. Lady will have heard me say in answer to the first question this morning, the Cabinet Office, in the most recent financial year for which figures are available, delivered £3.4 billion-worth of savings to the British taxpayer. That is work we will continue to do.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Nominations are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) will know, taken on merit. The criteria that we use are regularly reported to Government, with our most recent report on the operation of the honours system published last month. We are confident that the process for honours selection, including adequate probity and propriety checks, is proportionate and robust and that all due process is followed.
John Penrose
Does the Minister agree that as proven by recent controversies, the system must be transparently meritocratic, so that it is crystal clear that everybody receiving an honour legitimately deserves it? Now that we have introduced a points-based immigration system to choose the best and the brightest from around the world to live here in Britain, should we consider a similar points-based system to choose this country’s brightest and best to receive honours in future, too?
Alex Burghart
My hon. Friend is too modest to mention that he came up with this idea some time ago, and it is one that we have considered, but it is not one that we will be taking forward at this moment in time. We go to great lengths to ensure that the process remains transparent, and he can read the most recent report, which was published last month. It is essential that we ensure that the committees that make the considerations around the honours system can do so and can report to this place and to the public. While I am aware that he would like us to go further, we do not believe it necessary to uproot the entire system. We want to ensure that the honours system represents people from the length and breadth of the country.
Kerry McCarthy
The Prime Minister insists that he was only following convention when he waved through Boris Johnson’s honours list. It should be obvious to anyone that this former dishonourable Member—a man who will not even be allowed back on to the estate without an escort—should not be doling out honours. Would a stronger, more principled Prime Minister not have recognised that any convention that allows such a man to install his discredited cronies as peers might need changing, rather than blindly following?
Alex Burghart
The hon. Lady knows that there is a long-standing convention from 1895 that outgoing Prime Ministers have a resignation honours list. To put it in plain language for her, just because that gentleman has been found against in this House, it does not mean that the people who were put forward in his resignation honours list are without merit.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
Nuclear test veterans played a valuable role in developing a nuclear deterrent that has ultimately kept Britain safe for decades. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs has opened the £200,000 nuclear test veteran community fund and a £250,000 oral history project to ensure that the veterans of Britain’s nuclear testing programme are never forgotten.
David Duguid
British nuclear test veterans, such as my constituent Colin Moir, welcomed the news earlier this year that they would finally be awarded a commemorative medal. Given that Mr Moir applied for his medal at the soonest opportunity and unfortunately has not received it in time for this Armed Forces Week, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give that medals will be received in time for Remembrance Sunday?
Johnny Mercer
I recognise that the medallic recognition has taken a long time to achieve. The Government, for the first time in 60 years, have delivered on that medallic recognition. I want to ensure that those medals are in the hands of veterans who deserve them. I recognise the concerns around delays. I will be extremely disappointed if medals are not on the chests of nuclear test veterans at Remembrance Day this year.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
My Cabinet colleagues and I have frequent conversations about a range of issues, with a range of colleagues. To the question that the hon. Lady is pushing on, she will have heard me say that there is a long-standing convention, under successive Governments, that outgoing Prime Ministers can draw up a resignation list.
Marion Fellows
I can now say this without being told off, as was the case a year ago this month: the disgraced, dishonest and serial-lying Boris Johnson should categorically not be given any resignation honours list—period. What steps is the Minister taking to rescind this democratic outrage? If he is not taking any, does he agree with Parliament’s judgment on Monday, given that he chose to abstain on the vote?
Alex Burghart
The list is not being rescinded. It has gone to the sovereign and has been approved.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The failed London mayoral candidate Shaun Bailey has been given a life peerage in Boris Johnson’s list, despite his “Jingle and Mingle” 2020 Christmas party. Does the Minister agree that someone who has failed to be elected on three occasions and flouted the laws that the rest of us stuck to during lockdown should not be offered a life peerage?
Alex Burghart
The honourable gentleman in question, as the hon. Lady will know, was also a very long-standing member of the London Assembly, and was successfully elected on a number of occasions to fill that role. Obviously, reports of the party in question are unacceptable. We condemn that event, but as she will have heard me say to her colleague, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), the list has gone to the sovereign and been approved.
Kirsty Blackman
There is a bit of unedifying silliness in the Chamber this morning. We are absolutely beside ourselves that we seemingly cannot do anything about this, and the Government are not taking any responsibility. Just because something has been convention since 1985 does not mean that we should continue doing it. If the antics of the dishonourable member for the Chiltern hundreds were not bad enough, convention now dictates that the 49-day former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who crashed the economy, which directly contributed to the mortgage rate rises that people are struggling with, will also get to make nominations. Why is even more power and privilege being awarded to those who have caused untold misery and hardship?
Alex Burghart
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
We remain committed to providing all relevant material to the inquiry, and will continue to comply with requests so that we can learn the lessons from the pandemic. To date, the Cabinet Office alone has submitted 55,000 documents to the inquiry.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that answer, but far from co-operating the Cabinet Office is taking the inquiry to court to block access to information, and the Government are set to spend in excess of £50 million of taxpayers’ money on solicitors to protect current and former Ministers. What do they have to hide?
Jeremy Quin
The Government are committed to getting to the truth on covid. There will be a lot of lessons to learn. We are following a process, and it is incredibly important for the country and the future Governments of the UK that we learn the lessons. We have nothing to hide from the inquiry, but there is one specific technical difference between us and the inquiry and it is right that those things are sorted out in the law courts, as is normal in such circumstances. We want to provide all relevant material to the covid inquiry; we continue to do so and we support its work.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
We must learn the lessons from the covid inquiry. It was “ludicrous in retrospect”, a “relatively small part” of the brief, “wildly under-resilient” and a “disaster for the country”—not my words but those used by the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the covid inquiry this week to describe the Government’s approach to resilience and preparedness for the past 13 years. He also said it was a huge error not to have a senior Minister solely devoted to resilience. Will the Secretary of State finally listen to Labour and appoint a dedicated Minister for resilience?
Jeremy Quin
There is a resilience Minister in the sense that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster maintains oversight of resilience. That is one of a number of responsibilities shared with the devolved Administrations—resilience is important in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I look forward to meeting my colleagues from those Administrations next week in Edinburgh to discuss these issues. We take resilience extraordinarily seriously. We undertake exercises to ensure that we understand the pressures that may come to bear. We always take resilience seriously and we will look at the lessons coming out of the inquiry about how to do better as a country.
Fleur Anderson
We will keep asking. I am glad that the Paymaster General mentioned emergency response exercises, which are essential for learning the lessons from covid and for being ready for whatever disaster comes next. As the senior Minister for resilience, among many other things, will the Paymaster General tell us how many exercises have been carried out locally and nationally in the last year? Is he ensuring that lessons are learned, changes are made and good practice is shared to make all our communities safe?
Jeremy Quin
Exercises take place locally and nationally. The exercise involving the use of the emergency alert system for the first time ever, to ensure that we have that important pillar in our response, illustrates how seriously we take these issues. We will continue to undertake exercises to ensure that we are as prepared as anyone ever can be for the circumstances that we can plan for and try to project. But clearly, we never know the disaster that might hit us. That is why we take these things seriously.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority’s standards, tools and training for Government projects and its expert advice and cost estimation guidance helps to ensure that Government projects are set up for success. I am pleased to announce that the IPA is launching its benchmarking data service later this year, which will significantly improve the pricing of Government projects through access to a detailed dataset of realised unit costs, delivering much more confidence to cost estimation.
Greg Smith
In reducing costs, the challenge for my right hon. Friend is the way that Government projects are set up in the first place. They blow their budgets because the people set up to deliver them always know that the taxpayer will bail them out. Will he look at introducing a new private sector viability test for Government projects, where a lack of private sector interest would be the warning light that the project is wrong? For example, the total lack of interest from any private sector investor should have been the flashing red beacon for the financial catastrophe that is High Speed 2?
Jeremy Quin
We take infrastructure challenges seriously. It is incredibly important to bear down on inflation for a whole range of reasons, including the impact on our capital projects. Clearly, inflation has had a dramatic impact over the last 18 months. The IPA is a force for challenge in Government projects. It supports HS2 delivery through advice and assurance, particularly through the annual assurance updates, which help to provide external challenge to the Department when it makes its regular reports to Parliament, which it will do this month.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Of course, no one knows what the cost to the public purse of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Bill will be, because the Government are refusing to publish their economic impact assessment. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Home Office to get that economic impact assessment published, not least because if it will not do that, it will face freedom of information requests and complaints to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which themselves are going to cost the taxpayer more money?
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his normal way and I am certain it will be picked up by my colleagues in the Home Office.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
Veterans employment in this country is strong, with 87% of veterans securing employment within six months after service, helping to deliver on the Government’s priority to grow the economy.
Chi Onwurah
As we celebrate Armed Forces Week, let us celebrate the skills of our armed forces personnel and their value in civilian life. The Army’s life skills policy and holistic approach to transition do just that. Nevertheless, the number of veterans claiming universal credit has risen by 50% in the last year and the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers tells me that over half its welfare cases are about employment and finance issues. In these difficult circumstances, why have the Government chosen to halve the number of armed forces employment champions in jobcentres?
Johnny Mercer
On armed forces employment champions in jobcentres, we have gone away from that being a part-time role to having full-time Department for Work and Pensions armed forces champions who cover different areas. They are proving hugely successful in getting people into work. I was concerned about the reports on universal credit and I explored that this week. There is now a different method of accounting and I have asked for more detail on that. The truth is that veteran employment is higher than it has ever been before, but I share those concerns and I will continue to explore the data.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
As it is Armed Forces Week, may I first take the opportunity to thank our armed forces, veterans, reservists and family members for their service to our country and today, on Windrush 75, particularly those from Commonwealth countries who serve?
We have heard that the latest Government data shows that the number of veterans claiming universal credit has increased every month in the last year, representing a 50% rise in the last 12 months. I heard what the Minister said, but our heroes should not be relying on benefits and charitable support to get by. Amid the current cost of living crisis, can the Minister elaborate a bit more to the House how his Department has been helping veterans to find well-paid employment?
Johnny Mercer
I would be delighted to. What we are creating are clear, defined pathways into different sectors across the UK economy—sector initiatives, whether in renewables, finance or construction. We are designing clear pathways that deliver an equity of access across the United Kingdom, so it is not just who you know or relying on charities; everyone can access them. Having a job remains the No. 1 factor in improving life chances for veterans across the country. We are delighted to see employment at 87%, but we always want to do more and will continue to drive away at that.
Rachel Hopkins
I heard what the Minister said, but is what the Government are doing on employment support sufficient when we have heard that the number of armed forces champions in jobcentres has halved? That is less capacity across the country. In contrast, the Labour party is ready to deliver across Government the support our veterans deserve with our plan to fully incorporate the armed forces covenant into law. Will the Minister do the same: yes or no?
Johnny Mercer
I am so sorry. I desperately want to be challenged in this space, but that is incredibly feeble. I would never try and do maths with anybody in this place, but if we have part-time armed forces covenant champions in jobcentres replaced with full-time champions in the regions, we will have more coverage, which is what we have delivered across the country. On incorporating the armed forces covenant into law, I was the first Minister to do that, in my role as the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. Look, we can always do more, but we need to make sure we are not doing down where we are with veterans. How it feels to be a veteran has changed fundamentally. I look forward to proposals from the Labour party going into the election that are realistic, deliverable and will improve what it means to be a veteran.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
The Cabinet Office’s Cobra unit continues to support Departments to develop their contingency plans. At the same time, we are co-ordinating preparedness across Government to minimise the impact on public services wherever possible. However, the only way to truly avoid disruption is by union leaders returning to the negotiating table and working constructively to reach a fair and reasonable deal.
Michael Fabricant
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I am sure that he can imagine the difficulty that my constituents and those in Burntwood and other parts of the west midlands face because of industrial action. Does he agree that organisations should be free to employ anyone who is best able to do a job, regardless of whether they happen to be a member of a militant trade union?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, the people of Lichfield deserve better and less industrial action. They are superbly represented by their Member of Parliament, who will continue to ensure that they get better than industrial action. I stand four- square with him.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
My focus is on ensuring that the civil service has enhanced skills to provide all forms of advice where appropriate. However, there is also a role, as there is in other Governments around the world and in the private sector, for specialist expertise. Where that represents good value for money in delivering for the taxpayer, we will use it.
Mr Dhesi
Instead of increasing the resilience of our civil service, this Conservative Government rely increasingly on expensive external contracts to fill gaps. The UK public sector awarded £2.8 billion-worth of consulting contracts in 2022—up 75% from 2019—while poor Government leadership led to a huge waste of taxpayers’ money. Staggeringly, the Government have brought to an end limits on Whitehall spending on external contracts. Will the Minister explain how, when millions, including my constituents, are struggling to pay their bills, the purse strings can simply be untied when it comes to hiring outside consultants?
Jeremy Quin
It is absolutely not the case that there are no limits on consultancy fees. Every Department is responsible for its own finances and is under pressure to deliver effectively for the taxpayer. Any decision to issue contracts is closely scrutinised in the contracting Department. The largest contracts come to the Cabinet Office as well, but the key issue is to ensure that Departments spend their money wisely. There is a role for specialist expertise. There are occasions—I had experience of this in the Ministry of Defence—when consultants are the best value for money in providing a service to the taxpayer.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
Keeping the British people safe is the Government’s first duty and that includes from risks such as extreme heat. Central and local government have continency plans that are ready to be implemented when we receive UK Health Security Agency heat health alerts or Met Office severe weather warnings. The Cabinet Office plays a critical role in supporting those plans. For example, the National Situation Centre has been working with Departments to ensure that relevant data can be captured during a heatwave to support timely decision making.
Bob Blackman
Maybe the heat is getting to you, Mr Speaker.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. He will remember last summer, when the temperature reached 42°, and that was just in Committee Room 14, where we were holding the leadership contest. The good news is that the Met forecast shows that we will not get such extreme heat this summer, but people are already suffering because of the heat. What action is my right hon. Friend taking right now to ensure that people are safe during very hot weather, and that they are prepared for what may come?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the matter. The situation is precisely why we rolled out the new heat health alerting service in conjunction with the Met Office on 1 June. As climate change continues, we are developing cross-Government working to ensure that we are resilient to the new challenges.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is not just red-headed, fair-skinned folk like me who suffer during the UK’s increasing heatwaves. I note with envy that, across Europe, many countries have introduced maximum workplace temperatures, and I wonder whether this country could do the same. Will the Minister look at implementing such a scheme?
Oliver Dowden
I am very sceptical about adding further regulatory burdens to business. I think most businesses are incentivised to make sure their employees have a safe and appropriately cooled place to work, which is the appropriate way to proceed. However, we are working across Government, and through things such as local resilience fora, to make sure businesses are properly advised on the appropriate steps to take.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
We know the frustration that my hon. Friend’s constituents, and indeed all constituents, feel when they are kept waiting on helplines. Departmental helplines are not managed or run centrally, and therefore each Department is responsible for its own helplines and for response times and waiting times. However, I know His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, for instance, has recognised that its customer services have not been good enough recently and is taking steps to improve them.
Mr Hollobone
With two thirds of HMRC staff working from home, and with HMRC taking more than 20 minutes, on average, to answer the phone, HMRC has now shut down the busy self-assessment helpline over the summer. Will my hon. Friend take action, together with His Majesty’s Treasury, to address the presently appalling level of customer service at HMRC?
Alex Burghart
I am sure my colleagues in HMRC will have heard my hon. Friend’s comments.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
In recent months, I have met international counter- parts, including from Canada and Korea, to share best practice, and I went to the veteran games in Israel. We collaborate with our Five Eyes partners, and this afternoon I am meeting the Ukrainian Minister to understand how we can help Ukraine to shape veterans and recovery processes.
Anna Firth
My constituent Godfrey Hunt was a civilian scientist in the UK’s nuclear testing programme in the 1950s. He has long campaigned for a medal for nuclear veterans, and he was delighted to hear the Government’s commitment, three months ago, that we would finally issue these medals. I heard the Minister’s comments earlier, but will he take this opportunity, once again, to confirm the timetable for getting that medal on to the chest of Godfrey Hunt and all other nuclear veterans?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to Godfrey and all those who served in that programme. I recognise the frustration with this process. It has taken 60 years to get to this point. I want to see those medals on chests on Remembrance Day, and getting these things through Government and so on is not easy. I have made it very clear to officials, and I make it very clear to them again today, that I expect those medals to be on veterans’ chests on Remembrance Sunday this year. I will strain every sinew in Government to make sure that happens.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Secretary of State (Oliver Dowden)
We continue to strengthen the country’s overall resilience, which is why last week we published a new biological security strategy that will help to protect us from a whole host of threats, from diseases to bio-weapons and antimicrobial resistance. The strategy includes a new bio-threats radar to monitor hazards as and when they emerge.
This week I will travel to Indonesia and Singapore to strengthen our partnerships on cyber-security and data protection, and to build on the UK’s leadership on one of the most important issues of our time: artificial intelligence.
Liz Twist
We know from answers to previous questions that the taxpayer is still being billed £700,000 a day, which is £5 million a week or £21.4 million a month, to store personal protective equipment, much of which is of too poor quality to be used. What will the Secretary of State do to make sure such reckless procurement never happens again?
Oliver Dowden
I do not recall a time during the covid crisis when the Labour party said we should not be purchasing PPE but, on wider procurement, that is precisely why we are taking the Procurement Bill through this House, which seizes the opportunities of Brexit to ensure we have an efficient procurement system.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Johnny Mercer)
That is a good question, and I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend for his work over the years; he did the “Living in our Shoes” report when I was in a previous role. Veterans’ affairs are outside the Ministry of Defence because veterans are civilians, not serving personnel, and they require all those aspects of government to work for veterans as civilians. He is talking about armed forces families, and responsibility for them remains with the MOD and the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families. I am sure he will have heard those remarks and I stand ready to assist in any way I can.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I welcome the fact that the House will have the opportunity to debate the infected blood inquiry this afternoon. I look forward to the debate and I hope other Members will be able to be present for it. The Government have not yet set out their final deliberation on the arm’s length body; an awful lot of work is ongoing. A detailed study was undertaken by Sir Robert Francis and we had a fine second interim report from Sir Brian Langstaff. We are still working through the implications of that and we continue to do so.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I say to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs that we are grateful for the work he does. Can he ask those in his private office whether they will show him the message I sent him yesterday about the secretary to a governor in Afghanistan, who is in hiding and whose grandfather has been killed trying to protect him, to see whether there is anything the British Government can do to allow him to come out of Afghanistan?
Johnny Mercer
I recognise the ongoing concerns about those who remain in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister has asked me to do what I can to get the Afghans who are currently in hotels into long-term accommodation in the UK. That will allow us to turn back on those flights out of Afghanistan. I recognise that there are still people there who should be in the UK, and I will, of course, look at the case my hon. Friend raises later today. That process of bringing people out of Afghanistan remains with the MOD, but it will have heard his comments and I will do everything I can to help him.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I return to the issue of nominations into the other place. Is the Minister aware that 27 members of the Lords donated £50 million to his party and that one in 10 Tory peers have given more than £100,000 to his party? Is that all just an unfortunate coincidence, or are we seeing a return to cash for honours? Would it not be simple just to say that nobody who makes donations to political parties can receive an honour in the future? Would that not be the simplest way of dealing with this utter scandal?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
We all remember the cash for honours scandal that happened under the hon. Gentleman’s party’s tenure, and we all know how many union barons are barons.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
What steps are the Government taking to improve the co-ordination and collaboration between different Departments on addressing the mental health needs of our veterans?
Johnny Mercer
This Prime Minister made the conscious decision to take veterans out of the MOD and set up the Office for Veterans’ Affairs in the Cabinet Office, with a Cabinet Minister responsible for this. For the first time, that aligned us with our Five Eyes allies. That has allowed us to produce things such as Op Courage, the UK’s first dedicated mental healthcare pathway for veterans. It costs £22 million a year, with that rising every year. We had 19,000 referrals in its first year and a massive unmet need in this country is now being met by government. We are very proud of that and we look to do more in the future.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Each year, thousands of young people leave local authority care, yet many of them struggle to be able to afford their first home or to get their first job. As local councils are corporate parents, could the Government be a corporate grandparent and have a cross-government care leavers’ strategy, encouraging more Government Departments to employ care leavers to give them a good shot at life?
Johnny Mercer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Prime Minister has asked me to look at the issue. There are about 92,000 care leavers aged between 18 and 25 in the United Kingdom. They require and deserve pathways similar to those that we have created in the veterans space. I look forward to launching that strategy and speaking further to the House, before the summer recess, about the issue of children in care.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I noted, with interest, the update to the civil service headquarters occupancy data for June on the Cabinet Office website this morning. It shows a pleasing trend of more civil servants coming back to their desks, but with some Departments, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, still below 50%, what is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that more civil servants get to their desks?
Jeremy Quin
We are encouraging people to go back. That is an ongoing trend, and my hon. Friend is right about what he alludes to in the numbers. There are benefits in civil servants working together, as there are for those in other areas of the economy, in terms of innovation, teamwork and being able to bring on new members of a team. I welcome the fact that people are returning to the office and that they are working collaboratively in Government buildings across the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Opportunity has been squandered in the way the Government are disposing of public land. Bootham Park Hospital closed seven and half years ago, but it is still vacant despite developers coming and going, meaning that opportunities for creatives and businesses, as well as for residential use for local people, are being denied. Will the Government undertake a cross-governmental look at public land to ensure that it is used for public good, not profit?
Alex Burghart
I cannot comment on the specifics of the case that the hon. Lady raises, but I can tell her that the Government Property Agency, which is based in the Cabinet Office, delivers enormous efficiencies for taxpayers by rationalising the estate and using some of the savings to create modern working environments, which create greater productivity among our civil servants.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
May I take a slightly contrary view about working from home to the one we heard from the Front Bench just now? While I fully recognise that working with other people in an office is constructive from a teamwork and creative point of view, working from home has advantages, including saving travel time and, on occasion, enabling people to concentrate more on the job. Will my right hon. and hon. Friends not take too prescriptive a view of working from home, and encourage TWATism? A TWAT, Mr Speaker, is somebody who works in the office on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
Jeremy Quin
Mr Speaker, we are all better informed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The policy is not doctrinaire. As my hon. Friend says, there are occasions when that is the right approach, but the default position should be working together in the office space. We believe that means we get more out of employees, there is better productivity and it is a better experience for those working together in that team environment.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), may I press Ministers in relation to HMRC and Department for Work and Pensions phone services? I have constituents who are waiting over an hour to speak to DWP call centre staff, who are then cut off. The pressure is partly caused by more and more people relying on DWP and HMRC services. Having been cut off, they subsequently receive letters saying their benefits have been revoked or they are expected to repay taxes, without having been able to talk to any officials in those call centres. It cannot be right for the Minister to say that it is for those Departments to deal with the problem. The Cabinet Office needs to have a co-ordinating role to resolve these ongoing problems. It is simply not good enough.
Alex Burghart
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say already that it is a matter for those Departments. It is their responsibility, but I know they are taking those responsibilities very seriously. DWP and HMRC are working hard to get the waiting times down.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As the Procurement Bill goes through Parliament, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that hostile nations are not installing equipment in our networks and other facilities?
Alex Burghart
We were delighted to announce last week, during Report stage of the Procurement Bill, the creation of a new security unit within the Cabinet Office. It will identify high-risk vendors, who will be prevented from supplying things like surveillance equipment to certain parts of the public estate. I am very proud of our record in this space.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
We have now passed midsummer’s day, the longest day of the year, and still the children are at school. What is the impact on our civil service and our services of an outdated system where children in this country go on holiday when half the summer—very often the best part of it—is over? Can we have a change and look at how we time our summer holidays for children?
Oliver Dowden
I suspect the question is a matter for the Department for Education. I think the reasoning is that it tends to be warmer in August, but I am happy to take up the matter with my ministerial colleagues.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What steps is the Cabinet Office taking to honour the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to protect Northern Ireland veterans from vexatious litigation?
Johnny Mercer
I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that we are nearly at the summit of that mountain. The Bill is continuing to go through the Lords. It will come back to this House and become law by the summer recess. We will have delivered on a manifesto commitment to protect those who served us in Northern Ireland, of whom we are deeply proud, from the vexatious nature of investigations and litigation, while providing a better opportunity for all victims of that conflict to find out what happened and to focus on reconciliation and the future.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The continuous briefing against our civil servants by Ministers and Conservative MPs is having a disastrous impact on morale in our civil service. Do the Government not realise that damaging morale in our civil service hinders us in conducting Government business and retaining that expertise in-house, and makes us ever more reliant on expensive external consultants?
Jeremy Quin
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I totally refute his contention. That is not the experience of this ministerial team. That is not what we do. I very much value the work of our civil servants. I make that clear to their union representatives and to civil servants themselves. They do a very valuable job for our country and they will always have the support of this Government in attempting to do their utmost, as they do, to support and benefit the prosperity of the whole country.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Where is the surplus personal protective equipment being stored? What is it costing and what are the plans for its disposal?
Jeremy Quin
The benefit of having a long set of topicals is that we cover many Departments through the course of it. I am not totally aware of any answer to that question without consulting my colleagues in, I suspect, the Department of Health and Social Care. I am afraid that I am not able to give an answer to my right hon. Friend on that point.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Last year, the then Prime Minister, now the Steward and Bailiff of His Majesty’s Chiltern Hundreds, announced the creation of the Office of the Prime Minister. It was going to be very exciting—like something out of “The West Wing”, which, of course, was a work of fiction, much like a lot of Boris Johnson’s premiership. In the words of a character from “The West Wing”, is the Office of the Prime Minister still “a thing”?
Oliver Dowden
Within the hierarchy of Whitehall, Downing Street sits within the Cabinet Office. I have found that the way it works best—I think that this is the Prime Minister’s view as well—is that the Cabinet Office supports Downing Street in the performance of its functions, so I do not think there is a need to create a separate Office of the Prime Minister beyond the existing Downing Street capabilities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past week, I have had the opportunity to engage with a veteran who is coming to the end of 24 years’ service in July. He has to leave the Palace barracks in Holywood and move out because his tenure has come to an end. He has no idea how to get housing and job opportunities, due to changes in his personal circumstances. What steps are being taken to ensure that no long-serving soldier is left in such a precarious position or feeling so vulnerable? I know the Minister will answer positively, but I think we need to know that.
Johnny Mercer
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-time advocacy for this cohort, particularly those who served in Northern Ireland. While I recognise that the politics may change out there, he should be under no illusion that this Government’s pride in those who served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland remains completely undimmed. When it comes to housing provision and employment, it is true that opportunities are better now than they ever have been in the history of this nation, but I recognise that there is more to do and we need to ensure that people do not fall through the cracks. I am more than happy to meet him to talk about this individual specifically so that we can load him on to one of the programmes we have designed.
Sudan: Atrocities
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the rapid acceleration of atrocities in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
The UK strongly condemns the heinous attacks on civilians across Sudan, including, in particular, in Darfur. All parties involved are accountable for the crimes they commit. Our immediate objective is to stop the violence, ensure that civilians are protected, and bring about immediate safe and unfettered humanitarian access. Civilians and critical infrastructure must be protected in line with international humanitarian law, and communities must have access to critical care and basic services.
On 16 June, the Minister for Development and Africa called publicly for atrocities to stop and for humanitarian access to be granted. The UK is stepping up enhanced observation of human rights in Sudan through a remote risk-monitoring capability. We have provided funding to organisations that are, with input from local partners, collecting, verifying and preserving digital content from the conflict, including instances of significant abuses. That will play a vital role in amplifying the voices of those who are being targeted, and will be permissible in future accountability mechanisms, should they be established.
The UK is pursuing all diplomatic avenues, including ministerial engagement with regional counterparts, to end the violence and de-escalate tensions in Sudan. The UK-drafted resolution, passed at the United Nations Human Rights Council on 11 May, condemns the human rights violations and abuses taking place in Sudan. It is the strongest resolution that the council has passed on Sudan in over a decade.
We continue to be hugely invested in Sudan. Over the past five years, we have invested £250 million-worth of humanitarian aid, and that, combined with our diplomacy, will continue, we hope, moving Sudan towards the path of peace.
Vicky Ford
A systemic ethnic cleansing is happening in Darfur right now. Last Sunday, 100 members of the Darfur diaspora in the UK met. Every person had lost several members of their family in the last few weeks owing to a campaign by the Rapid Support Forces/Janjaweed to change the DNA in Darfur. That means targeting non-Arabs. Boys over 10 are being murdered; girls over 12 are being raped. Civil leaders are being targeted and murdered, including the Governor of West Darfur.
A quarter of a million people live in El Geneina, which has been under siege for two months. The RSF/Janjaweed has destroyed the water sources, hospitals, pharmacies and food stores. We have no idea of the true scale of the casualties, but an eyewitness has estimated that the number is already in the thousands. The Sudanese armed forces are doing nothing to protect people. The city is just 28 km from the border with Chad at Adré, where French troops have been seen recently and UK aid is waiting, but people are being shot when they try to flee the violence. El Geneina is a strategic gateway for arms and mercenaries entering Sudan. Furthermore, the RSF has a vast gold smuggling network in Darfur and is connected with Russia’s Wagner Group.
Given that the UK is the penholder at the UN, what action are we taking to stop the violence? What pressure is being put on the warring generals to end the conflict? Has the UK called for an urgent debate at the UN Security Council? Could the nearby French troops, backed by the international community, work to provide a safe corridor for those in El Geneina? Why has the UK not sanctioned the commercial wings of the RSF and the SAF, as the US has? Why has the UK still not proscribed the Wagner Group as terrorists? What pressure is being put on the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia given that many RSF and SAF commercial entities are registered there?
Lastly, will the Minister meet urgently with representatives of the Darfur diaspora here? Will he ensure that the voices of civil society and marginalised ethnic groups are heard so that a comprehensive solution to the problems at the heart of the terrible Sudan conflict can be delivered?
Leo Docherty
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for her sustained personal interest in this issue. She comes at this with a great deal of relevant experience, as the most recent UK Minister to have done travelled in the region. The House is grateful for her sustained personal interest and her questions today.
What action is being taken to prevent the violence? We are exerting all diplomatic effort, in concert with the USA and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We hope that the warring generals will see sense. Our diplomatic effort is steered through our membership of the UK core group and will promote the efforts of the African Union. We hope that, through diplomacy, we can progress this measure. We have called for a debate in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and I am pleased to say that we will have closed consultations in the Security Council in New York in the coming days.
My right hon. Friend asked an interesting question about the potential role of French troops. I cannot comment on that specifically, but I know that our diplomats and officials will be liaising with our allies to see what humanitarian work might be expedited by the significant French presence in the region.
Of course, I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box about future UK sanctions. All options continue to be on the table, and we will keep these issues under review. Through our diplomacy and our strong relations with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, we hope that we might influence both sides in this terrible conflict, and we think that our diplomacy with our Gulf partners has huge possibility.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development and Africa will engage with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and any civil society members she thinks are relevant to meet. We do care about Sudanese civil society. Our ambassador, Giles Lever, continues to meet where he can with members of Sudanese civil society, including youth, women and Darfuris. That reflects the scale of our long-term investment in civil society in Sudan, with humanitarian investment of some quarter of a billion pounds in the last five years.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for securing this urgent question. She is an effective and committed chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan.
The reports from Darfur are horrifying. The Sudan Doctors Union says that 1,100 people have already been killed just in the small city of El Geneina. Unarmed men and boys are being murdered because of their ethnicity. Women and girls are being mass raped. One rapist was reported as saying that they want to
“change the DNA of this place”.
The provincial governor was assassinated after stating that this was a genocide. Hundreds of thousands possibly remain trapped in El Geneina, shot as they tried to flee.
We knew long before April that racist mass violence and groups armed along ethnic lines were common in Darfur. We knew that the RSF grew out of the Janjaweed, which bears heavy responsibility for acts of genocide 20 years ago. The risk of atrocity crimes was clear. We are the penholder for Sudan on the Security Council. Why did we not better anticipate and prepare? What does it say about our atrocity prevention strategy and the priority that we place on raising the alarm early?
What assessment have we made of the Wagner Group’s role in supplying weapons, and what are we doing now? Why have the Government not even mirrored the United States’ sanctions on economic entities funding the conflict? What can we do at the UN and the African Union to ensure rapid civilian protection now in Darfur? We know that some are determined to block action, regardless of human cost. Can we not expose their role in enabling this horror? Surely we need to bring our partners together now and act.
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady raises a number of pertinent questions. When it comes to anticipating the upsurge in violence, we have confidence in our diplomats. It has long been a volatile situation, and I want to clearly express confidence in our diplomatic representatives, our diplomacy and our deep understanding of the region. Of course, they are not able to predict every last event, but we do have a deep reserve of regional expertise built up over many years, and we should be proud of that.
The hon. Lady asked a question about the Wagner Group. Clearly, we keep all options under review, but I agree with her assessment of the hugely damaging, detrimental and pernicious effect of the Wagner Group. That is a regional trend—it reflects the profound diminishing of Russian influence on the European continent—and we keep its activities under close watch. She also made a very good point about protection of civilians. Clearly, all our efforts are focused on pushing for a diplomatic path towards peace, because it is peace that will allow civilians to be protected and the humanitarian aid to flow.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who has been a steadfast advocate for the people of Sudan, for securing this urgent question. There is no question that crimes against humanity are being perpetrated in El Geneina and across Darfur. At the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, we held a session specifically on the crisis, and we heard that the fear is that diplomats are putting their trust in the men with guns rather than civilians. Given that we are the UN Security Council penholder, why are we not leading work to secure a commission of inquiry on Sudan by the Human Rights Council? That is something meaningful we could do that would make a real difference.
Secondly, please can we get a grip on our chaotic approach to dealing with the Wagner Group? We need to bring in sanctions. Can we also look at putting up balloons with allies that would provide internet access to Darfur, so that the voices that are being silenced and massacred can get out and the true scale of what is happening can be known around the world?
Leo Docherty
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, for her pertinent questions. She made a very good point about alleged war crimes. We entirely agree that accountability is hugely important—it is an instrument of deterrence. That is why a lot of our work on a daily basis is about ensuring that there is institutional capacity for recording atrocities so that those responsible can be held to account.
My hon. Friend made a good point about civil society, although we have engaged and will continue to engage. On the UN route to further expedite our interest in human rights, the next step is the closed session of the Security Council, but all options are on the table with regard to the Human Rights Council. She referred to the Wagner Group, and I agree with her assessment of the threat, although not her characterisation of our policy. Of course, we keep its activities under review, and that is reflected in robust and deep institutional thinking and policymaking.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford): she is absolutely right to bring this matter before the House today while this violence, which we all condemn, escalates. It would be the understatement of the century to say that Sudan is no stranger to identity-based violence. The Minister said that the UK Government have a deep understanding and regional expertise. It is therefore deeply concerning to hear from academics, policy experts and non-governmental organisations on the ground in Sudan that time and time again, the UK has failed to listen to the advice, the warnings and the pleading to follow an atrocity prevention approach to Sudan.
This week, as we have heard, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard from witnesses across Sudanese and western agencies that the UK Government have ignored repeated warnings. Indeed, a letter from the UK Civil Society Atrocity Prevention Working Group says that
“As violence broke out in April, the Sudan team had in place no expertise on the dynamics of atrocity violence; no system of urgent alarm raising”
and no guidance, and had undertaken no training to address these issues. The SNP has called for an atrocity prevention strategy for years. The 2021 integrated review should have included one, so why has all of this been ignored? When will the UK Government change their strategy to accommodate such an approach, and will they bring to the House details of how they are going to take that forward, along with all of the other answers that should be heard today?
Leo Docherty
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford for her deep expertise and experience, and for tabling this urgent question today.
We did not ignore warnings. We have absolute confidence in our diplomats, our civil servants, and those members of our institution who have deep expertise in Sudan. They do not have a crystal ball; they cannot predict every last machination in a conflict that is highly complex and extremely volatile. Diplomacy is the art of the possible, as is peacebuilding, and that is where our diplomacy, considerable humanitarian investment and expertise will be focused.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On the Wagner Group, my hon. Friend said that he keeps matters under constant review and close watch. When will it be time to stop watching and do something?
Leo Docherty
I cannot comment on any timescale; it would be inappropriate for me to do so.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am really grateful to the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for shining a spotlight on this, because for too long the international community has not directed its attention to it. Civil society groups reported to my Committee a month ago, and said that they are going unheard when they have been trying for years to raise concerns. Despite rising conflict and reports of atrocities across the region, the Government have continued to make cuts in UK aid in east and central Africa. FCDO bilateral aid to Sudan dropped sharply, from £220 million in 2021-22 to just £25 million the following financial year. Against a backdrop of ongoing conflict and severe humanitarian suffering, what assessment has the Minister made of reversing these cuts, especially in relation to preventing conflict, stopping the atrocities and building peace?
Leo Docherty
We do engage and we have engaged with civil society groups, so we do care about their perspective. Our ambassador and his team have a long track record of engaging with civil society, youth, women and Darfuris in Sudan, and that will continue, notwithstanding the security constraints they currently face, so we do have a good track record of engagement with civil society. The hon. Member mentioned the scale of our investment. Despite the fiscal reality with which we live and our responsible approach, we should be proud of the fact that, over the past five years, we have invested a quarter of a billion pounds in Sudan in humanitarian aid. We should therefore be confident that our significant investment, twinned with our diplomacy, can have a significant effect.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Islamic festival of Eid al-Adha is due to take place—that is the prediction—next Wednesday. This should be a time of great joy for Muslims across the world, but clearly it is not going to be in Sudan. Could the Minister advise the House on what action he is taking to at least try to negotiate a ceasefire during the festival, so that people can celebrate even if in terrible circumstances?
Leo Docherty
I thank my hon. Friend for making that good point. The festival of Eid al-Adha should provide an opportunity and an opening for peace. We will continue to make that point, and push it with our Gulf partners particularly, in our diplomatic efforts, in concert with members of the African Union.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In normal times and peaceful times in Sudan, large quantities of food crops such as sorghum and millet—and corn, barley and others—are grown. If in this planting season we do not see these crops being sown, we could have a massive widespread regional catastrophe on our hands. Can I take it that the Minister understands this issue and that maximum effort will be made via diplomatic channels to see that these crops are planted this year?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Member raises an extremely pertinent point. The food crisis in the region is acute. It has been exacerbated by constraints in global supply, and the catastrophic impact of Putin’s war in Ukraine, in cutting off the global supply, has had a very significant impact, especially across the African continent. We will of course do all we can to improve not just conditions in the east African region, but the global supply of grain, which is where things such as the Black sea grain initiative are important on a geostrategic scale.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Africa, which will have a quarter of the world’s population by 2050, has many great and powerful economies with which we trade. So what representations have the Government made with the African Union, to which we have an ambassador based in Addis Ababa, about the role the African Union is going to play to remedy this absolutely horrendous situation?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I think the African Union is a very valuable partner, and we have an important role to play. At its core, this is about reform, the promotion of enterprise and societal development, and institutional capacity building. That is the route towards more sustainable and long-term economic development, which means countries will be more resilient when it comes to climate change.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Important humanitarian initiatives in Sudan have been closed down by the authorities in Darfur, including those of the UK charity Tearfund, which is referred to in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the Minister see any prospect of those initiatives being able to reopen in the foreseeable future?
Leo Docherty
We must be realistic: it is hard to see an opportunity in the near future, but that does not stop us being very energetic in our diplomacy. Peace will be the gateway to such organisations returning to their work, so we will exert all efforts possible.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I have received many pieces of correspondence from constituents deeply concerned about the horrendous situation in Sudan. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to support Sudan’s neighbouring countries as civilians flee the ongoing violence in Sudan?
Leo Docherty
That is a good question because the regional impacts are very significant. All countries in the region are a focus of our humanitarian efforts and investment by the UK international development fund. We hope that that, twinned with our diplomacy and the very active diplomatic efforts of our Minister for Africa and Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—he has recently been in Ethiopia and Egypt, for example—can bear fruit.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
We stand here many times to remember and commemorate genocides, and we say, “Never again,” but genocides are not inevitable. Twenty years after the Darfur genocide, unthinkable crimes are taking place. The Government were warned repeatedly about the atrocity risks in Sudan. Will the Minister pledge today to ensure that atrocity prevention training is given and informs all of our work in all of our country teams?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady makes a good point and I am sure the Minister for Africa will look at exactly that.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is the Minister aware of concerning reports that Eritrean refugees in Sudanese camps, who have already fled violence and oppression in their own country, are now facing targeting, violence, oppression and deportation from Sudan? When he is taking part in the various diplomatic initiatives he has outlined, will he make sure this is investigated and support provided where needed?
Leo Docherty
Yes, I think I can give an assurance that the Minister for Africa will do exactly that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response to this urgent question, and the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for her assiduous commitment to highlighting all these issues across the House. It is estimated that since 15 April fighting in the city of El Geneina in Darfur has taken the lives of 1,100 people, and it is increasingly coming to light that many of them are not soldiers in combat but civilians fleeing the city in fear of their lives. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with our allies to enable women and children to get to safety, and what steps can we take to stop this carnage?
Leo Docherty
The protection of women and children is at the heart of our diplomatic efforts and we discuss that with our allies in all fora, including the African Union and the UN. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
Business of the House
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
The business for the week commencing 26 June will include:
Monday 26 June—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, followed by consideration of a Lords message to the National Security Bill.
Tuesday 27 June—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate in the name of the official Opposition—subject to be announced.
Wednesday 28 June—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message, followed by Second Reading of the Holocaust Memorial Bill.
Thursday 29 June—General debate on the fishing industry, followed by general debate on artificial intelligence. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 30 June—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 3 July includes:
Monday 3 July— Second Reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill.
Tuesday 4 July—Estimates day (4th allotted day)—subjects to be confirmed.
Wednesday 5 July—Estimates day (5th allotted day)—subjects to be confirmed.
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 6 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill, followed by a general debate on building safety and social housing, to mark six years since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, followed by business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 July—The House will not be sitting.
It might also be helpful for the House to know that, following further discussions with the Procedure Committee and Mr Speaker, it is the Government’s intention to bring forward a motion next week for the House to consider the extension of the proxy voting scheme for ill health and injury.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. Today we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the arrival of the first people from the Windrush generation. They made their homes in cities such as Bristol. They built their lives here, they had their children here, and we are proud of the contributions they made throughout their whole lives. After years of their dedicated public service in the NHS, transport and industry, I have to ask, why are the Government treating these now 60, 70 and 80-year-olds so badly?
The Home Office has failed to process more than 2,000 of the claims for compensation. More than a third have been waiting more than six months for a decision. It is expensive and complex, and just getting to that point is hard enough. A lack of access to affordable legal advice is stopping people from even applying for compensation. Can the Minister tell us when the Home Office will clear that backlog and give people the compensation they are owed? What are the Government doing to make the process fairer and more efficient? Will she ensure that those who need it get specialist help? There is a deep sense of injustice in communities such as mine in Bristol. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Home Secretary to come to the House and make a statement, so that the people we represent can get the answers they deserve?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to Members looking at their watch that the shadow Leader of the House has up to five minutes?
Thangam Debbonaire
I have done only 90 seconds.
I thank the Leader of the House for stepping up while the Prime Minister stepped aside in Monday’s vote to start restoring trust in democracy. It is a very low bar, but a big improvement on her predecessor but one, who tried to rip up the standards system when faced with a similar situation. As grateful as I am, it must have been difficult for the Leader of the House, with no Prime Minister to rally the troops, no Cabinet colleagues on the Front Bench to cheer her on and a roll call of Johnson’s sycophants behind her. I am afraid to say that the Leader of the House looked a rather lonely figure on the Government Front Bench—a Tory version of Greta Garbo; glamourous, but all alone. For most of the debate, she was seemingly the only Cabinet Minister holding the torch for any level of standards in public life. However, I know she will be pleased that her powers of persuasion worked wonders over some of her Back Benchers. In fact, more than 100 of them backed her motion.
The current Prime Minister was perhaps slightly less pleased and more nervous that the sword-carrying second favourite to replace him secured an unexpected amount of support. If so many Tory Back Benchers found the strength to do the right thing, why couldn’t the Prime Minister? Not only did he fail to vote, but he was too weak to utter a single word of substance on this issue. We do not know where this Prime Minister stands on standards. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether the Prime Minister plans to sit out all future votes on integrity, professionalism and accountability? Where was he?
The Leader of the House famously once reassured this House that another Prime Minister was not hiding “under a desk”—words immortalised on the BBC’s “Newscast” intro. I hear news from the parliamentary Press Gallery reception that she is a big fan of the podcasts, so I will end by tempting her to update “Newscast” and this House: is that where the Prime Minister really was on Monday evening—hiding under a desk?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I join the hon. Lady in saying how good it was this week to see the Windrush generation, and all their contributions to our nation, treasured and celebrated. The Windrush scandal—the injustice done to those people when they had given so much of themselves, and their families’ lives, to this nation—is a tremendous stain. I shall certainly ensure that the Home Secretary has heard what the hon. Lady said. She will know that the Home Office has stepped up bespoke surgeries for colleagues on other matters in our casework; I am sure that that could be extended to any cases of the Windrush generation that Members are dealing with.
I shall take all compliments that the hon. Lady gives me about my glamour, but I was not alone on Monday. Many Cabinet colleagues were in the same Lobby as us, as were the Chief Whip and the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. I repeat what I said in the debate: whatever hon. Members thought about the motion that we were presented with on Monday night—whether they agreed or disagreed with it, or agreed and disagreed with various aspects of it—we are entitled to exercise our right to vote in either Lobby, or not to vote at all. I stressed that I very much feel that people should be left in peace to determine the course of action that they deem correct.
The hon. Lady has not said this, but some of her colleagues have pointed to my colleagues and called them cowards. I do not have time to look into the character of each colleague who was not in the same Lobby as us, but of the Conservative Members who abstained or voted against the Privileges Committee, 20 of them are veterans. Between them they have more than 253 years of service. I do not know how many medals they have between them, but one of them has a distinguished service order. These people are not cowards; they are honourable and decent people, and they did what they thought was right. I would say to anyone beating up on Members of this House for voting one way or another, or abstaining, “Even though I no longer have a sword, back off!” I hope that the hon. Lady, who has been nodding, would agree with that. We are at our best when we have that approach to these matters.
I appreciate that we have had a lot of debate this week and are awaiting news on rate rises from the stresses that our economy is under. I was disappointed to hear the lack of confidence expressed this week by those on the Opposition Benches in the resilience and capability of our nation. It does not survive contact with the facts. Last year, British exports to the EU were at their highest since records began. We are the largest service exporter in the world. The UK’s trade balance with the EU has improved. We now have the highest growth of any G7 nation in the last two years, and rank third globally as a priority investment destination.
We are the second nation in the world to have a stock of foreign direct investment worth $2 trillion. We are Europe’s most attractive destination for financial services. We have a trillion-dollar tech economy, and the largest life sciences, film and TV sectors in Europe. We have more people in work than ever before. We are modernising our statute book and can legislate to suit our needs and values on online safety, gene editing and data reform, just to give Members a few examples. We have identified £1 billion-worth of savings in red tape for UK firms and we are reducing compliance costs. We have given UK regulators the ability and resources to make sovereign decisions about globally significant mergers and acquisitions, and now have control over all aspects of our fiscal policy, the way we procure and how we grant subsidies, our taxes, and VAT.
We have scrapped 6,000 tariff lines. We have left the common fisheries policy and many of our ports have had a massive increase in sales; Brixham has gone from £40 million to £70 million in eight years. We now have an agricultural regime that supports the foundations of food production. Free trade agreements and state-level memorandums of understanding will increase our market share in goods and services. On freeports, Teesside alone is estimated to create 18,000 highly skilled jobs.
Are we still at the heart of Europe? Do they listen to us? Does NATO? Yes, they damn well do. I am proud of Britain’s leadership, seen again this week on Ukraine. Ditto AUKUS. Ditto the Atlantic partnership and declaration, and our work at the World Trade Organisation. The British public should be confident in the nation and the decisions that it took, even if Labour is not.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I would vote for that. Windrush deserves prominence, but we should not forget SS Ormonde, which landed in Liverpool in 1947 and SS Almanzora, which landed in Southampton in 1947.
The Leader of the House has announced the debate on the holocaust memorial. In that debate I will say that I look forward to a holocaust memorial being built within two years at a far lower cost, but I will argue to detach the learning centre from it and to have a fast competition for a more appropriate memorial, so that most of the money can be spent on the education centre.
My question to the Leader of the House follows a question I put to the veterans Minister in Cabinet Office questions. Will the Government please consider giving the Cabinet Office more power to decide which of those people still stuck in Afghanistan should be given permission to come to this country, such as the person I mentioned, who had been secretary to a governor in a province? I have written to my right hon. Friend in the Cabinet Office and to the Minister for Security in the Home Office, and I hope that the Leader of the House will consider whether more power should be given to that Department, as the Ministry of Defence is failing to extract people who served this country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the important Holocaust Memorial Bill. There are many different views about the right approach, but we can all agree that we want something done swiftly. It would be great to ensure that as many survivors as possible could be around to witness its fruition.
I completely understand his concern for the brave people in Afghanistan who were associated with the coalition’s work. He is obviously doing all that he can to ensure that his suggestion is heard by Cabinet Office colleagues, but I will make sure they have heard what he has said.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
“Eternal Father, Strong to Save”, written for those in peril on the sea, is one of my very favourite hymns. It calls to mind the dangers that those brave enough to venture forth on sometimes stormy waters can face, whether those who travel down to its very depths or those risking their lives to escape war, persecution, famine or drought. Our hearts go out to all those currently lost and their loved ones, but the contrast in approach to recent events is telling. Where were the same levels of energy and resources to help the 750 poor souls crowded on board the vessel that capsized near Greece last week, in what will surely rank among the worst catastrophes in the Mediterranean in recent history?
It is a source of tragic irony that this year’s Refugee Week immediately follows that horrific incident. It also reflects a growing global humanitarian crisis on which this UK Government continue to turn their back. Seeking asylum is a human right, but rather than providing safe and legal routes, this Government choose to abdicate their responsibilities under international human rights law, from the Afghan resettlement scheme to Rwanda deportations and the refugee ban Bill. While Ministers continue to reflexively parrot “stop the boats” to questions on the topic, this week the UK’s leading medical bodies called for an urgent meeting with the Government, warning that plans to detain children indefinitely under the Illegal Migration Bill pose the risk of “unimaginable levels of harm” to their physical and mental health. Can we have a debate on the long-term health impact of that legislation and Government’s immigration and asylum policies?
Scotland stands ready to accommodate refugees and asylum seekers. Glasgow remains the local authority with the most dispersed asylum seekers in the UK, while Scotland has taken in 20% of all Ukrainian arrivals under the sponsorship schemes. If the Home Office really wanted to assist, rather than enriching Tory-appointed private contractors it could provide the necessary funding for local authorities across the UK. Today, over 110 million people have been forcibly displaced from their homes. That figure will only grow in the coming years. [Interruption.] Can the Leader of the House and her fellow advocates of global Britain tell us how they intend to step up to meet the challenge?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady is shouting loudly because I am coughing! This is not a good way to do things. We have to get a grip of time, because a lot of Members want to get in, and we must look after them.
Penny Mordaunt
First, I thank the hon. Lady for the sentiments she expressed about the rescue operation taking place as we speak. I was proud to say the naval prayer at the armed forces flag-raising ceremony that many Members attended. She is right to point out the dangers of crossings on the Mediterranean and right to refer to that appalling situation. Clearly, investigations are ongoing with regard to the coastguards’ activities. I remind Members that it was in a similar incident a few years ago that more people were lost in one night crossing the Mediterranean than were lost on the Titanic. That is why we must use every means at our disposal to stop people-trafficking operations and ensure we have a refugee and asylum system—not just in the UK, but a global set of rules—that enables us to direct finite financial resources to help those most in need and to take people who are lingering as we speak in refugee camps and other places, rather than one that encourages people to make dangerous crossings and puts funds in the way of people-trafficking organisations. I would just stress that to her.
We speak about many topics and matters, but we sometimes forget the personal impact on individuals of the polices our Governments make. One individual this week, Fergus from Inverness who worked in the legal profession for many years and will shortly be drawing his pension, is really dismayed at what is happening in Scotland. He is against the deposit return scheme and wants someone to come and sort that out; he is against the ill- thought-out marine protected areas; he is against the SNP’s transition from oil and gas; and he is against the SNP riding roughshod over UK equality Acts. What would be the hon. Lady’s advice to Fergus? What would she suggest to him, given that Fergus is an SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament who this week voted to support a motion of no confidence in his own Government’s co-leader? I have some advice for Fergus: fill out an application form to join the Conservative party and hand it to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who is standing up for his country- men and his nation.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
First Bus, without any warning or consultation, recently announced major changes to bus services in Newcastle-under-Lyme, including, most significantly, the withdrawal of the No. 4 service to Audley and Wood Lane from 2 July—in less than a fortnight’s time—which will mean that people will not be able to get to work or college. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is not appropriate for bus companies to do that after so little consultation with local residents? I am grateful to the interim managing director for agreeing to meet me tomorrow, but may we have a debate about the way bus companies do such things with so little warning and consultation with local residents?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on standing up for his local community. Whatever changes and adaptations are made to services, they need to be done in consultation with residents. If that has not happened, there needs to be a pause to enable that to happen. These are incredibly important services and that is why we have been backing local bus services with a further £300 million over the next two years, which includes £140 million to combat any indications of reductions in service.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the Backbench Business Committee heard applications for estimates day debates. Following the hearings, we selected the following subjects for debate: the spending of the Department for Work and Pensions; the spending of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on measures relating to energy infrastructure; the spending of the Department for Education on adult and post-16 education and further education colleges; and the spending of the Ministry of Justice on His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Those four debates will take place on Tuesday 4 July and Wednesday 5 July, but not necessarily in that order.
We have had a number of occasions recently when the House has adjourned early or relatively early on Government business days. If the Leader of the House and her colleagues have any inkling in advance about such early finishes in future, there is the possibility that the Backbench Business Committee, in conjunction with applicants, might be able to fill the void and conjure up debates to fill the space. We have mentioned that in the past. If Government business were to run to time when we had something lined up, we would just park it and bring it back at a future date. We are always trying to be flexible, but we are also trying to be helpful.
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is always flexible and helpful, and I thank him for the helpful advert of his Committee’s deliberations. He makes a good suggestion. I want to ensure that Members have time to debate matters, particularly legislation, but if they do not want to take it up, we should still use our time well in this place. I will follow up his suggestion with him.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Canadian Solar and Windel Energy are proposing to build a solar plant in Rutland and the Stamford villages. This week, the Planning Inspectorate published my response, but they redacted the words “Modern Slavery Act”, all mentions of the Uyghur and even quotes from the Energy Secretary. On top of that, The Times has reported deeply inappropriate approaches from those companies, asking me to drop my opposition in return for a school, a playground, a swimming pool or something I might like. They say that it has been done before. Who can I go to in Government to ask for advice on whether the Planning Inspectorate can make those redactions and for support in dealing with a deeply inappropriate approach?
Penny Mordaunt
That does sound inappropriate. I have some experience of dealing with similar companies in my constituency. It is difficult for colleagues when some of our concerns refer to, for example, issues of national security or other matters that are slightly outside the Planning Inspectorate’s direct lane. I will write to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and ask for some advice. It is difficult for colleagues—we do not wish to put Ministers who may make decisions further down the line in a position that they cannot be in, but we also need advice. I shall see what advice I can get for my hon. Friend so that she can ensure that the right thing happens.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House and all Members for their warm words about the Windrush generation. Actions speak louder than words, and as the right hon. Lady said, the personal impact that Government policies have on individuals can be forgotten. With 74% of claims not being resolved, more people are likely to die before their claims are resolved. Will the Leader of the House not just speak to, but work with the Home Secretary to simplify and accelerate the Windrush compensation scheme?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for what she said. The media have highlighted this week cases such as she described. Whether it is the Windrush scheme or other compensation schemes that are administered by the Government, it is very much understood that the payments need to be swift. We do not want to add further injury to the damage already done. I know that the Home Secretary takes the matter very seriously, but I assure the hon. Lady that I will do all I can from my office to ensure that people get their compensation in the shortest possible time and to facilitate any cases that hon. Members have where that is not happening.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
With the prospect of the Victoria Tower being refurbished on the exterior, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the interior will be done at the same time? I have heard that there may be a quirk in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 that means that we can do only the outside, and that we will have to do the inside later, which may add considerably to the cost.
Penny Mordaunt
My right hon. Friend is very knowledgeable on those subjects. I can tell him that that argument has been put forward to me by other quarters, but I have looked at it and there is no impediment to the outside and the inside of the tower being done at the same time. I know that I speak for Mr Speaker and others when I say that we want the work to be done well, with the least disruption, while also ensuring that there is value for money for the taxpayer.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Supporting the Privileges Committee report on Boris Johnson earlier this week, the Leader of the House said
“the integrity of our institutions matter.”—[Official Report, 19 June 2023; Vol. 734, c. 585.]
Mr Johnson’s actions were not right, and they were not honourable. The Leader of the House is also Lord President of the Privy Council, so can we have a statement from her, in that role, on whether she would recommend that Boris Johnson be stripped of his title as a right hon. Privy Counsellor?
Penny Mordaunt
I understand why the hon. Lady and Members are exercised about this matter and cross at the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and former Prime Minister. As a matter of information, such a thing would be advice from the Prime Minister given to the King, and I would prefer His Majesty to be kept out of such matters. The threshold, for people who have been booted off the Privy Council previously—for example, having committed financial fraud—is much higher than the situation we were discussing on Monday. I understand where she is coming from and her motivation, and the integrity of all these systems is very important, as I said on Monday, but I do not think it is an appropriate course of action in this instance.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
This morning I was contacted by Leyland police, which executed a warrant on a property in Leyland and discovered items of such concern that it arrested a gentleman at the property and put an extensive cordon to protect people’s safety in the Broadfield Drive area. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how I can best communicate my gratitude to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire for the swift action that Lancashire police has taken today, which has almost certainly kept the British public safe?
Penny Mordaunt
I hope all will be well in my hon. Friend’s constituency. She has arrived at her own solution. I will make sure that the Policing Minister has heard her remarks. On behalf of the whole House, we should thank her local force for its proactive policing and for all it is doing in this ongoing investigation to keep the community safe.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration of interest. Pneumoconiosis, the coal dust lung disease, is still prevalent in coalmining communities and is still a major cause of death. National Union of Mineworkers advice centres are reporting that Government lawyers have become increasingly difficult on applications for compensation. Can we have a debate in Government time on how the Government can assist, rather than resist, these compensation applications from families who have lost their loved ones?
Penny Mordaunt
Given that the relevant Department’s next questions will not be until after the summer recess, I will write on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf to make sure it has heard his concerns. As with all such cases, if I can facilitate surgeries and engagement with the relevant officials in that Department, I am always happy to do so.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
There is an emerging scandal that the drone technology and other sophisticated weaponry being used by Russia in Ukraine, having been supplied by Iran, uses technology supplied by British universities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) raised this with the Prime Minister yesterday, and the Prime Minister agreed that a cross-Government investigation will take place. I have written to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade with full details, and it is quite clear that this is an emerging scandal and a threat to our national security.
At the same time, the executions continue in Iran. There have been attacks this week by the Albanian police on the Ashraf peace camp for Iranian refugees, and there is pressure on the French to prevent the Iranian resistance from holding its conference next weekend. Can we have a debate in Government time on Iran’s nefarious activities, and on making sure our national security is safeguarded?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions, as he raises a number of concerning issues. I thank him for all the work he is doing to bring this matter to the attention of the Business and Trade Secretary. He will be aware of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, but I shall make sure that that Department knows he has also raised this matter today.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Renters Reform Coalition held a parliamentary drop-in event yesterday to brief Members on the forthcoming Renters (Reform) Bill, but the RRC and many other stakeholders are becoming concerned that it is more than a month since the Bill had its First Reading. Will the Leader of the House therefore enlighten them as to when the Second Reading debate on this crucial Bill will take place?
Penny Mordaunt
I know that that Bill is of great interest to many Members, in all parts of this House. The hon. Gentleman will know that I will say that I will announce business in the usual way, but I am optimistic that he will not have long to wait.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for confirming the Second Reading debate next Wednesday on the Holocaust Memorial Bill, which will facilitate the holocaust memorial to be built in Victoria Tower Gardens. Does she agree that that is a good opportunity for Members from across the House to work together to deliver this memorial, which is a commitment of successive Governments and will be a fitting memorial to those remarkable survivors of the holocaust and those people who have given so much of their lives to holocaust education?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and I agree entirely with his sentiments. Again, let me reassure him that we are doing all we can to make sure that this is brought forward in the swiftest possible time. The House of Commons has a working group to ensure that any work on restoration and renewal or other things is deconflicted with the work going on to produce this important memorial. It will also be very important to the ongoing work of education on those appalling events.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House will know that we are about 30 minutes away from what is likely to be difficult news for homeowners and renters across the country, with expected rises in interest rates, on top of rising food prices, on top of the energy price hikes that they have seen. I have been speaking to people from businesses in my constituency that are locked into long-term energy deals that they cannot get out of. That is having a huge impact on their businesses and on their ability to employ people and generate growth in our economy. Will she ensure that a statement is made by a relevant Minister on what is being done to ensure flexibility in the energy market for business customers, so that they are not locked into ridiculously high prices if wholesale prices come down?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an issue that is frequently raised at business questions. As with previous questions, I will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard what has been said today. The hon. Gentleman will know that the next departmental questions are on 4 July and I encourage him to put that question directly to the Secretary of State then.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Pupils have been denounced as “despicable” for failing to accept the reality of a fellow pupil who identified as a cat. May we have a debate on Confucius, for it was he who observed that the most difficult thing is to search a dark room for a black cat, particularly when there is no cat?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for not only the question, but the typically dramatic way in which he asked it. I shall leave Confucius aside and deal with the heart of the matter he is getting at. Obviously, the Department for Education is currently reviewing guidance to schools on these matters and I understand that the Education Secretary has launched an investigation into the incident to which he refers.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Today, on the 75th anniversary of the arrival into the UK of the Windrush generation, which included my grandparents, I have written to the Home Secretary, along with other politicians and leading public figures, to call on her to right the wrongs of the Windrush scandal. May we have a Government statement on the compensation scheme and, more importantly, moving that scheme to an independent body so that those from the Windrush generation can finally get justice?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady adds her voice to others we have heard in the Chamber on this matter. As with them, I will ensure the Home Secretary has heard her remarks, and I am aware of calls for the matter to be moved to the Cabinet Office.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Following the Prime Minister’s AUKUS submarine agreement, Rolls-Royce has announced it is creating over 1,100 new jobs in a massive expansion of its Raynesway plant, in my constituency of Mid Derbyshire. That is fantastic news for the whole local economy. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement about the benefits that the AUKUS agreement will have for UK businesses, and for the 200 apprentices per year who will start at the Rolls-Royce nuclear skills academy and have the opportunity to work on world-leading submarine technology?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend on that fantastic news and thank her for the role she has played in championing those incredibly important parts of our supply chain, which enable us to be as proud of our defence sector as we are. The AUKUS deal is so much more than a submarine deal. It is about our trade and our interoperability, and will contribute to our prosperity and security. I congratulate all those involved in it. She will be able to raise the matter at the next Defence questions, on 26 June.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Leader of the House will know that people living in rural communities have disproportionately higher costs, for example because of transport and older buildings, than people living in urban areas. I have asked time and again of her Government to take some cognisance of those living off the gas grid, who are effectively subsidising those on the gas grid, and to do something about equalising things for them while they face increased mortgage rates and food price inflation, on top of everything else. Can we finally have a debate, in Government time, on the pressures on rural communities and the need to do something to help them?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent strategy produced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, looking at precisely these issues and everything that rural communities need to thrive. I will make sure she and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero have heard his concerns. The hon. Gentleman can raise the issue with the DEFRA Secretary on 6 July.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
This is Drowning Prevention Week. Three weeks ago, in Bournemouth, a 17-year-old boy and a 12-year-girl drowned in the sea close to the pier. It is thought there was a sudden rip tide. The girl’s name was Sunnah Khan and she lived in Buckinghamshire. Her mum, Stephanie, came to see me on Monday to ask me to help to avoid similar accidents in the future. Can we have a debate, in Government time, on ways to raise awareness of the dangers of open water, especially the risks of rip tides, as a tribute to Sunnah and to 17-year-old Joe, who died on the same day, and to all those who tragically lose their lives through drowning each year?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure I speak for all of us when I say how sad we are to hear of that appalling tragedy and the loss of Sunnah. Our thoughts are with her family at this incredibly difficult time. My hon. Friend raises a timely question, because with the warmer weather more people are likely to take to the water. It would be an excellent topic for a debate. I thank him for advertising his interest and I encourage him to apply for one, as I think it would be well attended.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Earlier this year, Capita experienced a cyber incident and data breach. Among the data potentially accessed, was information relating to members of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme. Many of my constituents in Barnsley are now very concerned that their details might be used fraudulently. Will the Leader of the House commit to a statement on what is being done across Government to support everyone impacted by the breach, what discussions have taken place with Capita and what action has been taken to protect against future breaches of this nature?
Penny Mordaunt
I am very sorry to hear that. I know that this will be a matter of great concern to all those who may have had their data hacked in that way. Obviously, I cannot discuss the individual case with the hon. Lady today, but I can reassure her that Government take a proactive role in this. Prior to the incident, they will have been working with that organisation to ensure that it had not lost information, that systems were backed up and that there were some basic tools in place. I know, too, that they will have oversight of the ongoing incident and I can reassure her on that point. If she needs any further assurance, I will write today to the Cabinet Office and the Government’s One HMG cyber lead to make them aware of her interest in this matter.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
On this 75th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush, when we celebrate the contribution of the Windrush generation and the wider black community in Britain, can the Leader of the House commit to having a debate on health disparities, so we can ensure that every action is being taken to tackle the problem, which means that, for so many black women, maternity healthcare outcomes are poorer than they are for women from other ethnic groupings? This is an important issue and we need to tackle it.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my right hon. Friend for what she said about the Windrush generation and add her remarks to the growing letter that I will be penning to the Home Secretary. She is also right to point to the importance of tackling health disparities. Of course, part of the damage that was done to many of those from the Windrush generation was that they were denied access to the healthcare that they should have had. I know that in some services, including maternity care, as she mentions, there are concerns about poor outcomes for particular groups. I shall make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard her concerns, but she will know that he is gathering data on integrated care boards to make sure that we really understand where people are letting local residents down.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
This Sunday in Glasgow, we will see the start of the Baton of Hope tour of Great Britain. It is visiting 12 cities across Great Britain and will reach Newcastle on Tuesday 27 June. I hope to be there to meet the organisers. They are meeting with a simple message: “Where there is HOPE, there is a real opportunity to save lives”. The organisation was founded by Mike McCarthy and Steve Phillip, who lost their sons, Ross and Jordan, to suicide. It will reach Downing Street on 6 July. Can we have a debate in Government time, please, on suicide prevention, because suicide is preventable and not inevitable?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about that incredible organisation—I think people from that organisation came to Parliament recently to meet a number of colleagues—and for advertising that they will be back in Whitehall and Westminster on 6 July. This is an ongoing issue that is particularly affecting men. Many hon. Members will be concerned about it. I am sure that, if she applies for a debate, it will be well attended.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) has just highlighted that the absurd campaign to rewrite the biological reality of sex reached new heights this week, with a teacher branding a child “despicable” for refusing to accept a classmate was a cat. This comes after an investigation has found that schoolchildren are being allowed to identify as horses, dinosaurs and, in one case, a moon. This type of indoctrination in our education system is deeply disturbing and must be addressed. The rights of parents and children simply must come first. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the steps the Government can take to ensure that our young people are not being exposed and indoctrinated with such nonsense in our schools?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend will know that the Department for Education is reviewing the relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance and is expecting that to go out to public consultation later this year. A huge amount of work has gone into this and the review is being carried out by an independent expert panel, with input from health, children’s development, curriculum experts and safeguarding. He can ask the Education Secretary about this at the next Education questions, on 17 July.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Bracken is a fern that is widespread in upland parts of the United Kingdom. It is carcinogenic and is the breeding ground for ticks, which give people Lyme disease, which can be fatal. My own wife had Lyme disease and it was very unpleasant. The only herbicide that controls bracken is called Asulox, and the Scottish Government have just banned it. It is still allowed in England, but it has been banned in Scotland. Understandably, hill farmers and the National Farmers Union have been in contact with me to express their extreme anger at this move. Can the Leader of the House advise me how we can persuade the Scottish Government to change their mind?
Penny Mordaunt
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about this and I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also hears his comments. There are clearly potential health impacts, which I understand are taken into account when those decisions are made, but I think he is right to raise this as a matter of concern and I shall do what I can to assist him in getting some expert advice.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Can we have a debate on the critical value that oil and gas companies and, crucially, their employees provide—not just energy security for today, but delivering the transition to net zero in the future? Does the Leader of the House agree with the former leader of Aberdeen City Council, Councillor Barney Crockett, who yesterday announced his resignation from Labour on the basis of the Labour party leader’s ideological plans to decimate this vital industry? Whether it is the SNP’s presumption against new oil and gas or Labour’s “Just Stop Oil” approach, is it not the case that only the Conservative party has a pragmatic and sensible approach to making the energy transition a success?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend makes some clear and important points and I completely agree with him. I think the best way I can assist him, given that I will be printing out a Conservative party application form for Fergus, is to print one for Barney too.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and Ahmadiyya Muslims across the country, are concerned about the increasing persecution of members of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan and the impact that that is having here in the UK. I visited Pakistan this year and saw that persecution, the danger to life faced in schools, jobs, housing and places of worship, and threats to the right to vote. Pakistan is a wonderful country, but this is a blight on their country and very concerning to constituents across the UK. Can we have a debate in Government time on this issue?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for shining a spotlight on this tragedy. She will know that the next questions to the Foreign Office are on 18 July, and I encourage her to raise that matter there. However, given that there will be cross-party and cross-House support on the issue, she may also like to consider applying for an Adjournment debate.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Hundreds of thousands of people live on unadopted roads, with no speed restrictions, no traffic calming and no pedestrian crossings. On Fraserfields Way in Leighton Buzzard, there have already been a number of accidents. To me, it is a road safety no man’s land, with the answer lying somewhere between Barratt Homes, the developers, and Central Bedfordshire Council. Will the Government act to minimise the amount of time that residents have to live on these dangerous roads, so we can prevent accidents?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. Usually hon. Members do so in the wake of an accident, so I congratulate him on getting ahead of that and trying to prevent one from happening. I understand his concerns and I will certainly make sure that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Transport Secretary hear his remarks. I also suggest that my hon. Friend might like to raise this on 10 July with the former, who is likely to be able to assist him in his campaign, which again I congratulate him on.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
“We are paid handsomely for the job we do and if you need an extra £100,000 a year on top then you should really be looking for another job.” Those are not my words, although I agree with them, but the words of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). I therefore read with much interest this week that the hon. Gentleman has a show starting tomorrow on GB News, for which he will be paid the sum of £100,000. With that in mind, can we have a debate in Government time on MPs’ second jobs, and does the Leader of the House agree with 100G Lee?
Penny Mordaunt
We did have a debate on those matters—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended it. He will know that the Standards Committee looked recently at this matter and, after much deliberation, felt very much that, as we have had these conversations ad infinitum in this place, what he is suggesting is not the best course of action. I direct him to the Standards Committee report; it made other recommendations, which the House adopted, and in it he can read why that suggestion was not supported by the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman notified the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) that he was going to raise that matter.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Among other services, post offices across Cheadle handle currency transactions and parcel postage, and they have even picked up the pieces after bank closures left customers in the lurch. Now they are concerned about the impact on customers should the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract be lost. For people who need to renew their driving licence or vehicle tax, or get a permit to drive abroad, access to a post office is essential, particularly for the digitally excluded. Post offices are at the heart of all our communities, so will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the value of post offices and how we can ensure their long-term sustainability?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and the campaign she is running to ensure that her local residents have access to those vital services. I am sure that she could apply for a debate, and I know that she has taken part in many debates touching on this matter. She will also be interested to know that the next Business and Trade questions are on 29 June and, with regard to DVLA services, the next Transport questions are on 13 July.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Diabetes UK estimates that in 2022 there were 7,000 excess deaths because of diabetes, and there is huge regional variation in the care provided to diabetes patients depending on the effectiveness of their integrated care board. Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin is the worst performing ICB in England, with only 25% of patients receiving all eight recommended checks in 2021 and 2022. That is a serious problem—people’s health is at stake—so may we have a debate in Government time on improving preventive care for diabetes patients, which would ultimately save lives and save the NHS money?
Penny Mordaunt
I should say that I used to be a director of Diabetes UK, which does fantastic work. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is looking into the data. Previously, we had to rely on organisations such as Diabetes UK to collect such data on local services in their area. He is doing that, and I have been in discussion with him about how to make that data available to Members so that we can track the performance of our local health boards. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: if people get the good year of care that they should for diabetes, we will save the NHS a fortune. I thank her for raising that point.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
A few months ago, I was lucky enough to visit the Wharfedale air cadets squadron in Ilkley to oversee some of the science, technology, engineering and maths-related activities that they have been involved in. Recently, I joined the Keighley air cadets for a special occasion: the new cadets were enrolled and we oversaw the dedication of their new squadron banner. Without doubt, young people benefit enormously from their involvement in the cadets, developing new transferable life skills. With Armed Forces Day fast approaching, will the Leader of the House join me in thanking all volunteers who go above and beyond, giving up their time week in, week out to aid and support cadets not only in Keighley and Ilkley but across the country?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the work of his local air cadets, whom I visited in a former role—they are absolutely wonderful and amazing. I also thank him for reminding us that this is Armed Forces Week—Saturday is Armed Forces Day and yesterday was Reserve Forces Day—and I hope that all Members will take this opportunity to celebrate and thank our armed forces and, critically, their families for their work.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York has long had one of the greatest local housing allowance disparities, and now that mortgages are going up and prices are going up for private renters, many people are having to leave their homes. Can we have an urgent statement on the setting of the broad rental market areas and the disparity that it creates in setting LHA levels?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that matter. She will know that she can raise it with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on 10 July, and I encourage her to do so. I will also ensure that he has heard her concerns about the matter and encourage his officials to get in touch with her.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Pubs play a really important role across our communities and local economies. In Burnley and Padiham, we have places like the Woodman, the Royal Butterfly, the Bridge Inn and the Railway Inn, and I suspect every Member could give a massive list of pubs that are important. I know from speaking to pub landlords that the cost of living is having a real impact on their viability. Could we have a debate in Government time on how we can support pubs, so that they stay at the heart of our local communities?
Penny Mordaunt
I am sure I speak for all Members when I say that we completely agree with my hon. Friend’s praise for these very important community assets. They are not just where we can get a decent pint; they also provide a social network for people, and some have community services run out of them, such as post offices. They are at the heart of our communities and we should treasure them. I agree that a debate would be very well attended. I encourage him to apply for one, and I will also ensure that the relevant Department has heard his concern that we should continue doing all we can to support these important community assets.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
In 2014, this House voted to end the Liverpool care pathway. However, in April 2020 it appears that it was reintroduced under the guise of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline NG163 as a treatment for agitation and breathlessness. Can we have a debate on NG163 and why this national health guidance ordered the use of huge volumes of benzodiazepines and opiates, which are respiratory suppressants, for people who are already breathless?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall certainly make sure that the hon. Gentleman’s remarks have been heard by the Health Secretary. The Liverpool care pathway was ended, and there was a great deal of focus on what really good-quality end of life care should look like. Of course, part of that was the Government’s support for and elevation of the profile of the role of hospices, which I know all Members greatly value. I shall make sure that the Health Secretary has heard his concerns.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House and I both represent great naval cities, so I am sure she will share my disgust at the illegal looting and salvage of second world war Royal Navy ships sunk in the East Java sea. Those wrecks are war graves and the last resting place for hundreds of Royal Navy sailors lost at sea. Will she agree to a debate on how we can ensure the protection of war graves at sea, and how we can encourage the Foreign Office to ensure that there is better diplomatic protection and that the nations around those war graves are looking after them and respecting the lives of the people who were killed in support of our country?
Penny Mordaunt
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have been appalled at the desecration that has gone on. This is not an easy task for those nations. I agree that, where we can give support, we should. It is also very important that we understand the importance of particular artefacts. I know that the bells have been retrieved from some of those wrecks, for example, and are in our dockyards. These are graves, and it is appalling that people are raiding them, whether it be for artefacts or, more appallingly, just for scrap metal. I shall ensure that both the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary have heard his remarks.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
My question is about redundancy modification orders again, I am afraid. On 3 May, I received a response from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities saying:
“Announcements will be set out in the usual way.”
Will the Leader of the House explain what that actually means, considering that I first raised the question of redundancy modification orders in this place on 22 March 2018?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and also for her diligence in pursuing this matter. My team works very hard with Departments and parliamentary teams to ensure that they understand what Members need and why. The moral of the story is that if you send a one-line reply after a Member has been contacting your Department for many months, the Leader of the House will insist that an official from your Department meets with the hon. Lady so that she can be properly briefed on the matter.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
There are 9,900 families—20,000 people—in my constituency facing an increase in their mortgage of about £1,800 per household. They are facing a crisis already. Is it not the case that the Government are using the old philosophy first expressed by John Major: “If it isn’t hurting, it won’t be working”? The truth is that it is not working for the many, but it is working for the few—it is hurting the many, but only working for the few. Can we have a debate in Government time to discuss this cruel, unequal and devastating economic orthodoxy that is damaging so much of our country? We need a new economic settlement.
Penny Mordaunt
First, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that myself and this Government appreciate how people are feeling at this time. People feel that they are being clobbered from all sides, particularly those on fixed incomes; whether it is housing costs, food inflation or energy prices, it is a very difficult time for many people in this country. As he knows, we have this perfect economic storm, exacerbated by things that are going on around the world at the moment. We have to weather that storm, and we are going to do all we can to see individuals and families through this tough time. That is why we have a £94 billion support package for the cost of living, and we are adapting that package and listening to people’s needs as they change.
With particular reference to mortgages, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Prime Minister said yesterday. It is a priority for us, and we have increased support for the mortgage interest scheme and given new responsibilities to the Financial Conduct Authority with regard to a consumer duty to help mortgage holders. This is a matter we take very seriously. I am not sure that I have convinced the hon. Gentleman, but I hope I have assured households that we are going to do everything we can to get them through this time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This week marks the 40th anniversary of the execution of 10 Iranian Baha’i women. They were all given the choice of renouncing their faith or facing the death penalty. Of course, they did not renounce their faith and were murdered by the Iranian authorities. One of them was a 17-year-old student called Mona, who wrote:
“Freedom is the most brilliant word, but there have always been powerful and unjust men who have resorted to oppression and tyranny… Why don’t you let me be free to say who I am and what I want? Why don’t you give me freedom of speech so that I may write for publications or talk on radio and television about my ideas? Yes, liberty is a Divine gift, and this gift is for us also, but you don’t let us have it.”
That was 40 years ago, and those words are as true today as they were in 1983. Since those murders, the memory of those women has brought the plight of the Baha’is to the attention of the international community and inspired the careers of UN prosecutors, and it still feeds into the fight for women’s rights in Iran today. I know that these matters are very close to the heart of the Leader of the House, as they are to the hearts of many Members. Will she join me in paying tribute to the legacy of these incredibly courageous and remarkable women?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of us all, I thank the hon. Gentleman for using business questions to shine a spotlight on some of the world’s most persecuted people, especially women and girls. The Baha’i women and girls he refers to showed incredible bravery in the ordeal that they faced. As he knows, we have announced eight packages of human rights sanctions on Iran since October last year, and more recently, the Foreign Secretary launched the international women and girls strategy in March of this year. We will continue to stand up and speak out for these incredibly brave people.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their presence throughout the entirety of the statement on business.
Ukraine Recovery Conference
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Ukraine recovery conference, which the UK is proud to be co-hosting with Ukraine in London.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister opened the conference, together with President Zelensky live from Kyiv, and the conference will conclude this afternoon. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the conference is planting the seeds of Ukraine’s future. From the speeches from Ukraine’s international partners to conversations with business leaders and civil society representatives, the message that echoes from the conference is one of hope and belief in the tremendous potential of Ukraine’s economy.
Before this terrible war, Ukraine’s economy was becoming a huge investment opportunity. Ukraine was the breadbasket of Europe, a top five exporter of iron ore and steel, a leader in energy and a start-up nation with a thriving tech sector. That opportunity is still there today. The international community has come together to support Ukraine’s recovery and economic future—one that is modern, open, green and resilient. By helping Ukraine’s recovery and economic transformation, we will unlock the potential of the country and its people, help defeat Russia’s aggression, and benefit global security, prosperity and the rule of law.
Putin’s unjustified and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has caused untold misery. Thousands of Ukrainians have been killed, and millions have been displaced, including children. Schools, hospitals and critical infrastructure have suffered damage in Russia’s indiscriminate airstrikes. Ukraine must and will succeed as a free, independent, sovereign and democratic state within its internationally recognised borders. That is essential for the people of Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic region, and for global peace and prosperity. We remain committed to a just and lasting peace based on respect for the UN charter and Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The conference has delivered funding to meet Ukraine’s immediate recovery needs, help it to stay in the fight and lay the foundations for future growth. Ukraine’s partners announced continued support for Ukraine’s budgetary needs for the years ahead, including a new €50 billion EU facility dedicated to supporting Ukraine’s recovery, reconstruction and modernisation. The UK is playing its part. The Prime Minister announced yesterday that, over the next three years, we will provide loan guarantees worth $3 billion.
Nearly 500 businesses globally from 42 countries, worth more than $5.2 trillion, pledged to back Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction in the wake of Russia’s illegal invasion. Big businesses that can work with Ukraine to deliver a more modern, open economy have pledged their support. Virgin, Sanofi, Philips, Hyundai Engineering and Citi are among the companies involved.
Development finance institutions announced mechanisms to provide the seed capital to support private sector-led growth. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development announced its intention to raise between €3 billion and €5 billion of new capital from shareholders. This could provide at least four times the amount in new investment in Ukraine for years to come, including in critical infrastructure. G7 and European development finance institutions launched a new Ukraine investment platform that will promote co-financing to maximise the impact of their support.
The Government of Ukraine and their partners responded to businesses’ demand to extend commercial insurance coverage in Ukraine. The conference launched the London conference war risk insurance framework, which will be backed by G7 members. The framework outlines support for immediate de-risking measures to increase investor confidence, and it will guide efforts in working with the commercial insurance markets to unlock private investment to meet Ukraine’s long-term reconstruction needs. The UK is already delivering on the framework by releasing up to £20 million of funding for the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency to provide guarantees and insurance for reconstruction projects now, while the conflict is ongoing.
As the Prime Minister made clear in his speech yesterday, Russia must pay for the destruction that it has inflicted, so we are working with allies to explore lawful routes to use frozen and immobilised Russian assets to fund Ukrainian reconstruction. On Monday, we laid new legislation to enable us to keep sanctions in place until Russia pays to repair the country it has so recklessly attacked. After the sacrifices and suffering of the war, Ukrainians are hoping for a better future. It is in the interests of Europe and the world that the country they rebuild should be stronger than ever, integrated into western markets and self-reliant. The Government announced a major commitment of up to £250 million of new capital for the UK’s development finance institution, British International Investment.
The true legacy of this terrible war will be a Ukraine that is more modern, innovative, resilient and green. To support this, G7 Governments committed to develop a new clean energy partnership with Ukraine to accelerate the transition to a green energy system that is secure, sustainable, resilient and integrated with Europe, and the conference launched the InnovateUkraine green energy challenge fund to accelerate low-carbon, affordable energy innovation. Ukraine’s partners announced a new tech partnership to help realise the amazing potential of Ukraine’s burgeoning tech ecosystem. With Ukraine we announced a new tech bridge to facilitate investment and support talent between the British and Ukrainian tech sectors. In the interest of encouraging private sector investment, President Zelensky reaffirmed his commitment to the reform path and towards EU membership, which was welcomed by Ukraine’s partners at the conference.
The Government of Ukraine are committed to work in partnership with Ukrainian and international businesses, local government, civil society and the international community to deliver long-term sustainable recovery and development. The multi-agency donor co-ordination platform for Ukraine, whose steering committee met in London yesterday, will continue to help deliver prioritised, co-ordinated recovery efforts. We now hand over the conference to Germany, which will host the Ukraine recovery conference next year and build on the outcomes of Lugano and London.
This conference demonstrates that we and our allies are steadfast in our resolve to support Ukraine not just in the here and now, but for the long term. With Ukraine and international partners, we are planting the seeds of Ukraine’s future. Together with our allies, we will maintain support for Ukraine’s defence and for the counter-offensive, and we will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes as it continues to win this war. Putin cannot hope to outlast our resolve or the spirit of the Ukrainian people. I commend this statement to the House.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw attention to my declarations in my capacity as shadow Minister. I thank the Minister for his statement and advice sight of it, and for his constructive engagement with the Opposition throughout the course of the conference; it was a great honour to be able to attend. We have many disagreements in this House, but Vladimir Putin should be clear of one thing: there is absolute unity across this House on this matter, and our resolute support will continue.
This week has truly underscored that the strength of support for Ukraine—for its sovereignty and nationhood and for the values that we share—is unwavering. It has also demonstrated that our diplomatic alliance stretches across not only the public sector and our Governments but the private sector, and we will continue to stand foursquare behind Ukraine until it is victorious and the full scale of Russia’s barbarous destruction is reversed. I have seen that damage for myself, but I have also seen the resilience and rapid rebuilding the Ukrainians have been able to do even now. However, there are huge challenges ahead, for example in the removal of mines and unexploded ordnance and the huge damage to civilian infrastructure, and of course from disasters like the Kakhovka dam destruction.
For over a year and three months Ukraine has, at an unimaginable price, defended its territory but also the principles of an entire continent—liberty, democracy, self-determination and the international legal order. I thank the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Ukraine-UK inter-parliamentary friendship group and colleagues across the House for their engagement with the parliamentary components of this conference. We had some very successful events in this place yesterday, and I thank the House and the IPU in particular for organising them.
The Prime Minister was right to say yesterday that prior to this barbarous invasion Ukraine was becoming a huge focal point for foreign investment and interest. Across agriculture, raw materials, start-ups, renewable energy and technology, to name just a few sectors, there was so much promise in Ukraine, and it is in the interests of all of us, and most importantly of the Ukrainian people, that Ukraine gets back on a solid economic footing and becomes that internationally competitive nation once again. So Labour welcomes the multi-year commitments made to Ukraine yesterday, including the loan guarantees and other measures that will be critical in shaping Ukraine’s future. Can the Minister provide more information on the timescale for those loan guarantees? How many deals are already in the pipeline as a result of them? Can he also say a bit more about the risk insurance framework, and what role London, as a leading international insurance market, will play?
We also welcome the announcement of $15 billion to Ukraine over four years from the International Monetary Fund, and the announcement of £250 million of extra funding for British International Investment, formerly CDC. However, the Minister will be aware that BII and its predecessor have not worked in Ukraine or that part of the world for a long time. Can he say a little bit more about how it is going to scale up and ensure that that money is used quickly and effectively?
Moving on, as the Minister referred to, the Prime Minister rightly stated that Russia must pay for the damage it has inflicted, saying that
“we’re working with allies to explore lawful routes to use Russian assets”.
That is most welcome, given that we on the Opposition Benches have been calling for the Government to take serious action since last year. Although the UK has been leading in many areas when it comes to Ukraine, I am sorry to say that this is one where the UK is following, not leading. When we look at what has happened in Canada or the EU, or in the US with the new bipartisan Bill being put forward, there are innovative suggestions on how we might legally and quickly secure resources for Ukraine’s immediate reconstruction. We are still getting a lot of “wait and see” from this Government.
The Minister will have heard again and again at the conference yesterday about the desire for Russian state assets to be used. There is lots of expert advice out there publicly on how that might be achieved, so I ask him the same question we have been asking for almost a year now: what concrete steps will the Government take with our allies to ensure the urgent repurposing of Russian state assets, and when can we expect to hear announcements on that? We welcome the announcement about ensuring that existing sanctions will stay in place, which is crucial, but we need to go much, much further.
Briefly, on security guarantees, I was pleased to hear again this week that there is support for Ukraine’s path to join NATO, once it has prevailed in the war. Britain must play a crucial role in securing that, and Ukrainians are proving beyond any doubt that their country is the vanguard for European democracy and security. We must acknowledge that and act accordingly. Can the Minister provide the House with an assessment of support for that course of action across our NATO allies? How will the UK ensure that Ukraine’s voice and wishes continue to be heard?
Finally, I want to come to the important matter of Ukrainian democracy and reform, which the Minister raised and which was discussed in the conference and raised in the speeches of President Zelensky and Prime Minister Shmyhal. Ukraine’s resilience has been tested in ways that many of us would baulk at, and Ukrainians have shown that they will stand firm, but we need to ensure that transparency, accountability and the strength of institutions continue to improve over the years ahead. Otherwise we will likely see further attempts by Russia, or others seeking to profit from the aftermath of this war, to achieve greater influence without having Ukraine’s best interests at heart. President Zelensky said yesterday that
“we all have to realise that the more democracy we have, the greater its strength in our entire region. The more rule of law we have, the more law will work here on the eastern flank of Europe. And the more transparent Ukraine is, the uglier any corruption model will look in Russia.”
Can the Minister say a little more about how we and allies will continue to support the President’s agenda to strengthen and deepen Ukraine’s democracy and resilience?
In closing, I thank the Minister and the Government for their engagement with the Opposition and the House this week on this important conference. The UK is Ukraine’s most committed ally, and that strength of feeling and solidarity will not waver as the war endures, but we cannot take our foot off the pedal. We must use this week as a springboard to secure ever more lasting international support. This week’s demonstration of support will have been met with anguish in the Kremlin, as Russia is further frozen out of the global economy and the international community. Russia must be defeated not only on the battlefield of Ukraine, but in its economic warfare against the people of Ukraine. The focus is rightly now on the counter-offensive at the front and the bravery and courage of Ukrainian soldiers, but we across the public and private sector must show the same level of bravery and courage in our economic counter-offensive.
Leo Docherty
I thank the hon. Member sincerely for his questions and his support, which has been consistent and deeply appreciated. He is absolutely right in his analysis and judgment that the conference as a whole, as well as the discussions we have in the Chamber, show deep unity across British policies and among allies, which is noted in the Kremlin with some discomfort, so I am grateful for his support. He drew an interesting juxtaposition between the terrible damage inflicted upon Ukraine and the tremendous resilience and courageous spirit of the Ukrainians, on which I am sure the House would agree. It was on show yesterday at the conference, for which we are most grateful.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the timeframes for our underwriting of loans. Clearly we are in the primary stages of a lot of this fiscal support and underwriting, but these will be multi-year commitments. While we are in the primary stages, the abundance of opportunities means there is huge capacity to make significant impact, coupled with the work we have done on risk insurance. Again, it is probably too early to say, but the London capital markets and the London insurance market will be central to that effort to de-risk and to empower businesses to invest in Ukraine, and those two things together will leave the UK at the centre of the financial and structural reconstruction and resurrection of Ukraine.
The hon. Gentleman asked a pertinent question about Russian assets. The Prime Minister is on record as stating that, quite rightly, we are looking at all legal routes to ensure that the perpetrator of these appalling crimes and destruction pays. That work is being done at pace, in concert with allies. I cannot announce any more progress today. If it was easy, we would have already done it, but we are looking at that and hope to make progress soon.
The hon. Gentleman made some entirely relevant and interesting comments about NATO, which were relevant given that the Vilnius summit is coming soon. We are an energetic supporter of Ukraine’s path towards that defensive alliance. I cannot pre-empt any discussions or announcements at Vilnius, but the inevitability is that although Putin calculated that he would somehow deter NATO through his outrageous invasion of Ukraine, the NATO alliance has been strengthened as we show our unity towards our near ally.
The hon. Gentleman made good points about the reform journey. What was palpable during the conference yesterday, especially in the remarks of President Zelensky, was the clear appetite of the Ukrainian political leadership and society to take a path of reform right across their society and economy. They know that ultimately prosperity depends upon transparency and a good investor climate. They will be very forward in showing their progress.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I welcome the success of the Ukraine rebuilding conference. It is what we do best in the UK: convening our global partners and bringing them together to support an ally. In particular, I welcome the fact that we have announced that no sanctions will be lifted until Russia pays compensation, but can I push the Government to go one step further and say that no funds will be unfrozen until Russia pays compensation?
In my discussions this week with global private sector leaders, they are making three clear requests as we plan for peace. One is to create that regulatory framework and the environment that allows them to go and do what they want to do to support Ukraine. The second is the importance of judicial reform to give global private sector leaders the confidence that the rule of law will underpin their investments in Ukraine. Finally, they see a transition to a cashless society as pivotal to Ukraine reaching all the opportunities available to it.
I urge my hon. Friend that, in order to help us bring peace sooner, we need to develop and establish an economic Ramstein, whether it be on the margins of the United Nations General Assembly in September, the G20 or the G7. That is the way we make sure that we are supporting the military effort and strangling Putin’s financial foothold that is allowing him to continue to wage war.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee not only for her sustained interest and personal experience, but for her involvement in this conference and her questions today. She is absolutely right about the convening power of our country, which was on show at its absolute best yesterday, but we must deliver on the commitments made at the conference, and we will.
My hon. Friend made a pertinent suggestion about a similar approach to frozen assets, and we will take that away. She rightly outlined that the clear requirement and pre-condition for Ukrainian economic reinvention and renaissance is the improvement of the regulatory environment, the development of a truly independent judiciary and, ideally, the transition to a cashless economy. There is huge appetite across the Ukrainian Government—because they are forward-looking and tech savvy—for those sorts of developments and modernisations, which will allow investment to flow. We entirely support that kind of institutional development. The conditionality of a lot of private capital that now flows to Ukraine as a result of this conference will usefully have those conditions attached, and I entirely agree with her analysis.
My hon. Friend made a pertinent point about the notion of an economic Ramstein, as it were. Yesterday and today show that, in terms of matching our military effort, there is global will—especially among G7 major developed nations—to have a similar economic effort that can be leveraged and mobilised to ensure that while we are giving lethal aid we are also driving economic improvement, because that is what will make victory not just inevitable, but sustainable.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I welcome its contents. The SNP wholeheartedly welcomes the Prime Minister’s pledge at the beginning of the recovery conference to provide the $3 billion World Bank loan guarantees. My colleagues and I, and indeed the whole House, stand in unwavering solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We have always condemned, and will continue to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, Putin’s unprovoked invasion of a peaceful, democratic neighbour.
Our Ukrainian allies are to be commended for never giving up in their fight for territorial integrity and self-determination. Ukraine is fighting not only for the respect and sanctity of its own borders, but for the very principles of world order and the international rule of law. Ukrainian officials and forces must know that until Russian troops withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian land, we will not stop calling for increased and continuing support, both military and non-military.
That brings me to my questions. The Government have yet to detail how they will introduce legislation to move from freezing Russian assets to seizing Russian assets. Will the UK Government follow the lead of the Dutch Parliament, for example, by setting up a trust fund based on seized money from Russia and Russian oligarchs to fund the Prime Minister’s proposed plan to help rebuild Ukraine? How do the UK and its partners plan to bring onboard other Governments who have perhaps been less forthright in supporting Ukraine to date, and how do we plan to rally increased financial support around the world for Ukraine?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions, his supportive comments, and his welcome of the $3 billion-worth of loan guarantees, which we think will make a significant difference. He asked a pertinent question about legislation to make provision for freezing versus seizing. We are still looking at that. We are looking at a robust legal path, and of course in our considerations we will look at the courses of action of other nations. He also asked what efforts we are making to support other countries. Clearly we are very energetic in the provision of lethal aid and our diplomacy therein, but yesterday and today at the conference showed that our ability to convene and to mobilise global capital —the City of London being a major global financial centre—is hugely important. That effort to inject capital to rebuild the Ukrainian economy will be equally as important as our resolute support for its military effort.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Ukraine recovery conference is yet another example of how the UK has led international efforts to support Ukraine. The battles may not be over, but that should not stop us preparing for the peace. We are now all aware, however, of just how important grain exports are. The Minister reminded us that Ukraine is the breadbasket of Europe. Those grain ships are critical not just to Ukraine’s own economy; the denial of them getting out has a knock-on impact on our own economy, with food inflation here running at 18%. Only one fifth of those exports are able to get out. I invite the Minister to see whether the UK, as a P5 member of the United Nations Security Council, could take the lead in upgrading the current UN deal, which may require a UN-led maritime escort force, so that all of Ukraine’s grain can get out. Having visited Odesa a couple of times to investigate that, will he now meet with me to discuss the proposal further?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those remarks, and for his sustained interest and personal experience of Ukraine. He makes a very relevant point: Ukrainian grain exports are hugely important to global supply. They drive all sorts of consequences, from global inflation to terrible deprivation, poverty and attendant conflict in the African continent, so these are hugely important issues. We have put a huge amount of diplomatic energy into the UN Black sea deal, which we think is a good platform, but of course I would be very pleased to meet him to discuss what more we might do in that area.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, but we have an expression in Yorkshire: “Warm words butter no parsnips.” This is the most dreadful war in our European history for many years, and this House will not be sitting for some weeks. How will this House be kept informed about whether the promises and commitments will be delivered on, and about our defence? How will we keep alive the flame and spirit of morale in Ukraine when we are not sitting? Can we not do some symbolic things and tighten the restrictions on Russians living here? Lord Lebedev, appointed to the House of Lords by a former Prime Minister, calls himself Lord Lebedev of Richmond and Siberia. Why has that not been looked into? Why are we not looking at all the Russians coming in and out of Harrods? Why are we not stopping Russians coming in on private jets and helicopters? Let us tighten the sanctions and show that we mean business in supporting the brave people of Ukraine.
Leo Docherty
I think the last two days, and our actions over the last couple of years, show that we do not just speak warm words; we provide lethal aid and global capital. That effort will continue despite the fact that the House will not be sitting, as will our global presence in diplomacy and military support, but of course we will keep Members updated.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I congratulate everybody involved in the conference. It was an honour to meet many of the delegates last night, and the Minister is absolutely right about the great atmosphere of hope. As I have said a number of times in this place, it is vital that Russia, as the perpetrator, pays for the damage it has caused. It is really good news that the Prime Minister has confirmed that is the UK’s intention. The work to use the frozen assets should be happening at great pace, but in the meantime, for the record, will the Minister make it crystal clear that not a single penny of frozen Russian assets in this country will be defrosted until Russia pays?
Leo Docherty
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct: the last two days have embodied hope of a brighter Ukrainian future, based on their tremendous courage and human capacity. When it comes to Russian assets, as the Prime Minister made clear, we are looking at lawful routes. That work will continue at pace, and I am grateful for her sustained interest.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Ukraine’s extensive grain fields provide food not just for Ukraine, but for people living in countries many miles away. The task of recovery from landmines and devastating floods is immense. What in particular are the Government doing to prepare to assist that recovery, and what further steps will they take to encourage a broader range of countries to contribute to that work?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that very relevant point. The impact of the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam was appalling. We have injected an additional £16 million-worth of humanitarian assistance to enable aid partners to help some 32,000 people affected by it. That is on the back of more than £200 million of humanitarian aid last year. I think that our example has encouraged others. The global flow of humanitarian aid to Ukraine in order to deal with the impact of the dam, or to cover anti-mining, is hugely impressive.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Yesterday, I was privileged to meet several Ukrainian MPs who came to Parliament on the sidelines of the Ukraine recovery conference for a series of meetings organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), commented on that in his remarks. That cross-party support sends a crucial message to our friends in Ukraine—a message that those in the Kremlin would do well to think about. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reconstruction of Ukraine will involve sharing experiences and ideas between Parliaments to help to ensure that Ukrainians continue to enjoy a strong democracy, which has lasted throughout this terrible period, for many years to come?
Leo Docherty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Democracy is and will be central to a flourishing Ukrainian society. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet Ukrainian counterparts at the IPU event yesterday. Their role bringing accountability to the system is hugely important to the long-term development and stability of society and the viability of the economy, in which external investors will want to invest. President Zelensky himself referred to the central importance of democracy and the Ukrainian democratic tradition as a pillar of its recovery. We entirely agree and we look forward to a flourishing Ukrainian democracy in the future.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I was interested to hear the Minister talk about the war risk work. If we are to support Ukrainian reconstruction, global public money will have to be spent, as a catalyst to leveraging private sector investment. London’s unique role as an insurance and reinsurance market should put us at the heart of that international effort. Could the Minister expand further on how the House will be kept informed of that effort? Importantly, how can the insurance and reinsurance markets be used not only to de-risk private sector investment in Ukraine but to make it harder for our international partners and those people around the world who are still trading with Russia to do business with Russian businesses on a global scale? There is a real opportunity here, because of London’s unique role at the heart of that global finance sector, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the House will be kept informed. It is a great initiative, but I worry that we will not have the scrutiny of it.
Leo Docherty
The Department will keep colleagues informed through oral and written statements. The hon. Gentleman is correct that public capital is a small component; we are trying to create an environment where global private capital can flow into Ukraine to drive development and long-term sustainable growth. The de-risking of that is a key condition in which the London insurance market will be central.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Our Government deserve great credit for the military and non-military support—£470 million has been given. The World Bank estimated in March that the total rebuilding of Ukraine was likely to cost in excess of £411 billion—that was before the destruction of the Kakhovka dam. Did my hon. Friend detect at yesterday’s conference a willingness among the world’s wealthier nations that for one reason or another have not felt able to participate in the military effort to participate generously in the efforts to rebuild Ukraine?
Leo Docherty
That is a relevant question. I think that there is that appetite. The sheer scale of the economic and financial heft of G7 and non-G7 nations there left us full of confidence that our resolute military effort across allied nations will be matched by global capital.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I welcome the success of the conference. I have just returned from the Council of Europe in Strasbourg this week, where there was genuine and palpable hope about its actions. We all know that what we need to do with Russian assets is seize, not just freeze. Given that London remains one of the money laundering capitals of the world, what more will the Government do to stop the flow of dirty Russian money through the City of London and fully implement and embrace the Magnitsky principles?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments about the Council of Europe and our participation in that important forum. We are working at pace to look at the legal route for seizing, not just freezing, assets to inject that money into the reconstruction effort. We will keep the House updated.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On Tuesday I had the privilege of discussing with Ukrainian telecommunications operator Kyivstar the challenges it faces. As a telecoms network engineer, I want to put on record my absolute admiration for what it is doing to change network design, investing in new technologies to maintain service and coverage in the midst of Putin’s illegal war. Given that it is Putin’s illegal war, should the frozen Russian assets not pay for investment in critical national infrastructure? Will the Minister set out when that money will start to flow?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I acknowledge her expertise. The heroes involved in supporting the telecoms industry in Ukraine should be lauded, as should all heroes involved in keeping the electricity grid and public services running over the past year, during a winter of terrible hardship and outrageous Russian bombardments. We salute the infrastructure heroes of Ukraine, who have shown amazing technological agility. We will keep the House updated as we develop a lawful route towards deploying frozen Russian assets.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
One has only to go out to Ukraine and see the damage caused to realise the scale of the rebuild challenge once the war concludes. However, the reconstruction is already under way; many key pieces of infrastructure are already being rebuilt. Companies in the UK wish to get involved in that, but the travel advice has a prohibitive impact on insurance, particularly for medium or smaller companies that could offer specialist skills in the rebuilding efforts. What work can the Department do to create a framework of advice that reflects the fact that, although some parts of the country are in conflict, given its vast scale, companies could operate relatively safely and appropriately in other parts to help support rebuilding efforts?
Leo Docherty
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s personal interest in Ukraine. He is right that the rebuilding effort must be concurrent to the military effort. That is already the case. British businesses play an important role, and I am pleased to confirm that as part of the conference, the Department for Business and Trade convened hundreds of businesses of all sizes that are energetically seeking the many opportunities that await them in Ukraine.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I want to return to the environmental, humanitarian and agricultural disaster following the explosion at the Kakhovka dam. Mine is the only party calling for a reinstatement of the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on helping countries deal with that type of disaster. Will the Minister consider revisiting that commitment? Could he update the House on the release of the £2.35 billion proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club, which we understand are to be used for humanitarian purposes in Ukraine and are needed now more than ever?
Leo Docherty
On our efforts around the dam, we have committed a significant amount of resources—£60 million of additional humanitarian assistance, with an impact on 32,000 people around the dam. We are confident that our approach has been generous and effective. The hon. Lady asked a pertinent question about the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club, which are now in a non-governmental structure. Work is being done at pace to ensure that the proceeds can be deployed in Ukraine as soon as possible.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I echo other Members’ steadfast support and commend the success of the conference in bringing so many together to support Ukraine’s long-term recovery. I met many Ukrainian MPs at cross-party meetings and talked about the economic counter-offensive that we can join. I echo the comments made by other Members about not just freezing but seizing assets. Some $300 billion of Russian state central bank assets have been frozen by western Governments. The EU, Canada and the US are moving forward with legislation on that, so what steps is the Minister taking within the Group of Seven to use those funds to rebuild Ukraine? Russia must pay for the damage and destruction it is causing.
Leo Docherty
I thank the hon. Lady for her supportive words. She is absolutely right. The economic counter-offensive is hugely important in tandem with our tremendous military efforts to support our Ukrainian friends. On seizing and deploying frozen assets, clearly we pay attention to and co-ordinate with allied nations in their approaches. We will consider their approaches as we forge our own lawful path towards deploying this capital.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his very positive statement and for the Government’s clear long-term commitment, which we all welcome across the House. I am very supportive of the idea hinted at today by several news outlets that Ukraine may be given NATO membership under the same terms as those given to Sweden and Finland earlier this year. With that will come an obligation that means more support, defensively, for Ukraine. Is the Minister able to outline whether that was discussed and at what stage that process is?
Leo Docherty
Of course, I would not pre-empt the outcome of and discussions at the Vilnius summit in July, which will be the major NATO summit to deal with those issues. What is clear is that the security relationship between Ukraine and NATO is increasingly close.
Backbench Business
Infected Blood Inquiry
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Infected Blood Inquiry.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, ensuring that this important issue is considered on the Floor of the House. Over the years, it has been incredibly generous in allocating time to Back Benchers in our attempt to hold Ministers and the Government to account on the infected blood scandal. I also thank the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for working with me to secure the debate and with whom I am proud to co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who are here today and who have fought so hard for their constituents who have been infected and affected. I know of many other MPs who are not able to attend the debate today but support our work.
In opening, I want to say a few words about three individuals among the thousands who have been affected by this scandal, to remind the House of the people at the heart of this debate. First of all is my constituent, Glen Wilkinson. In 2010, he came to see me at my last surgery before the general election. He told me how he had been infected by dirty blood given to him by the NHS. Along with thousands of others, he wanted to know how that was allowed to happen and he wanted a public inquiry. I promised to try to help him if I was still an MP after that general election. It was a very close run thing and I ended up with a majority of just 641, so I was fortunate to be returned. I joined the all-party group and have been very proud since then, with Glen, to fight for truth and justice, not just for him but for all those who have been infected and affected. Of course, we did secure the public inquiry in 2017. Glen is still campaigning for justice despite his health problems, but I know that, as the years have dragged on, the need to keep fighting has exerted enormous pressure on him, his wife Alison and his wonderful family. At this point, it is worth remembering all those family members and pay tribute to those who have been caught up in this scandal.
A few nights ago I could not sleep—it is very hot—and I ended up going online. I read the witness statement to the public inquiry by Nick Sainsbury, whom I had met through Glen and who lived in East Yorkshire. Nick attended the Lord Mayor Treloar College as a child and was one of dozens of children at the school infected with HIV and hepatitis through infected blood products. We know that 72 of those pupils later died. After school, Nick worked as a civil servant and then at the Land Registry, which he said was his dream job, until his mid-30s when he became ill from multiple viral infections. He had to give up his job. He said:
“It was just too much. I was going to work bent double on crutches.”
I want to quote what he said about being HIV-positive in his statement to the inquiry:
“The knowledge that I was infected with arguably the most feared infectious disease since the bubonic plague of the middles ages was hard enough to deal with. The constant reminders on TV and in the newspapers made it very grim.”
Nick campaigned for years for justice. He travelled to many meetings here in Parliament, and attended and contributed to the public inquiry. But just two months ago, Nick sadly died, never having seen justice.
I also want to mention Michele, who currently is not represented in Parliament by a Member of Parliament, but wanted me to raise her case. Michele Claire was given a contaminated blood transfusion following childbirth and consequently developed hepatitis C. She now has stage 6 liver disease. After people in her village found out about Michele’s infection, she received letters through her door saying things like, “We don’t want your type round here”. On compensation, Michele told me:
“Money can cure nothing. It will, however, bring about some dignity and ensure peace of mind going forward.”
My message to the Minister is this: it is time. Action to fully compensate those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal must start now. The Government have accepted that compensation should be paid and that there is a moral case to do so.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will agree with me that my right hon. Friend has done a sterling job in campaigning on this issue for a number of years. Will she join me in paying tribute to Della Ryness and her husband Dan, who sadly passed away last month, who fought the good fight on behalf of their son, who died from this very awful thing, and in thinking about the beautiful granddaughter who he left behind?
Dame Diana Johnson
I am very grateful. This is about people. It is about mums and dads, sons and daughters, and aunts and uncles. We have to remember that. It is about those individuals and their families.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, first, for securing the debate, and, secondly, for the determined way in which she has pursued the issue over so many years. She is right that it is about people. I have been contacted by a number of constituents. One of them is Robert Cardwell. He says that the people who are experiencing this problem are investing a great deal of hope in the debate today. Does she agree that a lot of progress has been made but, if we are going to redeem the need to honour those who have been victims, we need to go that bit further now so that a proper compensation scheme reaches them all?
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. Progress has been made. The interim payments last year were very welcome—absolutely—but we need to do more. As I was saying, victims and their families have waited far too long. The 30,000 people who contracted hepatitis C after being given dirty blood by the NHS have waited too long. The parents of the 380 children infected with HIV have waited too long. Too many of those infected and affected are no longer with us and they will never see justice. They will never hear the Government say that what happened to them could and should have been prevented. They will never receive a penny in recompense for the jobs lost, the relationships destroyed and the life lost.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The right hon. Member is truly to be congratulated on behalf of all those people who have complained for so long, including Judith Thomas and Ruth Jenkins, the wife and sister of Christopher Thomas from Penllŷn, who died of the effects of contaminated blood in 1990. They want us to emphasise that there should be no further delays, given that we know from the interim report what the recommendations are. They particularly want me to emphasise that the infected blood scandal happened before the devolution of health to Wales. Consequently, the financial powers and responsibility to deliver a compensation scheme must remain with the Westminster Government.
Dame Diana Johnson
I hope that the Minister will respond to that particular point when he speaks later.
I want to go back to those who have been infected and affected and are still alive. I hope that today they will witness the Government atoning for what went so systematically and catastrophically wrong. There is simply no excuse for dragging out the process of justice any longer.
It is not as if the scandal has just been discovered, with those in power hearing about it only recently. It is now five years since the infected blood inquiry was launched, and three years since the then Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), wrote to the Chancellor saying:
“I believe it to be inevitable that the Government will need to pay substantial compensation… I believe we should begin preparing for this now”.
Since then, we have had three Prime Ministers, four Chancellors and five Paymasters General. Today, I ask the Minister for the result of all their combined efforts to prepare for paying compensation.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for all her work and for securing the debate. I am sure that she understands the frustration of my constituent, who was a young teenager nearly 40 years ago when he was infected and who has HIV. He just wants justice now.
Dame Diana Johnson
Absolutely. The House is probably united in that view. We want justice now.
We know that the report of Sir Robert Francis KC, which the former Paymaster General commissioned, on a framework for what compensation would look like was presented to the Government at the start of 2022. The former Paymaster General understood that preparatory work could start, ready for the Government to act quickly, when Sir Brian reported—which he did, on 5 April 2023. I am therefore hopeful that the Minister can set out, in detail, all the work that has been undertaken to date when he speaks later in the debate.
The story of how successive Governments responded to those infected and affected by contaminated blood is a story of how a disaster became a scandal.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, which will mean a huge amount to my constituents, Linda Cannon, who lost her husband to hepatitis C from contaminated blood, and Vera Gaskin, who I met recently and has cirrhosis of the liver. The re-victimisation of our constituents is one of the key issues. They have had to wait so long, and the longer they wait, the deeper the trauma becomes. Does the right hon. Lady agree that swift action is crucial and that we need to ensure that Governments do not behave in the same way with other scandals?
Dame Diana Johnson
I could not agree more.
The biggest treatment disaster in the history of the NHS turned into a scandal. Prevarication, obfuscation and delay—that is what victims met for decades. They have had to fight every step of the way. I want to quote from the statement that Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, made when he took the unusual step of producing his second interim report on compensation before he had published his final report, which is due in the autumn. His words are powerful:
“I could not in conscience add to the decades-long delays many of you have already experienced due to failures to recognise the depths of your losses. Those delays have themselves been harmful… My conclusion is that wrongs were done at individual, collective and systemic levels… my judgement is that not only do the infections themselves and their consequences merit compensation, but so too do the wrongs done by authority, whose response served to compound people’s suffering.”
So today we say, “No more. It is time.”
Any further delays to the delivery of compensation are unconscionable. I have lost count of how many times I have told the House that a person infected with contaminated blood dies on average every four days. Sir Brian Langstaff said,
“this compensation scheme should be set up now. It should begin work this year.”
He also stated:
“Time without redress is harmful. No time must be wasted in delivering that redress.”
Does the Minister accept Sir Brian’s recommendations on compensation and redress in full? What progress has been made on setting up the compensation scheme? Has the Minister started registering people for it? Can he make a commitment that the scheme will be up and running by the end of this year? Will the compensation scheme be run by an arm’s length body, chaired by a senior judge and accountable to Parliament? Will each affected and infected person be able to make a claim in their own right? Will he pay interim compensation payments to bereaved parents and bereaved children? If so, when? Will a bespoke psychological service be provided in England, as already exists in other parts of the UK? Will he ensure that people who were infected with contaminated blood and blood products are meaningfully consulted and involved in the process of establishing the new mechanisms for redress?
Before Nick Sainsbury died, he told the infected blood inquiry that “justice delayed is justice denied.” Nick was right. Justice was delayed and, as a result, it was denied to him. It must not be denied to another single person. It is time to launch the compensation scheme and finally deliver justice, not in a few months, not after the next report, but now, now, now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I will call the Father of the House and after that, I will place a formal six-minute limit on speeches because a lot of Members want to participate.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is difficult to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and I will not try to match it. As the Minister may say, it is helpful to think of what we can do in future, the situation we are in now and what has happened.
I commend to those who have not read it Richard Titmuss’s book, “The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy”, which was published in 1970. He made it clear that it was better for people to give rather than sell their blood. The collection of blood in other countries was the biggest problem.
When people were given factor VIII made from contaminated or infected blood, it was done with the best intentions of trying to provide a prophylactic to avoid the dramatic treatments that were needed by people with haemophilia when they started bleeding.
However, that is not the point of the inquiry or of this debate. The point of the debate is to give the Minister an opportunity to update the House in the same way as he kindly met the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and me recently and followed up with a helpful letter. We ask him whether, before the summer session ends, it is possible to give further information, by a written or oral statement so that we can follow that up. Between now and the autumn, a payment scheme should be possible. We want to ensure that the Government are given the most effective, co-operative encouragement and that pressure is put on them.
I speak as someone whose mother had major blood transfusions during the peak period and so, it is on record, did my wife. My mother was the first person in our family to have an HIV test. She was clear. I take an HIV test four times a year, when I give blood. The contamination issue has now been addressed, so the question facing Sir Brian for the remainder of the report is how we got to where we are. This debate is mainly about compensation and the system being brought forward.
The Minister will be able to explain how co-ordination with the other Governments of the United Kingdom and the permanent secretary of the Department of Health in Northern Ireland is coming together. It is accepted that a national scheme will be needed, but are we sure that the names of those affected and infected are being gathered now? It should not start in the autumn, when the scheme is agreed.
Some believe that the scheme’s details are not clear, so it would be helpful if the Minister could make plain how the Government intend to fulfil the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report, based on Sir Robert Francis’s specially commissioned study.
One of our closest friends was HIV-positive, having received infected blood, at a time when people thought they should not associate with those with AIDS or HIV. We did not believe that, and we spent our time socialising as best we could. We also understood the devastating impact on families. I have constituents who are survivors, and I had constituents who did not survive, and I know from all of them what it is like not to be able to get insurance, what it is like not to be able to save into a pension, what it is like not to be able to continue with their job, what it is like not to know whether they have infected their partner, and what it is like to go for treatment and have to explain that, no, they are not an alcoholic—that they do not have that illness—to every person in every hospital or clinic.
Hannah Bardell
That chimes with me profoundly. When I sat down with my constituent Vera Gaskin, she talked about exactly those things. She talked about not being able to get insurance to go on holiday, and so not being able to leave our beautiful country of Scotland, and about being asked repeatedly whether she is an alcoholic, even though she does not take a drop of alcohol. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these people have lived with these things for a lifetime, or since they had those transfusions? Will he also pay tribute to the many people watching today from the Public Gallery?
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The difficulty with where I am standing is that I cannot see the Public Gallery, but I do, of course, pay tribute to them. Those of us who have spent a lot of time with the real campaigners can be their mouthpiece. We have the microphone, but they are the ones Sir Brian rightly listened to at the beginning of his inquiry. Successive Ministers have also listened to them, for which I give them credit.
I think the health service could have done better by giving people a tag, so that they are not asked these difficult questions three or four times a year. I will not take up more time, but I associate myself with what the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said about Glen, Nick and Michele. It is for them that we rely on the Minister, his advisers and the small ministerial group to make an impact in putting right the things that can be put right and in acknowledging the mistakes that cannot be put right.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). I agree that it is important to keep the victims and their families at the heart of this debate. We should all take a moment to remember and to pay our respects to those who lost their fight and are no longer with us.
It is only due to the persistence of activists that the scale of the disaster and the cover-up began to be revealed in 2017. I pay tribute to their determination not to give up, despite some of them being in poor health. I particularly thank Sean Cavens and Bruce Norval, who have provided me with so much information and support over the years. Their effort meant that there was strong cross-party support for a public inquiry before the emergency debate on 11 July 2017.
In that debate, I explained how, as a young surgeon, the revelations of the early to mid-1980s shocked me to my core: to think that in transfusing a patient, I might have exposed them, while trying to save them from trauma or surgery, to HIV or hepatitis. It led me to totally change my surgical approach, and to use every technique available that could reduce blood loss and minimise the need for transfusion. That was 40 years ago. My entire surgical career has passed while the victims are still seeking justice.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly on this matter, and she is right to refer to Bruce Norval and his work. Bruce Norval has pointed out that up to 100 people affected by this scandal are dying each year, and they have not been able to access compensation. It is time to get on with this, isn’t it?
Dr Whitford
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
I pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their meticulous, forensic and dogged examination of all the evidence, and for their sensitivity to the witnesses. They have helped reveal the truth about 60 years of disastrous policy decisions and individual decisions, including the failure to ensure blood transfusion services are self-sufficient and the failure to switch to safer treatments more quickly. In particular, the inquiry exposed systematic attempts to cover up the scandal.
I am not sure whether the Minister attended any of the hearings but, if he did not, he should watch the video recordings, and maybe he would get the merest hint of the suffering of those infected by contaminated blood and their families. I attended a couple of sessions in London and Edinburgh, and it was harrowing even as an observer, let alone for those who had to recount their experiences and relive their pain. Their bravery and determination were humbling.
The inquiry staff did an incredible job of providing support to the victims who came to bear witness, while Sir Brian ensured that they and their representatives were involved in steering the inquiry to its conclusion, with the final report due in the autumn. While that report will seek to ensure that the lessons from this disaster are learned, one of the key aims of the inquiry is to achieve just compensation for the victims and their families.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent contribution. I spoke this morning to my constituent Robert Ross, whose young life has been blighted and ruined. It struck me hard that it feels so desperately unfair that this happened to somebody. In recent times we have seen a mixture of emotions in this place about the way we do things, but one of the undying principles of British and Scottish politics is a sense of fairness. Let us hope that an equitable solution—one that is seen to be fair to these people—can be found.
Dr Whitford
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. The support right across this Chamber is clear.
Money cannot redress the loss of lives and loved ones, nor the reduction in quality of life caused by illness, stigma or caring responsibilities, but it can at least ease the hardship and financial worries that many families face, particularly at the moment. The Leader of the House, when she was Paymaster General, was the first Minister to accept that responsibility for this disaster lay with the UK Government and that financial compensation was inevitable. She commissioned Sir Robert Francis to develop a compensation framework, which he duly delivered last March. The Government refused to publish it, saying they would only publish it along with their formal response. It was finally published three months later, when it was about to be leaked, but with a mere covering letter and no real commitments. Indeed, the Government have still not responded.
It was only after Sir Brian published the first interim report last July and directed the Government to pay interim compensation payments of £100,000 that we finally saw action. These payments were, however, limited to surviving victims and their partners who were registered with support schemes. Nothing was provided to those who had lost parents or children, or who had spent many years as family carers. This issue is particularly important for HIV-affected families, as three quarters of the victims have already died of AIDS, as have many of their partners. Appallingly, they were often not told their HIV status and unwittingly passed the virus on to their loved ones. After 40 years of denial, cover-up and obstruction, there is little trust in the Government, and ongoing delays are exacerbating that distrust.
More than 560 victims have died since 2017, including 67 partners. If the Government want to rebuild trust, they must now respond to Sir Brian’s report from April, which includes all the recommendations regarding compensation, with urgency and action. I hope the Minister has come with more than the blather we have had to listen to in this Chamber for over a year, and is ready to make it clear that the Government accept all of Sir Brian’s recommendations.
On behalf of all victims, whether infected or affected, we need to know when the chair of the independent compensation body will be appointed. We also need a commitment that victims and their representatives will be included in its development. Victims need to be reassured that the system will not be adversarial, so that the process does not re-traumatise those who have already suffered so much. We need to hear from the Minister how bereaved parents and children will be registered now, so that they can receive interim payments quickly and be included in the final compensation process.
I would love to think that this will be the last debate that is needed to achieve justice for the victims of contaminated blood; sadly, I fear that that will not be the case. With an average of two victims a week losing their lives since that debate in 2017, the Government must surely accept that time is of the essence for these people—enough is enough.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on securing this debate. As a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I was delighted to agree to their application for it.
The background to this debate is well known, but it deserves to be on the record again. In the 1970s and 1980s, about 5,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were infected with HIV and hepatitis viruses through the use of contaminated clotting factors. Some of those people unintentionally went on to infect their partners, often because, as has been said, they were simply not aware of the infection they had. Since those times, more than 3,000 people have died, and fewer than 250 of the 1,250 people infected with HIV are still alive. It has to be remembered that they are alive only because of advances in the treatment of that condition, which were simply not available at the time of their original infection. In addition, many people who did not have a bleeding disorder were infected with hepatitis C as a result of blood transfusions during that period. The best estimates we have—of course they are estimates, given that these things were not particularly well recorded—suggest that about 27,000 were infected with hepatitis C. About 10% of them were still alive and seeking justice as of 2019.
It is safe to say that justice has not been speedy or quick for those affected by this scandal. Decades have been spent campaigning for justice, and now it is often being done by a son or daughter, as the length of time that has passed means that the fight is being passed on to a new generation.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I am here this afternoon on behalf of several constituents, but particularly Mr Adam Fleming, who has been adversely affected by this issue and, understandably, feels very passionately about it. May I make a simple plea to the Minister, through my hon. Friend? This has gone on for so many years and a compassionate Government would surely do everything they could to accelerate the payment of compensation. Does he agree with me and many others that now, really, enough is enough?
Kevin Foster
I am only too happy to agree with my right hon. Friend about that. Some of my oldest outstanding cases—I am sure this is the same for him—ones that I inherited from my predecessor, who had been pursuing them for 18 years before my election, relate to victims of this scandal. It is time to bring this matter forward and to give them the justice for which they have waited so long and that they so totally deserve. Sadly, as I mentioned, in many cases it will now be a son or daughter, or the next generation, who is waiting, given the time that has elapsed since the original infection, the inevitable passage of time and the conditions concerned turning into fatal outcomes.
The establishment of the infected blood inquiry in 2017 gave hope that the long wait for justice was finally nearing an end. Although it is making progress, it is worth noting that more than 500 people affected by the scandal are estimated to have died since the inquiry began, in addition to the thousands we have already lost. Therefore, I have no problem in agreeing with my right hon. Friend that there is no time to waste in delivering compensation to surviving victims and others affected.
On 5 April, the infected blood inquiry published its report on compensation and redress. The key recommendation is that a compensation scheme should be set up now and begin work this year. The inquiry chair has said:
“The scheme need not await the final report to begin work, since this second interim report fully covers the inquiry's recommendations on financial redress”.
The report makes several recommendations, including that each affected and infected person should be able to make a claim in their own right; and, given the passage of time, that people should be able to make claims on behalf of the estates of people who have died. Simply the passage of time should not be allowed to reduce the liability for this scandal.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
My friend Steve Dymond died in 2018, and his wife, Su, had had to help him through a very difficult time for 30 or 40 years. He had been infected by blood products and had hepatitis C. I just feel it is time that Su had her compensation.
Kevin Foster
I could not agree more, and the recommendations are welcome. Many who have waited decades for justice are, understandably, keen to see them quickly accepted. There is no need for the Government to delay in accepting the recommendations from the inquiry and beginning to implement them now. Last summer, the Government moved quickly to accept and implement the recommendations in the inquiry’s first interim report on compensation. They should now do the same for the full and final recommendations on compensation and redress.
Simply stating an acceptance of the recommendations for compensation may end up being the easiest part of that process; actually delivering a compensation scheme will bring many challenges. It will involve looking back over decades to identify the impact on a person and on their family, often including long periods when the person was not aware of the infection and the impact it was then having on them. Inevitably, therefore, they will not have kept receipts or evidence of that impact. We must also be realistic about the sad reality that many involved in their care and affairs in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s will have almost certainly have passed on in the decades since. That means that their oral or written evidence cannot now be adduced to assist in a claim. Delivering justice in the face of these challenges, to those who have now waited decades for it, will not be easy.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and I know from our dealings with things such as the Windrush compensation scheme, which is having to do a similar task and in some cases is looking back over decades to see the impact on an individual, that these are complex cases. They are not easy. It is not simple to go back over someone’s life, see the impact, put it together and then come to a compensation award. We need to find people with the skills required to help deliver justice in a timely way, and that will not be simple.
That means that the Government should be appointing a chair to lead this body, in consultation with infected and affected people and their representatives. I urge the Minister not to wait in doing that. Candidates for such roles cannot be simply taken off a shelf when we decide to do something; they need to be identified and brought on board so that they fully understand the role and can quickly get under way. As soon as it has a chair, the body should start recruiting panels to review applications, build processes for reviewing claims, ensure it is ready to contact eligible people and allow people not covered by the current support schemes to register for this one. It must also ensure the active and relevant involvement of infected and affected people in its work and processes.
Crucially, an independent appeals and review process will also need to be created. Just describing the process makes it clear that it will take some time to establish, with potentially thousands of cases to consider, and so we need to start now. This cannot simply be announced and then start work the next day, which is why it is becoming all the more urgent that the practical reality of delivering this compensation scheme is engaged with.
The contaminated blood scandal is a tragedy that simply should not have happened. It has seen thousands of people lose their lives, with many facing prejudice as well, given the ill-informed attitudes to the conditions they had. Often they did not find out what had happened to them until many years afterwards. The scandal affected not just them but their whole family, many of whom are now on to the second generation fighting for justice. The final report of the inquiry will be a landmark moment, one that has been awaited for decades. Yet what I say to the Minister is: please do not wait to act where you can, and do so by quickly accepting the April recommendations and coming back to the House with a clear plan as to how you are going to deliver them.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I too pay tribute to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing the debate and for the work they have done on this issue, on behalf of all of us and particularly on behalf of those who have been campaigning for justice for so long.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the words of Sir Brian Langstaff, who implores those who will make the decisions and respond to his recommendations to listen to the victims. I also warn the Minister that the final report, which will be published in the autumn, will be extremely damning. Just imagine what will be said if the Government have not responded to the interim report when that final report comes out, so I urge the Minister to heed that warning.
I pay tribute to my constituents, Lee Moorey and Mary Grindley, who have been campaigning on the issue over many years and have recently come to see me. Mr Moorey went to Treloar’s School when he was 12 and he wrote:
“I am a severe haemophiliac A sufferer. I attended Treloar’s in 1985 aged 12 years. At the age of 14 years, I was told I was HIV positive and that I had only a few years to live. You can imagine the impact this had on myself and my family. I have watched so many of my Treloar blood brothers pass away, I suffer from survivor’s guilt. From the early 1970s until the late 1980s approximately 130 haemophiliacs went to Treloar’s, of which less than 35 are alive today due to infected blood. I am one of the less than 35 still alive.”
Mary Grindley met her husband in the 1970s and they married in 1980, knowing that he was a severe haemophilia sufferer. She gave up teaching in 1991 to look after her husband, John. He died in June 1994, aged 41. Her testimony is harrowing. Her son, Tim, lost his father at the age of 14. To read their stories, as I have done over the last couple of days, is harrowing. That they have had to expose their private details to the public gaze in order to get justice is shameful.
I have been reading about those people’s experiences. They suffered prejudice; their relationships suffered; they suffered harassment, both where they lived and from work colleagues; they were threatened by people they knew, who were upset when they found out; they were unable to get insurance, so they could not get a mortgage, which compounded the problems of being harassed by neighbours, as they were unable to move away; careers were lost; pensions were lost; education was destroyed; and there were impacts on family.
Lee Moorey talks about how his mother struggled financially, and Mary talks about the impact on her son, who was 14 when his father died. They both talk about the psychological impacts. One of the appeals made by Sir Brian Langstaff is that the Government provide psychological support in England, which is provided in the rest of the UK.
My constituents have some requests of the Government, which echo what has been asked by other hon. Members but I will reiterate. The Government have been intransigent in setting up the compensation scheme and there has been a lack of transparency. What are they hiding? Are they actively looking for a chair now? When will that person be in place? Why are they not willing to preregister affected people, particularly parents and children, with possible claims to compensation in order to speed up the process? On the devolution issue, we do not want devolved Governments to set up different compensation schemes, as the scandal occurred pre-devolution. We want one central scheme.
The time for sympathy is over and the time for action is now. I will finish where I started, with the words of Sir Brian Langstaff. Talking to those people who gave evidence about their personal experiences, he said:
“I record in the report that some of the milestones that eventually led to the Government’s acceptance of a moral case for compensation have been marked by the reactions from individuals in power when they have listened—actually listened—to people describing what happened to them and their families. So the right place to start my report was with some of your voices, and that is where it begins. I urge those responsible for considering my recommendations to start there, listening to you and appreciating the depths of what you have experienced so that they, like me, can understand why compensation is overdue.”1.24 pm
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) on securing this important debate.
The conclusion of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recent interim report is absolutely clear: a compensation scheme must be established to provide appropriate redress to all those who have been wronged over so many decades, and that must be done as soon as possible. That recommendation is clearly correct, and the Government should lose no further time in implementing it. I would like to focus on one issue, of particular importance in Wales, which is whether the scheme should be administered centrally or at a devolved level.
The report has been welcomed by the charity Haemophilia Wales, which supports over 500 of those who have been infected and affected across Wales. The charity has expressed concern that the Government intend to consult with devolved Administrations on the issue of whether the scheme should be administered centrally or locally. The position of Haemophilia Wales is absolutely clear: it believes that a UK-wide compensation scheme should be created, so as to avoid potential inequities in financial support and the danger of political point scoring.
That stance reflects Sir Brian’s own view. In his report, he observes that the scheme he is recommending
“lends itself to administration from one place within the UK rather than being localised.”
He goes on to say:
“The latter is more likely to give rise to disparities of approach.”
It is important to remember that in Wales, devolution was not established until 1999, very many years after patients were infected with HIV and hepatitis C. Many of those patients have had their care delivered by hospitals in England.
Take, for example, my constituent Mrs Rosemary Richards. She was born in 1953, and in the late 1970s decided to be tested to establish if she was a haemophilia carrier, before making a decision whether or not to have children. She was diagnosed as a carrier and was referred to the Royal Liverpool Hospital’s haematology unit in 1980 for testing and counselling. She had two sons, who were born with haemophilia in 1983 and 1985. The official regional centre for the whole of north Wales was the Royal Liverpool Hospital. It paid for and provided the blood products for haemophiliacs. Both her sons were under the care of Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, Liverpool, from 1983, and throughout their childhood they attended reviews at Alder Hey. All their factor VIII treatment was funded from Liverpool.
Therefore, patients resident in north Wales had their treatments funded from and delivered by hospitals in England. There will be very many victims resident in Wales with a similar history. Indeed, it is worth pointing out that children from north Wales with bleeding disorders, such as haemophilia, are still, many years after devolution, receiving their treatment at Alder Hey.
Haemophilia Wales also makes the important point that contaminated blood victims were infected prior to devolution. Many live in Wales but were infected in England and therefore, in any event, do not come under a Welsh scheme. Others were infected in Wales, but now live in England. This pattern does not fit neatly into a devolved landscape.
The Cabinet Office has suggested in correspondence that it is the preference of victims that the scheme should be delivered locally. That is certainly not the view of Haemophilia Wales, which considers that a UK-wide scheme is entirely preferable. The question arises: what is “local”? In Wales, ex gratia payments to the infected are made via the Wales infected blood support scheme at Velindre hospital in Cardiff, which is administered by the Welsh Government. It cannot be said that that scheme is being delivered locally unless the patient in question happens to live in Cardiff. It is certainly not local for victims in my constituency for whom Cardiff is more than four hours away. In fact, on journey time, London is considerably closer—considerably more local.
Time is passing and action is called for. Giving consideration to a devolved structure for the scheme is simply protracting matters unnecessarily and is contrary to the wishes of victims and their families. What the Government should do now is ensure that the scheme is set up and implemented without any further unnecessary delay. I would therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to heed the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff and the views of Haemophilia Wales and proceed to establish a UK-wide scheme as quickly as possible.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is a privilege to be called to speak in this very important debate. It is also a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), with whom I agree wholeheartedly regarding his points on devolution, the settlement and the fact that there is no need for the consultation to delay matters. There should be one central system from the UK Government. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Father of the House and the important all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood for securing today’s debate and for their tireless work on this campaign.
Like other colleagues, I pay heartfelt tribute to the victims, their brave families and all those affected by this horrific scandal, some of whom are in the Public Gallery today. Campaign organisations such as the Hepatitis C Trust, the Haemophilia Society, Factor 8 and, in particular, Haemophilia Wales have campaigned tirelessly for years. I must also put on record my gratitude for the work of the infected blood inquiry itself. I know the whole House will agree that the inquiry’s meticulous work, led by the well-regarded Sir Brian Langstaff, is to be commended.
Long before the inquiry was finally initiated in 2017, after 30 years of Government refusal, campaigners—often working tirelessly despite their own trauma—had been striving for justice for decades. Ultimately, it is thanks to their courage and commitment that we are here today participating in this parliamentary debate. I hope that we do not require another, and rightly so, because the infected blood scandal is a shameful stain on our nation’s history. At the heart of this unimaginable injustice is the simple fact that we now know for definite that the UK Government ignored the very well-known risks of obtaining blood that had been pooled from high-risk donors, such as prisoners and drug addicts in the US.
We also know that the UK Government chose not to tell people that they had been infected until years later. Many campaign groups say that this is simply because the UK Government hoped that the victims would not remain alive long enough to fight for justice. That is an astonishing level of ignorance and arrogance. Government documents were destroyed and medical records were conspicuously lost. The numbers affected nationally are truly heartbreaking: more than 5,000 patients were infected, and more than 2,500 people have died so far as a direct result. That does not even take into account all of the others affected.
Of those victims infected with HIV, only about 200 people are still alive. Last week, alongside Lynne Kelly from Haemophilia Wales, I met constituents of mine: Meinir Gooch, Owain Harris, Gerald Stone and members of the Sugar family. I sat down with them and they bravely and powerfully told me of their ordeal. They have trusted me with their stories and have graciously allowed me to share details of how this horrific scandal has destroyed their families, and I thank them for that from the bottom of my heart.
Leigh Sugar was a husband, a father and a son. He was a successful businessman from Llantwit Fardre in my constituency. Leigh loved horse riding and the outdoors. Leigh also had mild haemophilia so, after a riding accident in 1980, he was given a treatment of factor VIII —that revolutionary new blood clotting treatment. The riding accident was not life threatening, and the treatment should have been routine, but like so many other victims, Leigh’s dose was contaminated. His dose had not been screened, and he was infected with hepatitis C. It was not until 1994 that he was informed that his illness was due to hepatitis. Like thousands of other victims, Leigh was not told, which meant that opportunities to save him, such as considering a liver transplant, were missed. The infection destroyed his liver and killed him at the age of 44. Leigh’s family—his mother Margaret, his widow Barbara, and his daughter Jodie—told me, “We will never recover. Our family has been torn apart.”
The big thing that the families wanted me to say today was about the stigma, which sadly still exists. Gerald Stone is now 80 years old. He is a proud man from Tonyrefail in my constituency. I have gone back and watched the brave and powerful evidence that he gave to the inquiry. Up until that point, no one knew that Gerald was infected. After he gave evidence, just a few years ago, BBC Wales got in touch and wanted to cover his story. This was the first time that Gerald had gone public with his story. Even then, following his story and that interview, his neighbours, with whom he had lived for his entire life, went to the police and asked them whether it was safe that he was living on the same street as them. That stigma still sadly exists and goes with these victims and their families even now.
The chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, says that
“time without redress is harmful.”
This ongoing suffering is prolonging the torment and mental anguish for families. I call on the Government urgently to publish their timetable for the compensation framework, before the inquiry’s final report this autumn. Fundamentally, I am calling on the Government to do the right thing. Of course, no amount of financial compensation will remedy this horrific scandal, but for those still living with its consequences and their families, they deserve justice. Fundamentally, they deserve a full and comprehensive settlement at last, after decades of fighting for their loved ones.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a huge pleasure to speak in this incredibly important debate. I congratulate the Father of the House and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on securing the debate. It has been very moving to listen to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Friends and Members.
I begin by echoing the tributes that have been made to the brave victims and their families, who have been battling and working through personal ill-health, grief and trauma and yet have campaigned tirelessly for justice. I am very pleased that the Government have acknowledged the moral case that victims of blood contamination should receive compensation, and that interim compensation payments of up to £1,000 have now finally been made to some of those who have been infected, or to their bereaved partners.
Last Friday, at one of my regular surgeries in Southend West, Mr David Corroyer came to see me. He had provided evidence as part of the inquiry and that has been published. I wish to put his story on record, although his story is slightly different because he contracted hepatitis C through donating blood, not through a transfusion.
In the late 1970s, the NHS set up a blood donation centre twice a year at David’s workplace. David and many of his colleagues happily went along to donate blood, and he donated blood on four separate occasions—this was before diseases such as AIDS became well known. It was general practice then for nurses to use the same needle 10 or more times. The only precaution taken then was that the needle would be given a quick swirl in sterilising liquid before use.
On one occasion, shortly after donating blood, David became ill, suffering from intense vomiting and diarrhoea. One week later, his condition deteriorated to the point that he was unable to eat anything without vomiting. His urine was bright orange and his skin was bright yellow. He went to see the doctor. The doctor took one look at him and told him that he must have hepatitis C. He then asked him a series of questions. Had he eaten seafood? Was he a drug addict? Had he had a tattoo? Had he had sex with anybody who had hepatitis? Finally, he said, “Have you recently had any injections?” At that point, David told him that he had given blood two weeks previously and he was told, “That’s it: an infected needle from a blood donor and it has happened before.”
After David caught the infection, he was horrendously ill for two years. He was run down, was in a constant state of worry and lost a significant amount of weight. He had to learn to control his diet along with what he drank, because if he did not then the consequences were horrendous. In short, David has told me that his life has never been the same again.
Quite rightly, having contracted hepatitis C through no fault of his own, David believes he is owed compensation by the Government. However, more than 40 years later, he has still not been offered any financial assistance whatsoever. As matters stand at the moment, David believes he may not be included in the compensation scheme being proposed through the infected blood inquiry, because he contracted hepatitis while donating blood rather than receiving it. That cannot possibly be right.
Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituent David to discuss his circumstances? Will he assure me that the inquiry is looking into claims from people in circumstances such as David’s? Finally, can he confirm that the Government will consider expanding the compensation scheme to include people who contracted hepatitis C through donating blood?
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I start, as others have done, by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for obtaining this debate.
The families affected by the scandal have endured unimaginable suffering. They were failed when their loved ones were infected, they were failed by the Government’s subsequent denial and neglect, and now they have been failed by delays in getting the justice they deserve. While the inquiry has been a source of healing and community for some of the families, it has often required them to relive their most traumatic memories, for which they are yet to receive proper closure or justice. I pay tribute to them and thank them for their strength in sharing their stories. Of course, that strength should never have been required of them, but I am truly humbled by it.
I was humbled again recently when I spoke to my constituent Diane, who shared with me her experiences of living with and losing her brother, Graham Fox, and asked me to take part in this debate today. Graham had severe haemophilia. He was treated with factor VIII as a child and became infected with HIV and hepatitis C. Diane told me that as a child and as a young man, Graham never let his condition get in his way. He was a keen cyclist and kept himself very fit.
However, to be told as a late teenager that he had been infected with those diseases was devastating for Graham. The whole family was affected, not only by the knowledge that they could lose Graham, but by the fear, ignorance and lack of information about his condition at the time. Graham died peacefully in a hospice aged just 26 on 23 April 1996. By that time, he and the family were well aware that he had been given contaminated blood products. Diane tells me that before he died he said, “Don’t forget.”
Talking to Diane, the immense betrayal that the family have felt as a result of the scandal was clear. She told me:
“There is a base level of trust that we have in our lives, in our society. And that was breached.”
Like Graham and his sister, many people affected by haemophilia grew up around hospitals and got to know healthcare professionals as though they were family. The betrayal they feel is deeply personal and the inquiry, while also necessary, tortures old scars for many of them. The victims of the scandal are not only the people who have died or suffered immeasurably as a result of being infected. Those who have cared for and loved those people, and in many cases have lost them, have also suffered trauma beyond imagining.
Graham lived with his sister and her young children in the last years of his life. The deep emotional and physical impact of his loss have been felt through three generations of their family. His sister says:
“Our lives shouldn’t have been like this. They were dictated to by people who didn’t know us. Sorry doesn’t cut it—compensation is the only way that the Government will think twice about doing this again. I am frightened that the inquiry will end and it will all disappear. We need recognition for what has happened.”
There has been widespread acceptance across Government of the wrongs done and the need for compensation, but, as the second interim report outlines, the families who deserve this compensation
“do not yet know the nature of the body who will determine it, how that body will assess and deal with their claims, nor the boundaries of eligibility”.
That delay, on top of years of denial and no accountability, places a further toll on victims, more than 500 of whom are estimated to have died since the inquiry began.
Sir Brian Langstaff has recommended that the compensation scheme must start now. If the Government do not meet that recommendation, they are accepting that more victims will not live to see justice—not only those infected, but their bereaved relatives and carers. While some parents and children will be entitled to an interim payment, it has become apparent that that will only apply to those who lost their loved ones in an arbitrary three-month period between July and October 2022. Do the Government believe that the suffering of families of people such as Graham, who lost their lives so early, is not worthy of recognition?
Graham’s sister Diane went into care work to give back to hospice staff who looked after Graham in the final days of his life. From great tragedy, she has worked to make something good. Today she mentions Graham’s name as often as she can, but she has endured years of suffering, with little support for her and her children other than from an AIDS charity. The Government must let people know how they can get compensation. To Diane, I say that we will follow Graham’s request, “Don’t forget.” Across this House, we will not forget.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist); my thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with the family of Graham, who sadly passed away. We have heard some incredibly moving stories from all hon. Members, and that does not make this an easy debate. I put on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the Father of the House for securing this important debate.
When I got first elected in 2019, one of the very first constituency meetings I had was with Clive Smith, the chair of The Haemophilia Society. We never forget those first meetings. It was just before the period of the pandemic. Clive kindly explained to me all the complexities associated with the infected blood inquiry and I gave him my reassurance that I would do all I could in my role as his constituency MP to raise that case. I am pleased to take part in this debate; it is important for me to put my weight on the Government to ensure that they are listening, not only to me but to all hon. Members in this House.
Some of the most valuable assets that all of us in this Chamber have are our health and our time. Unfortunately, all those who have been affected throughout these terrible circumstances, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, have had both of those valuable assets impacted or removed from them one way or another. Both their health and their time have been taken away from them.
It is important that we understand the number of people impacted through this terrible situation. Around 5,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were infected with the HIV and hepatitis viruses through the use of contaminated clotting factors. Some of those people unintentionally infected their partners because they were unaware of their own infection. How must that make them feel? It must be incredibly difficult. Since then, more than 3,000 people have died and, of the 1,250 people infected with HIV, fewer than 250 people are still alive today.
Furthermore, many who did not have a bleeding disorder were infected with hepatitis C as a result of blood transfusions during that period. The best estimates suggest that around 27,000 were infected with hepatitis C, of whom only around 10% were still alive and seeking justice as of 2019. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, those numbers are still declining, which just emphasises why time is of the essence. Those individuals have experienced challenges with education, with the fear factor and stigma associated with going through life, practical challenges in gaining insurance and travel documents, and challenges in dealing with their own doctors.
The inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal was set up after my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) gave it the go-ahead in 2017, when she said that it was
“an appalling tragedy which should…never have happened”
I welcome its first and second interim reports. I hope that the Government accept the recommendations in full.
I will emphasise the key recommendations: each affected and infected person should be able to make a claim in their own right; people should be able to make claims on behalf of the estates of people who have died; and it is vital that an award should be made for injury impact, social impact, autonomy impact, care and financial loss. All the different factors of those individuals’ lives been affected by those challenges. It is right, proper, fair and just that the Government listen to the inquiry’s calls.
The Government’s lack of response should be acknowledged as part of any award. Rather frustratingly, it is being reported to me that, even though the report has been issued—I put on record my thanks to Sir Brian and Sir Robert for their work—there is still no clarity from the Government, from whom a better level of communication is required. It is absolutely up to the Government to meet key stakeholders on a regular basis. As I say, the two most valuable assets to us all are health and time. Time is of the essence, and I call on the Government to act with the quickest of speed, because one person is dying from these challenges every four days, and that is not fair.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
We usually say on Backbench Business Thursdays, “It is a pleasure to speak in this debate”, but I do not find it a great pleasure to speak in yet another one on contaminated blood. In my 22 years in this House, no issue has so frustrated or consumed the time of my office, in the hours put forward to support and represent constituents and in our efforts to ensure that they get justice. It is a modern-day tragedy and a health scandal without precedent. It needs now to be urgently resolved, and justice must be delivered for the families and victims of the crisis.
We have now had the two interim reports. We get the full report in the autumn, and we all look forward to seeing it, in the hope that it will more or less conclude the process and, certainly, get the payments established. But things could and should be done now. We know that the compensation scheme could be set up without any further delay, and there is no good reason whatever why it cannot begin its work this year.
The interim report fully covers the inquiry’s recommendations on financial redress. The scheme does not need to wait for any more outcomes from the final report. What the process needs is leadership. It does not need any more prevarication; it does not need anybody to tell us that progress has been made. It needs progress and it needs conclusion. The publication of the second interim report served a clear purpose: to prevent, or at least minimise, any potential delays in establishing a compensation scheme that would bring financial justice to the victims who have been denied it for decades.
We have heard that the Government have started to make some of the compensation payments, but those payments cover only a third of the families of those infected with HIV. It is shocking that the scheme is available only to those directly impacted, and their widows and widowers, but not to the families, excluding thousands of victims, including those who have lost parents and children. While the prevarication goes on, people are dying—they are dying weekly. Nine more have died in Scotland since the closing oral submission on behalf of the Scottish infected and affected core participants. That takes the total number of those who have died in Scotland since the inquiry was established to 113.
Given the lack of a clear Government response to the second interim report, Haemophilia Scotland, which is chaired by my constituent Bill Wright and has done outstanding work on this issue over the years, has sent via its solicitors a formal legal request for further rule 9 written statements from Ministers to explain the delay. As the Minister will know, rule 9 of the Inquiry Rules 2006 entitles the inquiry to send a further request for evidence, which will usually direct the recipient to the issues that need further to be covered. It is not a requirement, as he will know, to reveal who has received a rule 9 request, but let me ask him: has he received such a request, will he go to give further evidence, and have any of his colleagues received a rule 9 request to revisit the inquiry? It is all a bit desperate that campaigners have to resort to such legal tactics to get the Government to do something. Just do it! It should not have to be pursued via such means.
At some point, we will also have to establish what went so badly wrong at the early point of the inquiry. I have been in this House since 2001. I remember going to debates, speaking to Ministers and tabling early-day motions only to be told a pile of rubbish about what was happening. I was constantly fobbed off and told all the time by Ministers that no wrongful practices were employed. We now know why, from what Andy Burnham had to say about all this in the inquiry. He now accepts that he was given the wrong information by civil servants. He did not seek to mislead me or others in the House. He was given information, and he relayed it honestly and truthfully, thinking that it was right. We have to find out why that evidence and information were put in the hands of Ministers. I actually feel sorry for Andy, and for Ministers such as the current Chancellor, who also feels that he was given the wrong information to communicate to Members of the House. We deserve a proper explanation as to why Ministers stood at that Dispatch Box for all that time, while people were dying, halting the establishment of an inquiry. If one had been put in place at the proper time, we might have had justice by this point.
What has to end is the lack of transparency and the failure to deal properly and appropriately with the survivors, victims and campaigning organisations. That is still, unfortunately, a feature of how we go forward, and it now has to end. Make the payments, include all the families, end the culture of secrecy, and make sure that the process is as transparent as possible. Please, please, bring justice to the victims.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call Neil—[Interruption.] I call Stephen Kinnock.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and don’t worry—people have been doing that since I was about 13 years old. You are not the first and I am sure you will not be the last.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member would probably like to know that I remember his father well.
Stephen Kinnock
And so do I, Sir—every single day.
It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), on securing this vital debate. My right hon. Friend and others have campaigned unstintingly for justice for the victims and their families. I pay tribute to her for her perseverance and dedication.
My constituent David Farrugia first told me in 2015 of the absolutely appalling manner in which he and his family had been treated throughout this entire sorry affair.
David and his siblings are part of the so-called fatherless generation. Their father was infected with the hepatitis virus in 1977 and with HIV in the mid-1980s. He died in 1986 at the age of 37, and a week later David went into care, where he remained until he was 17. He was separated from his twin brother for three years and from his youngest brother for 13 years. David was not reunited with his other brothers until 2008 and 2010. They have also lost two uncles to this terrible scandal.
Their story—the trauma of losing their father in horrific circumstances and of ending up separated in the care system—and the stigma they have lived with are deeply harrowing. Sadly, their story is not unique, and many of those affected by the infected blood scandal have similarly tragic stories to tell.
Lord Robert Winston described the scandal as
“the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS”,
but the scandal and the suffering caused have been compounded by the length of time it has taken victims and their families to receive justice. The wait has had a profound effect on David’s mental health, and yet he continues to fight for justice, like so many others. I pay tribute to David, who is in the Public Gallery today, and to all the victims and their families for their tireless campaign. It has been difficult, but they have never given up.
Let us be clear: this has taken far too long. Thousands have already died, and with each passing day more and more are lost without receiving the justice they deserve. Justice delayed is justice denied, and every day we wait is a day more that justice is denied.
Sir Brian recommended in the second interim report that children of those infected should be admitted into the payments scheme. That report was published in April, but families such as the Farrugias are still waiting to hear about being admitted into the scheme. The Government must act without delay to allow those who are now eligible to receive the interim compensation payments to register with the existing infected blood scheme. Delaying that only prolongs their anguish. Sir Brian has also recommended that an arm’s length body be established to administer the compensation scheme. That work needs to begin as soon as possible, so will the Minister update the House and these families on where the Government are in setting it up and appointing a chair?
Time is of the essence. We simply cannot wait for the final report in the autumn for the Government to respond. Sir Brian has made it clear that,
“The scheme need not await that final report to begin work”,
and that,
“The structure of the scheme should be set up as soon as possible, and before the final report of the Inquiry.”
This scandal has caused decades of suffering, health issues, financial loss and stigma for those affected, as we have heard so powerfully from all Members across the House today. The wait for justice has already gone on far too long. My constituents, along with all the victims and their families, deserve better than endless delays. They deserve to see justice delivered, and they deserve to see it delivered now.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
“Oh, make it make sense. Please make it make sense.
Oh, why am I still here? Please make it make sense.
Why was it their turn to die? Please make it make sense.
Why am I chosen to continue this fight? Please make it make sense.
Another victim of this scandal dies without justice. Please make it make sense.
Another day of government silence. Please make it make sense.
An inquiry report full of recommendations. Please make it make sense.
Delays from the government. Please make it make sense.
After all, enough is enough. So please make it make sense.
Do we ever trust the powers that be? Please make it make sense.
Will I be another statistic of this greatest of tragedies? Please make it make sense.”
That was a poem written by my constituent Sean Cavens, a victim I first mentioned in this House back in February 2021, and what a personal, powerful and emotional poem it is. It sums up this entire tragedy in just a few words. Mr Cavens has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of those fighting for the justice they deserve, despite the setbacks he has faced over the years. He, like others, feels that he is not getting any nearer the closure of this great tragedy. Many experienced campaigners, like Sean, feel totally marginalised, and they fear dying before the full settlements are made.
When Sean Cavens first came to see me, we had a bit of an altercation. I invited him to come and see me. He came into my office and threw this contaminated blood tie on to my desk and said, “What’s that, Mr Lavery?” I did not have a clue. He said, “What does it represent, Mr Lavery? You’re the MP!” I said, “I’m sorry; I haven’t got any idea.” He said, “The black is for death, the yellow is for haemophilia, and the red is for HIV.” I promise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was taken aback by what happened in the conversation following that.
Mr Cavens went on to explain to me exactly what the situation was with the contaminated blood issue and, to be honest, I was a bit ashamed; I had not really taken it on board as a Member of Parliament, and I dare say I would be one of a majority in this House. Once I was fully aware of the situation, I began to educate myself about this absolute tragedy, which has been explained by many Members across the House. It is unusual to see Members across the House share the same views.
Lots of questions have been asked, and lots of detail has been given. The interim payments are positive, but they need to be full payments. Why on earth are people still dying? Why is it that one person is still dying every four days, many of them in receipt of interim payments, but a lot of them not having received interim payments yet? This cannot happen, man! Minister, it cannot be allowed to happen.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the rule 9 requests. It would be interesting if the Minister could inform the House who has had rule 9 requests and whether he has received one himself. It has been promised that an arm’s length body will be set up. When will that be put in place? Who will be the chairman? Who is leading on this in the civil service since Sue Gray left? That is another question people are asking.
People are dying as we speak—mothers and fathers, uncles and aunties, brothers and sisters, friends and relations—and we need to get a move on. It is time to stop kicking this can down the road and to deal with compensation for the people who have been the subject of this tragedy.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I became truly interested in the contaminated blood scandal only very recently, after my constituent Simon Taylor told me about his experience. Frankly, I was stunned by how calmly he told me about his harrowing experiences over so many years. Simon has severe haemophilia A, and was co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C through blood products required to manage his disorder. Some 1,243 people with haemophilia were infected with HIV in the late 1980s because of their treatment through the NHS; my constituent Simon is one of 200 who is still alive. Thousands more were infected and died through contracting hepatitis C in a similar manner. I cannot imagine what they all went through. What happened is a true national scandal.
People with haemophilia lack the protein that makes blood clot. Even minor injuries can lead to bleeding that is difficult to treat. Until the 1970s, those disorders were treated by plasma infusions that had to be given in hospital. That treatment was later replaced with factor concentrate, a new product that could be administered at home with an injection. Factor concentrate involves pooling human blood plasma from up to 40,000 donors. That plasma was often imported from paid, high-risk donors such as prisoners and drug addicts in the US. Just one contaminated sample could infect the entire batch.
Haemophilia can affect many family members, and sufferers often form tight-knit communities. For decades, many young people affected were educated together at special schools. That made the impact of HIV and hepatitis C even more devastating. Sufferers watched as family and friends became ill and died, knowing that they faced a similar fate. Simon served for many years as a trustee of the Haemophilia Society. During that time, six of his trustee colleagues died, as did most of his friends from school.
In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a lot of hostility associated with HIV and AIDS. Haemophilia became a marker for those diseases. Many haemophiliacs lost their jobs, children were stigmatised at school, and families saw their homes vandalised. As a public spokesperson for the Haemophilia Society, my constituent Simon found his own job under threat from prejudiced colleagues. The society has always been convinced that the disaster was caused by inherently unsafe practices and processes. The Government recognised the risk they were taking with paid blood and plasma collection. The former Health Minister Dr David Owen committed to UK self-sufficiency in 1975—that is how long this has been going on—but the failure of successive Governments to implement that commitment led to prolonged reliance on dangerous imported blood.
My constituent Simon was lucky: he has largely recovered from AIDS and hepatitis C, and was able to return to employment after his illness, but many did not. So much misery could have been averted if promises were implemented and action taken. The Government have a clear moral responsibility to support and compensate those individuals and their dependants who died or have suffered because of Government failures—we have heard many such testimonies today. No compensation was paid to UK victims of the contaminated blood scandal until 2022. The chair of the infected blood inquiry recommended that interim compensation of £100,000 be paid to everyone currently registered on a UK infected blood support scheme. That recommendation was accepted by the Government, and payment was made in October 2022.
At the time, Ministers claimed that the payment would help to “right a historic wrong”. However, many of those affected by the scandal have been callously excluded from that payment, including bereaved parents and children, who could receive the payment only if the infected person died in a strict three-month window between July 2022 and October 2022. Why have the Government drawn that arbitrary line in the sand? All bereaved parents and children should be treated equally—this is not the time for penny-pinching. Factor 8, which advocates for victims of the scandal and their families, described the Government’s actions as a “massive betrayal”, and said that it only compounds the sense of unfairness for affected families. It truly adds insult to injury.
This tragedy still takes lives. Since the Government announced in 2017 that a statutory public inquiry would be held into the contaminated blood scandal, more than 500 people have died, and more will die before the inquiry reaches its conclusions this autumn. We Liberal Democrats propose that the Government act on the recommendations of the inquiry to ensure a just settlement for victims and their families as quickly as possible. After so long, it is time that the Government act without delay to help those devastated by this tragedy. Nobody directly in contact with those affected by the disaster can be left unmoved by the bravery of the survivors. They have fought for justice for so long—they deserve justice now.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on the immense amount of work that she has done over so many years; the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley); my constituent Nigel Miller, who is himself a victim of this scandal; and the many others who have campaigned on this issue.
As we know, Sir Brian Langstaff has recommended that the new compensation scheme be set up now, and that work should begin this year. The Government, however, have not responded to Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations on a framework for compensation, which he presented to them 15 months ago. Sir Brian has issued his second interim report, which supports Sir Robert’s recommendations with a minor adjustment for the inclusion of hepatitis B and the extension of cut-off dates for infections.
Rather than repeat what hon. Members have said, I would like to quote my constituent Nigel Miller:
“I am frustrated at the suggestion”
by the Minister
“that there is a need for further meetings with the infected or affected for Government to hear our experiences, as this has happened numerous times in the past. Everyone’s evidence is on public record and is available as written and oral evidence on the Infected Blood Inquiry website. It is to my mind purely a time wasting measure in order to delay any payments being made.”
He goes on to say:
“I and others like me want the UK government to implement Sir Brian Langstaff’s 2nd interim report by providing interim compensation for previously unrecognised deaths”,
and states that the compensation scheme should be delivered
“by an arms length body which is independent of Government and is centrally funded not funded through the NHS. Sir Brian has said that work must begin now on delivering the interim compensation via the 4 existing support schemes. This is not as complex a task as the Government is suggesting—for example Haemophilia Wales is in touch with the families…across Wales. I strongly feel that there is no need for Government to have further meetings with victims as all the evidence is on public record and this will be used as another excuse to delay and do nothing as has happened so many times before.”
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North has said, this is a desperately urgent situation: every four days, another victim dies. Not only do we want the compensation scheme to be implemented as quickly as possible, it should be able to work as efficiently and speedily as possible. I have raised these matters with the Minister before, but I would be very grateful if he could update us on progress on identifying a big enough team of staff—whether through secondment or recruitment—to deliver compensation quickly, providing staff with all the training they need, setting up the processes for the identification and verification of all those who may be entitled to compensation, and setting up the necessary IT systems. We all know the frustration of websites that crash and phone switchboards that are overwhelmed, leaving phones unanswered. I ask the Minister to please do everything he can to speed up the delivery of compensation and ensure that victims and their families get paid compensation as efficiently and quickly as possible.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
First, as others have, I pay tribute to the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)—for securing the debate. As a vice-chair of that APPG, I thank them for all their work. I also thank my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), a former chair of the all-party group, who set up a meeting last week with groups such as Haemophilia Scotland and the Scottish Blood Infected Forum. I pay tribute to those campaigners, as well as to my constituents Cathy Young, Nicola Stewart and Paul Gallagher, who are regularly in touch with me about this issue.
Sir Peter Bottomley
May I, through the hon. Gentleman, say how important Scottish participation has been to the whole UK campaign? Those involved provided a lead, they have always been there and we are very grateful to them.
Chris Stephens
I am very grateful to the Father of the House for those kind words, and I am sure campaigners in Scotland will be very grateful to hear them. Those campaigners are driving us all on. They are driving us on to continue to fight on their behalf and to continue to seek justice, because they have been met for far too long, in my view, with prevarication, procrastination and delay, and as a community, they have often been subjected, marginalised and ostracised.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member is quite rightly pointing out the Scottish dimension to this. Earlier, I mentioned Mr Robert Ross, who lives in the north highlands, and of course this problem is all over the UK. That is the point. In the four corners of the UK, it is a huge issue, and it matters to people whether they be in the highlands, London or Cornwall.
Chris Stephens
I absolutely agree with that, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. If I led him down another political path, I apologise for that.
I want to make it clear that there are far too many people who have been marginalised and ostracised as the result of this scandal, and that includes those who suffer from hepatitis B. I have had to write to Sir Brian on behalf of the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, because on page 31 of his second interim report, he shows that hepatitis B has clearly been found to be one of the infections passed on by contaminated blood products and should therefore be included in the compensation scheme, but that recommendation did not appear among the actual recommendations of the report. I have written to Sir Brian to seek clarification on that issue, because I believe that clarity should be provided. However, that should not delay what we are asking the Government to do.
Those who either watched or were in the Chamber this morning for Cabinet Office questions will know that I took the opportunity to ask the Paymaster General whether the Government accept the principle of the arm’s length body overseeing compensation payments. I see that the record is now up online for those Members who want to view it, and it has the Minister saying that the “Government have not yet” made any final determination on that particular issue. I have to say that I was very disappointed to hear that from the Paymaster General, because I do believe that the principle of an arm’s length body to oversee the compensation payments must be agreed today.
There seems to be a suggestion in previous statements from the Government that they are looking at alternative ways of doing this. I hope that they are not going to look at things such as, for example, how they administer personal independence payments in dealing with this, because if that is the way they want to look it—and I will be polite about this, Mr Deputy Speaker—the Government should jog on.
The Government need to agree the principle of an arm’s length body. Why is that important? It is important for a number of reasons. We know that there are issues to do with death certificates. The Father of the House has raised consistently for a number of years the fact that we know that some people’s death certificates do not really reflect what happened, because of stigma and because of other issues. That is something that an independent arm’s length body would have to determine. It would have to look at death certificates and those issues.
Such a body would also have to look at the fact that there are people who, as I understand it, have not been getting interim payments because they are in a cohabiting couple relationship. The Government have already conceded this point when it comes to bereavement support payments for cohabiting couples. I know that because I am one of the Members of Parliament who have been pushing for the Government to accept that principle. They have now accepted the principle in law that people can apply for bereavement support payments if they are in a cohabiting couple relationship.
An arm’s length body could also determine the issue of carers, which I feel passionate about. We know that there are carers and family members who have looked after loved ones for decades. They have had to give up their careers and educational opportunities, and they had to do that to care for those loved ones. I want a statement from the Government today that recognises the whole issue about carers and those who have had to care for their loved ones.
I am going to make a prediction. I know that is very dangerous in politics, but I am going to make a prediction that we will hear the phrase “working at pace” when the Paymaster General rises to his feet. I already have a £5 bet with another hon. Member on that. Can I say that it does, I am afraid to say, look like a snail’s pace, rather than anything else? The fact is that there have now been suggestions that rule 9 requests from the inquiry have been given, as I understand it, not just to Government Ministers, but to the Leader of the Opposition. He may very well have received a rule 9 request on the simple basis that the Leader of the Opposition is in the unique position that he could be sitting on the other side of the Chamber at some indeterminate point in the future. I think the Minister does need to answer the question whether rule 9 requests have been given, because there is a very real concern about Government statements saying they are looking at alternative schemes.
I want to join the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) in asking this question, which seems a very simple one: who is the lead civil servant in the Cabinet Office dealing with this? We know it was Sue Gray, and we know that she applied for some other job and may or may not be in that job, but who is the lead civil servant for Members of this House to contact about what is happening on this issue and where the Government are on it? I hope the Minister will be able to tell us.
I join others in this House in saying that all we are asking for is justice—a simple ask. We want to see those who have suffered through this scandal receiving the justice they so rightfully deserve.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for giving us this opportunity, on a cross-party basis, to have this debate, which is really important—there is much support for this, as we have seen—and for their campaigning work on this issue through the APPG.
As has been apparent from the many debates we have had in this House over the years, the infected blood scandal is a deeply personal issue for constituents of ours. We are all, across this House, saying the same thing today: “Please do not delay, Minister. Please act with urgency lest we continue to compound this massive injustice.” I say that for my constituent Linda Ashcroft, who lost her husband, Bill Dumbelton, at the age of 49, after he contracted HIV and hepatitis C from NHS blood products he was given to treat his haemophilia. Bill lost his job at BT because of his HIV status, and lived his final years under a cruel cloud of uncertainty. His death in 1990 left Linda to deal not only with the emotional trauma of his loss, but with a huge financial burden. Linda tells me that, after 33 years, she is still looking for closure. She asked me to relay this to the Minister: “Please do not leave victims begging for compensation—it’s inhumane”. So please could he hear her?
In the same year that Bill passed away, my constituents the Smiths lost their seven-month-old son Colin to AIDS and hepatitis C. It was a tragic case, which I have repeated often in this place. Colin spent much of his short life fighting illness contracted as a baby from factor VIII blood product, sourced from a prison in Arkansas, with his family having to fight to discover that fact. The indignities that the Smith family suffered beggar belief, from the bullying and abuse of their children to the loss of Mr Smith’s employment. Like other bereaved parents, they were excluded from the interim payments scheme. Bill and Colin should still be with us today, and I pay tribute to Linda and to the Smiths. I do not know how such families have maintained such dignity through all of this, fighting for all these years. I am in absolute awe of them. I imagine how we would have felt if any of this had happened to us personally. The best tribute we can pay after all they have been through is to make sure there are no more delays.
It is right that the Government have accepted the moral case for compensation, and not just for those directly infected, but for those affected. We talk about the contaminated blood scandal in a singular sense, but we are really referring to injustices in the plural: the intertwined tragedies of lives lost and lives ruined.
I know the Paymaster General says that he understands and respects the gravity of the situation. We all appreciate the complexities of the long-term compensation framework for victims and know that requires careful attention, but I also reiterate what everybody else has said this afternoon: time is of the essence, and the continued wait for redress just adds to the layers of pain, frustration and injustice that the infected and affected feel.
After all, this is a group of people who have had more than enough experience of waiting. It has been 40 years since the information on the dangers of the contaminated blood products was published, and 35 years since the Government agreed funding for the Macfarlane Trust to assist haemophiliacs who contracted HIV from contaminated blood products. It has been over 30 years since my constituents lost those they loved most, eight years since the Scotland-only Penrose inquiry, and six years since the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) launched the infected blood inquiry—something for which campaigners had been calling for decades—and next Sunday marks the fifth anniversary of the inquiry officially getting under way.
It has been two years since the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), told the infected blood inquiry that the Government had a “moral responsibility” to address the issues, and a year since Sir Robert Francis produced his study on options for the compensation framework, which was intended to guide the Government in preparation for Sir Brian Langstaff’s final report, but the Government have still not formally responded to that study. We are a now just a few months down the line from Sir Brian’s second inquiry, and I join other Members in urging the Minister to tell us now how advanced the work is and to update the House on whether the Government will respond and accept its recommendations in full, and if so, when.
The Paymaster General has spoken previously about the Government working “at pace” on this. I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) is wrong, but we need those commitments and we need to hear them today. I was very moved by the party and the briefing we received today from the campaign groups, and by hearing the campaigners talk about what is decided about them, calling for “Nothing about us is done without us.” That is still hugely important now.
I also echo fellow Welsh Members’ comments about the remarks by Haemophilia Wales. I would be grateful if the Paymaster General acknowledged for the record that although health is devolved, this issue is not, and that it is related to a scandal that pre-dates devolution and therefore responsibility for compensation rests solely with the UK Government.
Reference has been made to the article in the Daily Mail about one-off interim compensation payments for people who must have died within a strict three-month period last year. Will the Minister respond to that, too?
Ultimately, with all of the matters discussed today, the key issue we keep coming back to is time—time that is fast running out. More than 500 people affected by the scandal are estimated to have died since the inquiry began, in addition to the thousands of people already lost far too soon. There is simply no time to waste in delivering compensation to surviving victims and others affected. I urge the Government again today to end the uncertainty, end the delays, and act swiftly to do what is right. Victims, families and the British public deserve nothing less.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North said when opening the debate that it was about truth and justice—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am sorry but the hon. Lady is out of time. I call the Scottish National party spokesman.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), on securing this debate, and I add my thanks and those of the SNP for the commitment and leadership they have shown on this issue over so many years, particularly through the all-party parliamentary group. It is also right to recognise the considerable personal and professional experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) brought to the debate right at the start.
Between 16 Back-Bench speakers and nine different interveners, many tributes have been paid to those who have lost their lives because of the infected blood scandal, and our condolences go to all those who have been bereaved. We have heard many moving stories this afternoon, and that perhaps is one of the most important points to take away: that this is not some abstract policy debate; this is about people, individuals and families whose lives have been completely transformed—often shattered—as a result of this scandal, and for many of whom time is now running out.
The impact has not just been living, and indeed dying, with the consequences of being infected or affected by contaminated blood products; it has also been the fight for justice, which itself has become all-consuming and a life-changing experience for so many people. So we also thank those campaigners, and we must now resolve to make sure that justice is delivered.
Among those campaigners is Joyce Donnelly, one of my constituents in Glasgow North, who is the convenor of the Scottish Infected Blood Forum. Her husband, Tom Donnelly, lived with haemophilia and received contaminated blood products at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary in the late 1970s and early 1980s. As a result, he contracted hepatitis C and lived with that condition for 35 years until his death in 2015. Joyce has campaigned passionately and tirelessly for justice and recompense for all those whose lives, in her words,
“were similarly blighted by a disaster that should never have been allowed to happen.”
I also want to thank other constituents who have been in touch and shared their stories in recent years and assure them of my support and solidarity.
When I met Joyce a couple of weeks ago, her frustration—like the frustration expressed by many Members today on behalf of their constituents—was palpable. The forum that Joyce convenes supports many people who have struggled and are struggling to cope with the impact the scandal has had on their lives and their families. We have heard examples of that across the Chamber today: people accused of being alcoholics; the pain and fatigue they suffered as a result of disease; the stigma they have had to put up with; and the survivor’s guilt, which a number of Members spoke about passionately. Now they are looking for justice and compensation before it is too late.
In some cases it is too late: even if the person infected is still alive, they have lived all these years without the financial support that could have made it easier to deal with the effects of their conditions. The interim compensation payments that have been made to many are welcome, but in many cases they are not enough. It is now estimated that around four infected people are dying every week; as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said, nine people in Scotland have passed away since the interim report was published. So the need for urgent action by the Government could not be clearer, and the lack of action only adds to the frustration, and even anger.
There is action that could be taken now. Indeed, it is action that was recommended by the inquiry, especially on the appointment and even interim formation of the recommended arm’s length body. Everyone accepts that compensation must be paid, so the process of establishing how that will be paid and beginning to compile who will be paid could have already started, even if what or how much they will be paid still has to be calculated. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) articulated that issue clearly.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in the light of all the suffering, it is now time to see generosity, not penny-pinching?
Patrick Grady
Yes, that has come through very clearly in all the contributions.
Sir Brian also recommended that interim payments should be made now—not “at pace”, not at some indeterminate point in the future, but now—to recognise deaths that have otherwise not been recognised: bereaved parents and bereaved children who have lost their parents, where these have not already been recognised by an interim payment.
It is also important to recognise, as the right hon. Members for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and others have said, that ultimate responsible for this lies at UK Government level, because the infections took place before the establishment of devolution; before control of the health services was devolved.
The Government say that they accept the moral case for compensation, as they should. The current Chancellor’s testimony to the inquiry described the scandal as
“a failure of the British state”.
Sir Brian Langstaff’s report concluded that
“wrongs were done at an individual, collective and systemic levels.”
The Paymaster General has the opportunity to answer some of these key questions today, many of which have already been asked by Members, but which I repeat to make clear that the SNP shares those concerns. When will the Government appoint a chair and interim members to serve on the arm’s length body and advisory board that will administer the compensation scheme? What engagement have the Government had with Sir Brian Langstaff since 5 April? Have they been asked for or provided written statements in response to the report? I echo the questions about rule 9 inquiries that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) asked.
Where does responsibility lie within the civil service on bringing forward Government action? Has a named senior civil servant been appointed since Sue Gray moved on? Above all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said, what on earth does “at pace” mean? The Government keep saying they are working at pace, but Members who have spoken in this debate, our constituents and the campaign groups can see no evidence of that whatsoever. The Paymaster General said again at questions this morning, in answer to my hon. Friend, that it was all terribly complex and the Government had to take time to get things right, but surely the inquiry was set up in the first place to make those recommendations so that the Government could take them forward without having to do even more additional work?
As Joyce put it to me, people are fed up waiting for jam tomorrow from this Government. Perhaps the Government are worried about the total bill, which will not necessarily go down even if more people pass away, because they will have families who are entitled to compensation. Perhaps they are worried about setting a precedent for future scandals, or perhaps they just do not see this as a political priority. Today’s debate should make it clear that this is a priority. The price that our constituents have paid is higher than any financial price that the Government might have to pay. The best way to avoid this being a precedent is to avoid future scandals. The use of contaminated blood was totally avoidable. This scandal should never have happened, and the inquiries have made it clear, and will continue to make it clear, that plenty of lessons are to be learned so that something similar does not happen again. The key lesson from this debate is that people have waited long enough. It is time for compensation and justice to be delivered.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this hugely important and timely debate, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and to the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for securing the debate and for all their campaigning on this issue for so long. I send my condolences to all those who have been bereaved by this scandal.
This has been a powerful and powerfully painful debate. I thank all Members who have made contributions today from both sides of the House. We heard some incredibly moving speeches, putting the stories and lives of those affected at the forefront. So many Members have paid tribute to those constituents and stayed with them. They came to see them one time in a surgery, but those Members are still speaking up for them. We are doing what we can.
The whole theme of the afternoon has been that we want justice now, but I start by paying tribute to the victims and their families, who, while working through their own personal ill health, grief and trauma, have been campaigning tirelessly for justice. Instead of listing the Members who have spoken in the debate, I will list those victims, families and advocates to whom they have paid tribute: to Glen, Nick and Michele; to Sean and Bruce; to Robert and Adam; to John, Mary and Tim; to Rosemary and her sons; to Leigh, Margaret and Barbara; to Gerald, Diane and David; to Graham and Diane; to Clive; to David, his brother, his father and his uncles; to Bill; to Sean; to Simon; to Cathy, Nichola and Paul; to Linda and Bill; and to Colin and Joyce. Those are just some of so many stories, and that is why we are here today.
I give special mention to those organisations that have been campaigning on this issue: the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, Haemophilia Wales, Haemophilia Scotland, the Hepatitis C Trust, the Haemophilia Society, Hepatitis B Positive Trust, the Sickle Cell Society, Factor 8, the Terrence Higgins Trust and all other organisations. If they did not already know it, I want them to know that we on the Opposition Benches are listening carefully, and we want to continue to partner with them to make sure that justice is done.
I also pay tribute to Sir Robert Francis, Sir Brian Langstaff and their teams for their reports, which have been so instrumental in bringing us to where we are today. I thank the Paymaster General for meeting me and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), yesterday on this issue. This awful scandal has already needlessly claimed the lives of 3,000 people. Statistics from the Terrence Higgins Trust show that between the start of the inquiry in July 2017 and February 2022, more than 400 people died. In fact, while we await the conclusion of the report and the inquiry, one person is dying every four days. Every day that we delay the compensation is justice denied to those people and their families.
Waiting for that justice and compensation is adding to the trauma and pain of the victims and their families. The continued work of the infected blood inquiry is crucial to ensuring that victims’ voices are heard. I had the privilege in March of meeting many victims of the scandal. Their stories will stay with me forever. No one should have to experience the pain and anguish that they have faced and are still facing. For too long the contaminated blood community has been failed—failed by the state in a dreadful way to start with, failed by health workers, failed by successive Governments, and ignored by those who have let the demands of those affected fall on deaf ears, leaving the community without justice. It is heartbreaking that so many members of the infected blood community will not live to see the outcome of the inquiry.
The Minister has agreed that there is a strong moral case for compensation, which is welcome. The inquiry has recommended an interim payment of £100,000 to victims of the contaminated blood scandal and bereaved partners, and the Government have committed to delivering those payments, which Labour also strongly welcomes. However, questions remain about those affected by the scandal, such as family members who have been left out of the compensation scheme. The report of Sir Robert Francis KC on the compensation and redress scheme was published in June last year, but the Government have still not responded to any of its recommendations. Sir Brian Langstaff published an interim report in April this year, which recommended, among other things, that the compensation scheme that is to be set up begin its work this year, and be ready to deliver before the final inquiry makes its report in the autumn, but families are disappointed and angry that there seems to be no commitment from the Minister to respond to that second report until the final report is published in the autumn.
The victims and their families, who are also victims, wait for justice and clarity. The Government could be setting up the compensation body now, taking action to track down and register those infected and affected for future compensation, and looking at ways in which the current scheme for interim payments could be expanded, or whether a scheme could be set alongside it, or how else it might work. The overwhelming feeling of the victims and their relatives on hearing of the scandal is one of heavy hearts, disappointment and anger. We understand the complexities of the scandal and of delivering this process, but I hope that the Minister can see that many individuals directly affected still feel angry and unrecognised. They need more communication, and above all action.
I will end with more questions for the Minister. There have been many questions that I hope he will respond to today. The Langstaff interim report of April recommends that a publicly funded compensation scheme be set up. How advanced is the work to set up that scheme? Will it be an expansion of the existing scheme for interim payments? Does he agree with the Langstaff interim report that the scheme should avoid legalistic or adversarial concepts of the burden and standard of proof, and not add to the trauma already experienced by victims and their families in the way that it is set up and delivered, and the way that assessments are carried out?
Has the Minister begun approaching people to chair the compensation body? Will he involve people from the affected community in that process, and are additional staff being sought so that the payments can be delivered quickly? Will the scheme be run by an independent body, and will legislation be required for that? If so, will Government time be ensured to enable the legislation to be expedited, so that that is not another reason for being slow? Will he repeat his commitment to start making compensation payments before the next Budget?
This scandal should not have happened. It should not have been covered up. Politicians should have acted. There should not have had to be a campaign by victims, who have had to work so hard to get justice. It should not have taken so long. There must not be any more delays.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for a debate. She referred to Glen, Michele, and to Nick Sainsbury, who as she said never lived to see this concluded. She said that it is all about people, and in doing so set the tone for the rest of the debate.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position. I have a lot of ground to cover, and I apologise if I cannot be as generous allowing interventions as is always my preference.
The victims of the scandal are at the forefront of my mind on a daily basis. We heard this afternoon the deep and tragic circumstances that led to the inquiry, of which many if not all of Members of this House will be keenly aware, either through personal experience or that of their constituents, of whom we have quite rightly heard a great deal this afternoon. I have the utmost sympathy for the plight of every individual who has been infected or affected.
In March, I met members of the infected blood community, facilitated by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and the Father of the House in their roles as chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood. They have been such powerful and effective advocates on behalf of victims throughout the scandal, which left a profound impact. We are all keen to ensure that the process of resolution for those impacted—which has taken decades and which so many have not lived to see—is brought, in the words of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), to a fair and equitable conclusion.
The emotions surrounding the dreadful plight of all those caught up in this appalling scandal is vividly apparent in the words said in the House this afternoon. As the whole House knows, the Government have agreed that there is a moral case for compensation. I welcome the publication of Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report. His wide-ranging and innovative approach, building on the study conducted by Sir Robert Francis, has provided thought-provoking focus for ongoing work on compensation. However, this remains in practical terms an extremely complex and demanding issue that requires a huge focus to resolve. No final decision on compensation has yet been made.
I would like to share with the House some of the complexities that we are working through and the process that we have adopted. In order to progress the work on the issue and to build on the work of officials—including my own permanent secretary who stepped up when the second permanent secretary departed, among others who are devoted to working on this important issue— I established earlier this year and I chair a small ministerial group, to bring together the expertise of different Departments. This small ministerial group enables in-depth discussions with all interested Departments about the Government response.
Members will understand that, due to collective responsibility, I cannot go into the details of the deliberations, but the SMG is an important tool for taking this issue forward. Representation at the SMG usually includes but is not limited to His Majesty’s Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care. I appreciate that some hon. Members and members of the communities affected would not wish to see any involvement from the Department of Health in this process. However, I am sure that colleagues will recognise that the DHSC and NHS arm’s length bodies hold vital relevant clinical expertise and can bring to bear their direct experience of the England infected blood support scheme. Their insight is invaluable.
Sir Brian’s far-ranging report sets out recommendations for compensation that go well beyond what would be expected from the courts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) pointed out. He explains why he has come to that view. The Government have not made a final decision on compensation, but I want to share with the House the complexity of the work in which we are engaged. Just as it is critical to ensure that any scheme works effectively for the victims, the House should expect the Government to work through the estimated associated costs to the public sector. Those estimates have not yet been finalised. Much work continues to be undertaken, but that is work in progress.
In line with the terms of reference, Sir Brian’s expert statisticians did their utmost to come to a conclusion on the numbers of those impacted. However, given the sheer complexity of the question and the lack of readily available data, they were still forced to produce a very wide estimated range of potential applicants. I am afraid that speaks to the tragedy itself and the history, of which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and many others are acutely aware.
Ultimately, the form and the extent of the compensation scheme come down to the decisions that have been made by Government. Sir Brian has helped enormously in bringing forward what he says are his last words on compensation, and I thank him for them. As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North pointed out, it is unusual to take this route. Sir Brian set out clearly why he had done so. I am certain that Sir Brian’s full report will put his compensation proposals into further and—I fear in many ways—deeply upsetting context.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) commented, Sir Brian’s preference is for an arm’s length body to be established in which the precise level of compensation under his framework would be determined by independent, legal and medical expert bodies. Sir Brian proposes that—I believe this is unique for anything like this scale—the ALB should report directly to Parliament rather than via a departmental accounting officer. While no decision has been made, were the Government to go down that route it would, as I alluded to in my previous statement, be a very significant step. It would also be extremely likely—the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) referred to this—to require primary legislation, although I should also say that the same may well be required for other compensation routes.
Turning to the delivery mechanism of any scheme, the mechanism favoured by Sir Robert Francis’s study was an expansion of the existing mechanisms in each of the four nations. The reasons for that are that they have established expertise, they understand the needs of the applicants and they are able to facilitate non-financial support more efficiently at a local level. Sir Brian supports a new single delivery mechanism for the entire UK to prioritise the speed and centralisation of resource for expedient delivery and the processing of applications, an approach very much favoured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) speaking on behalf of his constituents.
Sir Brian recommends a UK-wide arm’s length body to deliver one-off compensation payments, with the existing schemes continuing to deliver ongoing support. That would have the benefit of simplicity, protect ongoing support for those on existing schemes and ensure parity across the UK, but it would mean creating a new delivery mechanism. I have raised this issue with the devolved Governments. I recognise both the huge challenges inherent in us all putting on to the established schemes a task hugely more complex and substantial in nature than that which they have previously undertaken, and the difficulties in establishing a brand-new single mechanism. Whatever route is chosen—we are discussing that with the devolved Governments and will continue to do so—I absolutely recognise the point made by the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) that we have to ensure any compensation scheme brought forward avoids unnecessary stress and duplication for the victims who have already experienced quite enough trauma.
Having mentioned devolved Governments, we are mindful that health is a devolved matter. We are committed to working with those Governments to develop an effective response that delivers across the UK. I recently met Scottish and Welsh Ministers and the permanent secretary of the Northern Ireland Department of Health to discuss Sir Brian’s report. It was a helpful meeting. We shared a common determination to provide appropriate redress to the victims of infected blood. It was agreed that we would continue to meet as progress is made. That is not, for a minute, not to recognise the point made by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), that this is a decades-long issue that predated devolution by many years, and so the UK has a unique responsibility in coming to a proper conclusion.
The Government have made clear that they want the work to be done to ensure it is ready to respond to Sir Brian Langstaff’s final report as soon as possible. I have also made clear that that does not preclude us from making an earlier statement if we are in a position to do so. However, at this stage I want to share with the House and thereby the community some of the complexities with which we are wrestling to come to that fair and equitable conclusion.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is aware of the case of my great friend, constituent and long-serving councillor Dr David Tibbutt, who lost his wife and his brother-in-law to this scandal. On his behalf, may I urge my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the precedent of the legislation we put through this House in a single day for victims in Northern Ireland? That was a very complex issue which also engaged with devolved issues, but we were able to make progress. Will he do everything he can to expedite the compensation that victims need?
Jeremy Quin
I am aware of the background to Dr Tibbutt’s case, as my hon. Friend has discussed it with me. I was not aware of the legislation to which he refers. I would hope that if a conclusion could be brought to bear on compensation which required legislation and space was found for that legislation, it would have the support of the House to seek a resolution. I think today’s debate proves that there are so many hon. Members who are keen to bring this matter to a conclusion when it is possible to do so.
There were many powerful contributions to today’s debate, with some 16 Back Benchers speaking. I apologise for not being able to cover all the points that were raised. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) spoke with great emotion, which was matched by many others, including my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Southend West (Anna Firth), and the hon. Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock)—he is not his father, but he spoke eloquently—and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) read a powerful and moving poem that one of his constituents had written.
I am acutely aware of the House’s interest in the issue. We are all determined to take it forward to make certain that we produce a just and equitable settlement. I am sorry that I am not in a position to say more to the House at this stage, but we will continue to update hon. Members as we go through the work on an extremely complex issue—I know hon. Members recognise that—which, above all, we need to get right for the victims.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. They described so many individual cases, so many lives and so much suffering. The Minister has set out the Government’s position, but I respectfully say to him that it is not good enough. He said that the issue is complex—and yes, it is—but putting a man on the moon was complex, and we managed that. It seems to me that real political leadership to get this done is lacking.
As I said in my opening remarks, the time is now. We are not going away, and Parliament spoke with one voice today. It is not good enough; action is needed now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Infected Blood Inquiry.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is with great sadness that I inform the House of the passing of Winnie Ewing. Winnie served in this House after a spectacular by-election win in 1967. She served Hamilton between 1967 and 1970 and was re-elected in 1975 to serve the constituency of Moray and Nairn until 1979. She went on to serve in the European Parliament, where she became affectionately known as Madame Écosse, before serving in the first term of the Scottish Parliament, where she proudly chaired the opening session. She famously said,
“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”
Since her by-election win in 1967, there has been a permanent Scottish National party presence in this House. To us on the SNP Benches, she was a friend, a mentor and an inspiration. Our condolences go to her children, Fergus, Annabelle and Terry. We will miss her immensely. We will not see her like again.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As one of the people who served here with Winnie Ewing, may I say that the words of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will be echoed by many others?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Winnie was a formidable politician in three separate Parliaments— I do not know whether that is unprecedented. She was a formidable voice for Scotland and her passing will leave a vacuum in the world of politics, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Europe. I ask the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to pass on to her family the deepest condolences of the British Parliament.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that I am the only Member present who served with Dr Winnie Ewing in Holyrood. It was a great pleasure and an honour to know her. On a personal level, she showed me tremendous kindness when I was a new Member, first elected in 1999. I am very grateful for that and I will never forget it.
Local Radio: BBC Proposals
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will be looking for speeches of about four minutes, but I will do the maths while we listen intently to Sir Mike Penning.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the BBC to reconsider its decision to reduce local news output from local radio journalism which will have a negative impact on communities across the UK, reduce access to local news, information and entertainment and silence local voices.
I start by asking the House to note that some of our Doorkeepers are wearing regimental medals today, after Mr Speaker granted them permission to do so, for the first time, to mark Armed Forces Day. We acknowledge the service of our veterans to this country and this House.
I say a big thank you to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, and to all the colleagues who supported my bid. I was a little worried at one stage about whether we would have enough colleagues on a lovely Thursday afternoon, but the air conditioning is good in the Chamber and bad in the rest of the House. I hope my contribution will be accepted on both sides of the House.
The future, or lack of future, of BBC local radio affects everyone in this House and everyone in this country. Not everyone listens to BBC local radio, even though it has a substantial following, particularly among people who cannot access it through any other source, such as digitally. It is trusted in a way that no other medium is trusted. Local radio, local presenters, local knowledge and local topicality cannot be replicated in another part of the country. In my constituency, BBC Three Counties Radio turns into BBC eight counties at weekends.
The National Union of Journalists had an excellent lobby in Parliament, which I had the pleasure of attending, but this issue is not only about journalists. BBC staff, all the way from junior runners to local presenters, do not know whether they have a job. Some of them were issued with pre-redundancy notices at a really difficult time for renegotiating their mortgage. I was told categorically at the lobby that some people have been told they cannot remortgage when their fixed term runs out because they have no guarantee of a job.
Some freelance presenters were compulsorily moved into the pay-as-you-earn scheme by the BBC, probably because of concerns about IR35 legislation. They had work in other places, but they did not have a formal contract. Given that they were moved into PAYE a couple of years ago, we might think they will get redundancy compensation, but because they have been on PAYE for such a short time, they probably will not get it.
This debate is about the people who need local radio and the people who serve us on local radio. I think the BBC needs to wake up and smell the coffee. There are whole generations of people in our constituencies who have nothing to do with the BBC. They do not watch the BBC and they do not go online with the BBC, but they have to pay the licence fee. Constituents say to me, “The only thing I listen to is Three Counties Radio, which offers a service that no commercial station offers. Why am I paying the licence fee?” The younger generation, including some members of my family, say, “I’m paying the licence fee, but I don’t have anything to do with the BBC. I have to pay it because, obviously, it is a criminal offence not to pay the licence fee.” I think the BBC is going down a very dangerous road in alienating the core people who want to support it at the same time as trust in the national media is waning.
What will the BBC gain from these proposals? The BBC would say it has to move with the modern world and go digital, but most of its listeners cannot do that. Is the BBC saving huge amounts of money? I was told off by a colleague in this House for naming Gary Lineker as a very highly paid BBC employee. Well, I am going to do it again. He gets £1.2 million a year from the BBC, and he also works for BT Sport and other organisations. That is entirely up to him, but the people we are referring to cannot do that and are not on that sort of salary. This would be loose change out of the salaries being paid to the high-cost presenters. It is not just Gary Lineker; lots of others have high values.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a good point. One thing that grips me about this issue is that so many of our BBC radio reporters, such as those on BBC Radio Solent, which I want to see thrive and not get cut back, have starting salaries of £30,000. It is bizarre that BBC bigwigs think it is okay to have people on serious megabucks at a public institution, while they are making redundant and unemployed journalists who are on relatively low wages, given the importance of the job they do.
Sir Mike Penning
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about people. The way that the human resources people and the hierarchy at the BBC have handled this is appalling for a public body. It is so wrong that people are petrified, and have been for months, about whether they have a job. They are being told, “If you don’t accept the job we are going to offer you, you will be out the door.”
Ofcom has responsibility here. More than 600,000 people took part in the consultation that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport held on Channel 4, whereas Ofcom’s review of the BBC operating licence had 12 people respond to it. I cannot believe that Ofcom believes that that is representation in a consultation on the future of the BBC. I cannot believe Ofcom just sat back on that. It has a responsibility to make sure that the BBC fulfils its obligations to the people who pay the licence fee—a fee they have no choice but to pay.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As Members are fully aware, I hail from the far north of Scotland and once upon a time I was a councillor up there. The BBC was well staffed in those days and I bear the scars of its reporting on me. I did not like it at the time but, by God, that is what local democracy was about, and it was properly reported. That is part and parcel of the way we do things in this country, even as far away as where I live. This cutback will fundamentally undermine proper local democracy in remote places such as the far north of Scotland.
Sir Mike Penning
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. Accountability is the key, but we can have accountability only when there is knowledge on the part of the person asking the question. That comes from local journalists and local radio. One reason local radio is trusted more is exactly because, as he said, we get hauled over the coals sometimes. We go on our local radio stations and we say what we think is right, and sometimes we are told categorically, “That’s not right.” Why do they say that? It is because it is their opinion and because they have the local knowledge in that part of the world.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone); what he describes in the far north of Scotland applies to the south-east of England, in Kent, where Tunbridge Wells is pleased to host Radio Kent. We seek a local democracy in which people make decisions about who is to be their Member of Parliament and who is to be their councillor, but if they do not have the ability to listen to them and see them answer questions, how can they make that informed decision, on which our democracy depends?
Sir Mike Penning
That is the crux of this debate. As many colleagues know, before I came into this House, I was here for many years as head of news and media for the Conservative party. I interacted with the journalists and I was termed a “spin doctor”; that is what I was accused of, probably perfectly correctly.
I interact with my local presenters fairly regularly. I cannot remember the last time a senior BBC journalist did that. They walk straight past me as though I am completely invisible and go on the “Today” programme the following day and say, “This is the view of the Conservative party.” I do not know who they talk to, because they are not talking to me. Perhaps I have got a bit long in the tooth and I should be texting them or WhatsApping them. They do not actually communicate, particularly with the Back Benchers, unless of course they are going to say something completely outlandish that causes their party a load of grief, and then of course they will be on the “Today” programme the following morning. At the end of the day, that’s fine, if I have said something like that. However, I really feel that the only way that can work is if there is empathy with the people who understand what is going on in the local patches of different constituencies around the country.
I had the largest explosion and fire since the second world war in my constituency, just after I, a former fireman, was elected. My thoughts about what went on that day will live with me, and with my constituents, forever. The first people to get on to me were from my local radio station. They asked me, “What the hell is going on, Mike?” I said, “I’ve no idea, but give me 15 minutes. I am at the command centre and I will let you know”. Of course, later on Sky, the BBC and other national broadcasters got in touch, but it was the local paper—which has now met its demise, as have local papers in most of our constituencies—and the local radio station that contacted me first.
As we look at where these proposals will go, we see that it is absolutely imperative that this House sends a message to the BBC hierarchy, as well as to the workers of the BBC, including journalists, runners and junior people in offices, that we will not tolerate the undermining of local radio in our constituencies.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. He mentions sending a very clear message to the BBC, but I would like to take him back to his point about Ofcom. We should also be sending a very clear message to Ofcom. This House expects Ofcom to regulate the BBC and robustly hold to account the management of the BBC for delivering local services. Ofcom has written to the BBC saying that it is not certain that its own rules for regulating local radio are robust and sufficient. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for Ofcom to stand up for this House, and for listeners and viewers?
Sir Mike Penning
My hon. Friend makes an important point to bring me back to Ofcom. If Ofcom is saying, “Nothing to do with me, guv. We don’t have the power to sort this out,” then this House should do that, because we gave Ofcom the powers in the first place. That is crucial.
I will touch on one last thing. It is not all about whether the schools are going to close or the brilliant work that BBC local radio—and, to be fair, some of the commercial stations—did during the covid lockdowns. It is about the little things that matter in our constituencies.
I put my hand up—I am president of Hemel Hempstead Town football club. We are in the Vanarama national league south. If we do really well, we will be in the play-offs, I hope, this year—let’s keep wishing. We used to have two hours of non-league football on Three Counties Radio on a Saturday—gone. Why would that be? Perhaps they think no one is interested, but it was the lifeblood for a lot of the clubs to tell people where they were playing and who were the new players coming in. Football clubs, like pubs and post offices, are the core of our constituencies. Cutting that programming willy-nilly saves what? The BBC cannot even tell us that.
Why does the BBC not say, “Well, we are going to invest more money—£19 million or so—elsewhere”? I am not really interested in that. What I am interested in is why it is taking one amount of money from a certain core activity to put it somewhere else, when it was doing a frankly brilliant job in the first place. By the way, it is the BBC’s duty, under its franchise, to provide that.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I want to pick up on his point about what is important to local people. People who live in a rural area like North Shropshire want to know what is happening in North Shropshire. As much as they bear no ill will to the people of Stoke or Wolverhampton, they are not that interested in what is going on there. The lifeblood of every fête, charitable event or local football match is that the organisers can get on local radio and tell people that those events are happening. Does he agree that the local connection is important, particularly for people who live in rural places and cannot access commercial stations, because they do not get a signal? BBC local radio is the lifeblood of those organisations and people.
Sir Mike Penning
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct; BBC local radio is the lifeblood. Whether it is a football match, or the local schools closing because we have had half an inch of snow, those are the sorts of things that are really important to local people. I love Norfolk. I go fishing on the Norfolk broads on a regular basis, but I do not think the Norfolk broads area has any synergy with junction 8 of the M1 being blocked. The latter has massive effects in my constituency, but no effects in another area. I am not really interested in their issues; they are not interested in mine. It breaks up the empathy with the community in what people trust the BBC to do.
As well as our sending a message to Ofcom and to the BBC, the motion before the House today, which was carefully drafted with the assistance of the Table Office, is worded in such a way that, if necessary and if anybody in this House objected to it, we could divide on it, so that this House could send that message to the BBC. I hope that we are unanimous and that we do not need to do that, but if we do, we will. If this House does not divide and we unanimously accept the motion before us, that message needs to be heard by the BBC loudly and clearly. It needs to wake up and smell the coffee before the British public say they have had enough of the BBC.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thanks, Mike, for keeping to 15 minutes, so that we can get a few more people in. I have already given forward notice that we will have a time limit of four minutes, so, for four minutes, I call Emma Lewell-Buck.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for doing a great job in setting out the details of all of our concerns here today.
I have never made any secret of my love for BBC Radio Newcastle. No matter where I am, I always tune in. My love of local radio is shared by many, not just in the north-east but right across our country, because local radio matters. Many of us struggled through covid. Unlike those making the rules and breaking them, we stuck to them and it hurt us. We missed our loved ones. We cried alone for lives lost and we tried to do our best to help our communities.
The familiar local voices on the radio every day gave comfort, brought reassurance, and connected people in a way that no other medium was able to do, especially when different parts of the country were under different covid regulations. Under the BBC’s proposals, I just cannot imagine how radio from 2 pm onwards coming from a different part of the country could have accurately conveyed, at that time, the right information for all the areas that it was expected to cover.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Local BBC stations such as our much-valued BBC Radio Berkshire are invaluable because not only do they hold local politicians to account, but they give voice to local people who would not otherwise be covered by the national media. I appreciate that the Government have cut funds to the BBC, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must give reassurances to the good people of Slough and others in Berkshire that they will not lose out on that BBC Radio Berkshire output?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Just before the hon. Lady replies, let me just say to her that the Annunciator is showing her as representing Westminster North. That is clearly not true, is it?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
That is not me, no.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has pre-empted a point that I will make later in my speech.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
As somebody who understands the ins and outs of local government, does my hon. Friend agree that BBC local radio, which often takes a much more detailed approach to a problem than other media, is very important to those who want to follow local government decisions? It often provides really good scrutiny—much better, in fact, than that provided nationally.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. At a time when people are losing faith in politics and politicians, it is vital that all voices are heard, not just in this place but in local government.
Disgracefully, the BBC started these cuts during the pandemic, asking more than 100 staff to take voluntary redundancy, stripping back the schedules, forcing all shows to have four-hour slots with solo presenters, and axing specialist programmes. That set the scene for homogenising practice at all local stations, making it easier for the BBC to make the cuts that it wants to make now and merging everything from 2 pm onwards. For the nation’s flagship broadcaster to introduce those changes without consulting the fee-paying public is pretty galling.
As a fee payer, I am angry that my views were not sought, but I am angrier about the loss of jobs and talent at the BBC that these changes will cause, and the loss of service to my fantastic constituents. Digital exclusion in the north-east is the highest in England. The north-east is the region with the highest proportion of disabled people, and my area of south Tyneside has the largest elderly population in the north-east, a group who have already been battered by the changes to the over-75s licence fee. Those are the very groups who not only listen to local radio but rely on it the most. When the BBC’s director general appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, he said that the changes were “critical for local democracy”, but when it comes to the north-east he is simply wrong—these changes are quite the opposite.
The director general also claimed to have empathy with striking staff, yet MPs across this House have heard how disgracefully staff have been treated, how he is presiding over a toxic culture of fear and paranoia and how the reselection interviews related to the cuts in local radio have been embroiled in workplace bullying. Little wonder that in a recent survey, less than one quarter of BBC television and radio staff said they had confidence in the their senior leadership team. I pay tribute to those workers, and their union, who have bravely spoken out not just for themselves but for their 5 million-plus listeners—more than listen to Radio 1 or 5 Live.
Local radio employs some of the best journalists we have in the country. Anyone who is in doubt should just re-listen to the disastrous round of interviews that the previous and brief incumbent of No. 10 did last year. She underestimated and undervalued those journalists, just as their employer is doing now. We are now in a scenario where the BBC is blaming the Government, as its revenue is down from the licence fee freeze, and the Government are simply saying, “Well, that’s up to the BBC.” The reality is that with these changes the BBC is not adhering to its own charter, it is not delivering on contributing to social cohesion, and at the same time—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry, but we have so many people to speak.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Mindful of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make sure that my remarks show—I hope—an admirable economy.
It is 100 years since the BBC was founded. Lord Reith took on that responsibility in the late 1920s and talked about BBC’s mission to inform, to educate and to entertain. Without the local radio network that we have seen developed over the last 50 years or so, I am afraid the first of his three maxims will not be fulfilled. Without the important network of journalists, supported by the staff to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) quite rightly referred to in his excellent introductory remarks— I thank him for securing this debate—local people will not be informed.
Swindon sits right in the middle of the south of England, between the west of England and south central regions, and it is frankly not adequately covered by television; we are affected by a real dividing line where my community sits. BBC Radio Wiltshire is the only glue within the broadcasting network that links us with the historical country from which Swindon has developed. It is certainly the view of my constituents, and the constituents of my colleagues in North Swindon, Devizes and other local seats, that the loss and denigration of that service will really harm the way local people can access information.
It is all very well talking about digital coverage, and I accept that many of us use online services. However, without local journalists generating live coverage daily by ringing MPs here, ringing councillors or ringing local people and getting them on the show, there will be no material generated to put online. The co-ordination between the generation of live content—particularly for evening drivetime shows, in our case—and its transfer online seems to be being missed in all this.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for securing the debate. BBC Three Counties Radio is a local radio station, but how can it be local if it is not able to deliver local news? To go back to the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) is making, the key thing is that the BBC is effectively getting rid of the local in local radio.
Sir Robert Buckland
I agree. The amalgamation of Wiltshire with Gloucestershire—a vast area—will put us back into the sort of regional miasma that affects the access to local news of the residents I represent.
We have great community radio in Swindon—105.5 is a wonderful community station—and it is doing its best to provide a public service, but the BBC is the public service broadcaster, and its obligation is to get public service right. In the reforms, it has paid lip service to consultation, and the way in which staff are being treated is unacceptable. This is, I am afraid, another example of poor decision making, poor communication and poor leadership from the BBC. We expect better of it. In the delivery of these botched reforms, it is failing in its duty.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Under the banner of “digital first”, 39 local radio stations will have their content dramatically reduced, as we have all heard. Local radio will become regional and national, in many cases, after 2 pm. Now, I am not saying that we do not need digital—I have nothing against digitalisation—but it should not come at the cost of local radio. It is as simple as that.
Local radio has 5.7 million listeners every week, yet no meaningful consultation has taken place, so I have written to the director general, along with many Merseyside colleagues, to say that we are dismayed about the changes that will see weekend breakfast shows shared with Lancashire and Cumbria, which have very different audiences. The original plan also envisaged sharing with Radio Manchester, but it has been decided that Radio Manchester will be able to keep its breakfast show, despite it having fewer listeners than Radio Merseyside. Why? What is the rationale? I do not know, and I do not think they know.
At other times, broadcasting will be either regional or national. That will mean that a significant proportion of Cheshire will not be covered as appropriately and locally as it could be, which is a serious blow to our local democracy and will threaten listener numbers. Some specialist local radio shows, including a dedicated political programme on Friday afternoons, are being axed as well. Listeners are yet to be made aware of all the changes, which include the replacement of a popular local presenter who has excellent ratings by someone who is potentially less experienced.
We believe that local radio programmes provide a valuable service of information and companionship in communities, and that millions of people need to continue being served locally. Local radio is a lifeline for news and education, mitigating rural isolation—I know that—and supporting people’s mental health. It is a great incubator for new talent and one of the crown jewels of our public sector broadcaster. We have to protect it.
We are very concerned that those plans are being pursued without appropriate consultation. I have had a letter from the BBC since the announcement, but I did not receive one before—talk about putting the cart before the horse. We are asking the BBC to consider its approach and ensure that there is proper local consultation.
On a personal level, I was on BBC Radio Merseyside last Friday talking about an issue close to my heart: the air ambulance service, which helped my late daughter. We had a great 10-minute programme on what it means to our community, and we would not have had that were it not for local radio. I would not have had the chance, as a father, to make the case for it. That is what local radio does, so it has my full support. Those journalists do a fantastic job, and they need the support of every single one of us in this Chamber.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
BBC local radio is unique. In the multifarious and busy media landscape we have today, it is very rare to be able to say that. Nobody else in the market provides what BBC local radio does. We have BBC local TV, but it is regional. It provides a very good service, but the difference between TV and radio is that in radio—again, this is unique in the media landscape these days—we can have long-form, detailed conversations. We do not have to think about the number of characters we use. We are not asked to answer a question in 15 seconds. We can actually have proper, grown-up conversations, and we can be challenged as public servants, whether that is us in this place or councillors. It is the lifeblood of impartial local broadcasting, and we do not get that anywhere else.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) said with reference to Three Counties Radio, which serves my constituency too, doing that requires the people on the ground with the time to be on top of very local issues—for example, those at Wycombe Hospital, which I discussed on Three Counties the other day. Without those people, it will never be local.
Lia Nici
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In these days of flexible working and working from home, and with the technology we can now use with radio, local radio can be unique in how it works.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) organised a meeting with the director general of the BBC the other week, and I gave him a really hard time. My background is in television, video and radio, and I have to say that with the changes being made, I do not believe the BBC is particularly committed to local radio at all. Yes, it is still committing to local radio from 6 am to 2 pm, but I looked at the BBC site through the link that was sent to us with our briefing, and it says that BBC local radio has a 15.5% reach. Other media organisations would kill for a 15.5% reach. My local station, Radio Humberside, has a higher reach than that, at 16%.
It worries me that 58% of local radio listeners are over the age of 55, and 48% are in C2, D and E socioeconomic groups. That means they are unique to the places that feel they have been left behind. We talk about levelling up, but if we want to do that, we should make sure the BBC has to level up and keep our local BBC radio services. Once we have lost it, we will no longer see proper democratic reporting.
The BBC says that it is taking on 130 new local journalists, but it is all for digital. My concern is that digital and print media, in the old sense, do not have to be impartial, and people may not understand that. Public sector broadcasters have to be impartial, and we need to make sure that the BBC does not become any more partial than it is starting to become.
My worry is that the majority of my constituents who listen to local radio and feel that it talks to them are going to lose out on hearing their own news. For people who are visually impaired, elderly or cannot get out very often, radio is a lifeline. I am pleased that so many Members are here to talk about this, because I feel passionately about it, and the BBC needs to be made to stop.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the topic of elderly people, 8% of my residents in Southend West are over 80, and for them, our local BBC Essex radio is a lifeline. We know that younger people consume media online, but 35% of the over-75s do not consume their news online, so does she agree that this policy is directly discriminating against the very people who actually support the BBC?
Lia Nici
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Unless we are really good at working with digital, it is quite difficult to find our local radio station. Podcasts, BBC Sounds and all these things are really difficult for the exact people in BBC local radio’s target reach.
I would like to say a big thank you to my local presenters, in particular David Burns and Andy Comfort, who have been fantastic. We do not talk about this, but for people who do not get out much and want to listen to their local radio, hearing local voices is so important; there is a sense of familiarity and a feeling that they know that person. The BBC seems to be losing those presenters who are exactly the right demographic to talk to the people who are listening. Yes, we want to bring on young broadcasters, but they are not the right demographic for their target audience, so I would say to the BBC, “Please listen. This is vitally important. If we lose any more of local radio, it is going to be a desperate situation for our constituents.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If Members do not take too many interventions, I think we can go to a time limit of five minutes.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this debate, and on his excellent opening remarks. I absolutely agree with what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) has just said. I share Radio Humberside with her, and we are committed across the Humber: all 10 Members of Parliament representing the area covered by BBC Radio Humberside support that radio station and value it. We know that it is rooted in our community, it works all year round and it is indispensable in emergencies. As a number of Members have said, the local BBC is more trusted than the national BBC.
I will concentrate on the proposal to end local radio at 2 pm on weekdays and at weekends. I see that as part of a process: it seems like the next lot of cuts are already in train. Why is that? We know that the linear radio medium is not dying due to inevitable technology-driven trends; it is a deliberate cull, a decision on behalf of the BBC. There are still 5.7 million BBC local radio listeners, spread fairly evenly throughout the day, and Radio Joint Audience Research listening figures show that 59.4% of BBC Radio Humberside’s audience listen on FM. Only about 0.4% listen via BBC Sounds, and 8% listen on smart speakers.
BBC management are using the damaging effect of the previous lot of cuts on ratings to justify this next set of cuts. With 95% of the local radio audience listening from outside London, these cuts would mean a more London-centric and metropolitan BBC. We know that commercial radio will not replace BBC local public service radio, and that downgrading local news adds to the growing news desert problem. In addition, as a number of Members have said, there has been no impact assessment of the effect of those cuts on the 34% who are digitally excluded—the poorer, the lonely, the over-50s, those with disabilities, and those in rural and coastal areas. Digital services cannot replace live local radio, and linear radio provides most of the content for digital.
I also want to say something about BBC staff and to pay tribute, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby did, to some of the employees in Radio Humberside who have already left. That includes David Burns—Burnsy—a popular morning presenter who has gone already. BBC staff have felt humiliated, patronised and bullied by this process. Well-known local presenters are going, but we are apparently bringing in presenters from other regions, which just seems ridiculous. The BBC points to a 30% fall in income since 2010, but the BBC is a very large organisation. It can save on management costs, for example, including management costs within the £117 million BBC local radio budget.
So what do we want from the BBC? I fully support the motion before us. We want the BBC to halt this calamity now—to open up its finances to independent scrutiny, see what efficiencies can be found to protect services and develop digital, consult local radio staff on their ideas, hold a proper public consultation alongside an impact assessment, and invite axed local radio staff such as Burnsy to return.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I wonder whether the right hon. Lady, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, shares the surprise that I feel when looking at the BBC’s briefing for this debate. It says that it is creating 130 additional local journalist posts, and that as part of those posts it will create a new network of 70 investigative journalists across England. I can see the value of investigative reporting, but when people such as the excellent staff of BBC Radio Solent have to go on strike over the threat to their jobs, is that the right priority that the BBC should be following?
Dame Diana Johnson
I very much hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. What I value about local radio is that it holds me to account. It is already investigating what local councils are doing and what local MPs are up to, and I think that is the value that many have talked about today.
Just to conclude, if the BBC thinks again and halts these cuts, we will work together as parliamentarians to protect local radio and to support the BBC. I hope that W1A is listening to this, and that it is not just SW1A listening to this debate. I know that constituents in Hull who live in HU5, HU6 and HU7, and in other postcodes across Humberside, feel at the moment that that they are losing a friend with these cuts to the BBC.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and I think I agree with every word she said. This is a classic debate in which we find Members of all parties coming together to make the same cause, because it matters so much to our constituents and is so important.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on bringing forward this debate. More specifically, I congratulate him on the very well-worded motion we are debating. I reiterate his point that, even if we do not divide on the motion, it needs to be read and taken seriously by BBC management. This set of proposals would silence local voices.
The proposals would also be detrimental to the BBC’s work as a public sector broadcaster on equality grounds. I question whether the BBC has ran proper equality tests on the impact of what it is doing. I recently joined blind campaigners outside No. 10 Downing Street to present a petition on this issue, which was also presented at BBC headquarters in W1A, and I do not think that has been responded to in detail by the BBC. Local radio stations are trusted voices, which are trusted by our constituents because they are local voices, and they are also trusted by people who miss out on digital and people who are isolated, lonely and living on their own, whether for reasons of disability, age or digital exclusion. These are audiences that the BBC should absolutely be going out of its way to serve.
We have heard about proposals for timing changes. The BBC will say that it is keeping local radio for the most important part of its listenership and the most popular part of its readership, but that misses the point. If we take away the journalists who are covering news for key periods of the day, we will lose key local content that does not then find its way to digital. We all know that events in our constituency—whether political or educational, or about volunteers doing great work—do not just take place between 7 o’clock in the morning and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. In fact, most educational stories are likely to take place during the afternoon when people have more time to talk about them. A lot of politics takes place later on in the day and feeds into the evening shows. These are the things the BBC should be paying attention to.
The BBC should also be paying attention to its staff. I have rarely been one to speak out in favour of strikes, but I have to say that I have every sympathy with members of the NUJ who have been striking and protesting, because they have not been consulted and have not been listened to. In fact, local journalists who work incredibly hard, and who are a key pipeline for future talent into the BBC nationally, are not being listened to in this space. I think that absolutely needs to change.
Talking of listening, the BBC says it has listened on some of its regional proposals and changes, but from a Worcestershire MP’s perspective, it has actually made things worse. It was originally proposing to put together programming from Hereford and Worcester with programming from Coventry and Warwickshire. That, from a Worcestershire perspective, is difficult—it would not necessarily be as local as it was—but vaguely understandable. The BBC has changed that now, and has taken away the idea of combining us with Coventry and Warwickshire. It is now suggesting combining Hereford and Worcester with Shropshire, Staffordshire and Stoke. My constituents do not feel that the news in Stoke is terribly relevant to them, and I am sure my Stoke colleagues would feel likewise. I agree with what the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said about the genuinely local content of what local radio can deliver and the huge importance of that. With the best will in the world, her constituents are better served by BBC Radio Shropshire and my constituents are better served by BBC Radio Hereford and Worcester.
There is much more I would like to say. I have discussed in previous debates the importance of BBC local radio at times of crisis, such as times of floods; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead referred to the fire in his constituency. We need that coverage through the day; we need those local voices through the day. I urge the BBC to sit up and listen and make sure that this motion is taken seriously and we keep that very valuable part of the crown jewels of public service broadcasting, BBC local radio.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
May I break it very gently to the House and those following the debate that not everybody listens to Radio 4 or the World Service? As mentioned by many previous speakers in the debate, lots of people depend in many ways on listening to local radio. Local radio is extremely popular in this country, a reminder of our pride in our robust local characters and in local heritage, history and traditions.
I was born in the north-east; I believe it is like nowhere else in the country and it should be celebrated rather than ignored and piled in with the rest of the country as if we are just one big blob. Most speakers have said that people in their regions want to hear the local news of relevance to them told to them by people with the same accents as them. They want to hear about what is happening on their high streets and the local weather—what it will be like tomorrow? People do not want to know what the weather will be in Southend when they live in Newcastle upon Tyne or Northumberland, where I live, where it is misty all the time. Basically, we are being misled. We need to make sure we get this right. The BBC must listen, for heaven’s sake, and understand the value of the crown jewels of local radio, as it has been described.
The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) mentioned that non-league football plays a huge part in people’s lives. People cannot put on Radio 4 and find out how Ashington or Bedlington have got on. It is fantastic for people when the local radio station has reporters with the same accent as them telling them how the different clubs and teams are doing in the different parts of the region. That is invaluable.
It is good to listen to fantastic journalists with skills and knowledge of their own area telling us what is happening in politics. It is great to be interviewed by people who understand us and who press us on the local issues. It is great in the morning to get a phone call from Alfie Joey from Radio Newcastle asking if I will come on and talk about this, that and the other. It is essential; it is what people want.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) mentioned that we in the north-east have a huge issue with digitalisation. Of course we do; people in the north-east still call the radio “the wireless.” Not everybody uses wi-fi. We have to remember that.
A lot more can be said, but I have fond memories of Radio Newcastle. I remember when my mother used to make the Sunday dinner in the morning to feed seven of us. There was a programme called “Sing something simple”, and we once rang up and said, “Can you give a message to our mother on Mother’s Day?” and Radio Newcastle gave a message to her. She was absolutely past herself; she said, “If I had known my name was going to be on the radio, I would have got my hair done.” That is how much it meant to my mother.
In conclusion, we have some fantastic reporters and fantastic journalists, and the way they are being tret, bullied and intimidated by the BBC is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) suggests that he supports the strikes; I am going to invite him on to the picket line. He cannot deny it; he will have to come. We hope that the BBC will reflect on the fact that local radio is the people’s radio.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We look forward to seeing Mr Walker on the picket line.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Times are changing—often at a rapid pace—so I can understand the rationale behind the BBC’s plans. However, I am worried that its proposals have not been properly thought through, have not been fully researched, consulted upon or scrutinised, and risk isolating particular groups and communities that the BBC is obliged to serve. It is in that context that I make the following observations.
My first point is that if these proposals go through, at certain times Radio Suffolk will share content not only with Radio Norfolk, but with Radio Cambridgeshire, Three Counties Radio, which covers Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and Radio Northampton and Radio Essex. The total population of all those counties is higher than that of Denmark and they cover an area three quarters the size of Belgium.
Secondly, it is necessary to bear in mind that older people are often living on their own without advanced digital skills. For them, local radio is a vital link to the outside world. In many respects, the need for such a service has been reinforced and restated by the covid lockdowns. The need to meet the needs of older people is very much relevant in East Anglia, where we have a particularly high proportion of older people living in the region.
Thirdly, it is vital that policy changes of this nature are subject to a rurality test to ensure that they do not unfairly impact on those living in rural areas, such as Suffolk. It is also important to highlight the role that BBC local radio has played at times of emergency and crisis. On the night of 5 December 2013, a storm surge hit the east coast of the UK. Radio Suffolk, led by presenter Mark Murphy, played a key role in keeping local communities and those responsible for co-ordinating support and rescue services informed about the progress of the storm surge down the Suffolk coast. The information provided may well have saved lives and prevented injury. It was a spontaneous and local decision by Radio Suffolk to alter its programming to provide that service. It has been suggested that local newspapers can take on this role, but it should be pointed out that many of them have embarked on the same journey that the BBC is now pursuing of moving their services on to digital platforms.
My final point is that it is important to emphasise that the BBC is not the only provider of local radio. East Suffolk One is emerging as an exciting new local radio station based in Lowestoft and covering the Suffolk coast. However, it is currently constrained from growing and developing by not being able to broadcast on a DAB frequency, by poor local DAB infrastructure, and by a time-consuming, bureaucratic and expensive commercial radio licensing structure. On 29 March, the Government published the draft Media Bill, which has the objective of reducing the regulatory burdens and costs on commercial radio stations. There is now an urgent need for this Bill to start its progress through Parliament, and I would welcome an update on the Government’s plans when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies.
In conclusion, I urge the BBC to pause and review its plans, and I ask the Government to liaise closely with the BBC to ensure that its proposals fit in with and complement a properly co-ordinated local media strategy.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for his excellent work in securing the debate. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, and I agree with many of the points they expressed. I declare an interest as somebody who was once a local newspaper journalist and is still a member of the NUJ. I commend its excellent campaigning work on behalf of BBC staff over this matter.
I will briefly cover three things: the nature of the modernisation, the importance of radio as a medium, and a call for a rethink by the BBC. On modernisation, it is important that we all acknowledge that change is sweeping through the media. Sadly—I experienced this myself many years ago—there has been huge change already in print, not all of it positive. We have to accept that there will be an element of change; the question for the BBC is whether it can manage that change effectively, and how it protects and preserves the unique value of local radio as it changes and modernises its services. I am in favour of better online coverage, but I do not want that to be at the expense of local radio, which is a hugely important local medium.
I will make a quick plug, as did the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). Large areas of the country are already poorly served by other BBC media, such as local television. In our part of central southern England, we have suffered for many years from a lack of Thames valley-based TV coverage in the same way that Swindon does—yet Reading is the second-largest urban area in the south-east of England. We want the BBC to look more broadly at its coverage across the country in different media.
My residents would be very badly affected by the proposed cuts. We are used to having BBC Radio Berkshire, which as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said is a much-loved county-based station. Almost all the content is local, but sadly it looks like it is being cut to only 48% local content from across the county. Exactly the issues that other Members have mentioned apply to us. We potentially face the ridiculous situation where commuters on the M4 near Windsor will be listening to a drivetime programme shared with people near Banbury, which is practically in the midlands. [Laughter.] Sorry—that is the local view from our part of the world. Local radio needs to be local, and drivetime and other programmes need to be truly local, as people said earlier.
I will briefly mention the importance of radio as a medium. As people said earlier, it is a much-loved companion and a comfort to people in need, people who are isolated in rural communities, and other people who are perhaps disabled, elderly or at home on their own. It is a wonderful medium, particularly for older residents. It is hugely valued and should not be forgotten.
I will briefly pay tribute to all those who work on our local radio. As was said earlier, it is very far from the glamorous world of Radio 4. It is utterly unglamorous. It is doing shifts early in the morning and late at night, and going to local fêtes and local events, but it is essential for local communities across the country, wherever they may be, in the many diverse parts of this wonderful country. Let us hope that this wonderful service can continue far into the future. I urge the BBC to rethink, to get out of its ivory tower, and to listen to local needs.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for securing this timely and necessary debate. As others have said, I hope that the BBC is listening. A few constituents in my time have told me that I have a face for radio, so I have been particularly grateful for BBC Radio Devon. It has given me an opportunity to talk about local issues and—perhaps more importantly than projecting what I think—to hear from local people and local businesses about the local issues in and around Devon. I stand here on behalf of all Devon MPs, because we all share the view that the cuts, and the decision to make these changes, are outrageous, and we need to ask the BBC to pause.
I pay tribute to some of the extraordinary radio presenters in Devon, from John Acres to Michael Chequer, David FitzGerald, Pippa Quelch, David Sheppard and Toby Buckland. Last year, we lost one of our great radio DJs in Gordon Sparks, who was a lifelong Argyle supporter. He ended up using the radio to talk about that local football team to such a level that he had a lifetime of followers, and when he died there were extraordinary tributes to him across all of Devon.
This debate is not just about the presenters but about the extraordinary production teams, who work tirelessly to ensure that we are up to date with local information. I cannot express how important that is in enabling us to do our jobs well and accurately, and to be challenged and scrutinised. Representing the issues that people care about in our respective constituencies in this place is made all the easier by the existence of fantastic local radio services.
Just a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), who cannot be here today, took the director general Tim Davie to task. He asked about the consultation, and the director general’s response was, “We are always talking to people.” That is not a good enough answer when making such extraordinary cuts. I have only one request of the Minister. If the BBC will not do a fully formed consultation, we must ask it to do one, so that we can see the impact and motivate our constituents to recognise that what they hold dear may well be taken away from them.
We have heard from hon. Members across the House about the purity and the necessity of the local. Localism is important to us all—we talk about it nearly every day, in every speech and on every topic. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) spoke about the merging together of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire—exactly the same is happening between Devon and Cornwall. I do not need to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the rivalries between Devon and Cornwall will only be exacerbated if the merger goes ahead. Joking aside, how does a Devon and Cornwall service ensure that we can report on local events, local news, local problems and local businesses that are suffering in myriad ways? It does not provide what we are asking for, and it certainly does not provide the service that people are asking for.
If an element that people contribute to through the licence fee is to be taken away, why are those people not being engaged? It is perfectly legitimate to ask people, “Are you happy with this service being removed?”, and to engage and consult them on that. The idea of having all-England reporting in Devon and Cornwall over the weekends does not fill me with joy.
A couple of colleagues from different parts of the House made the point that those in the BBC who are extremely concerned about the moves were faced with gagging orders—an inability to speak out when faced with losing their jobs. I cannot understand how a public body has been allowed to behave in that manner and to remove a service, all the while restricting its own employees from speaking out about it. They have called me and colleagues across Devon about these issues. We have all spoken about it together and we are utterly appalled by the BBC’s behaviour. The BBC must modernise, of course. No one says that it should not change, and there are ways in which it should, but it must retain its heart and soul. To me, its heart and soul is local radio.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this debate.
Having engaged with constituents and those impacted by the change who have been supported by their trade union, the NUJ, and having met regional and national management, my clear conclusion is that BBC local management has failed in the process and in the decision. It has failed to consult and it has been insensitive to listeners and staff—this shameful episode has left them ignored and hurt. The BBC must apologise. All this for the sake of less than £200,000 across the whole of North Yorkshire—25p per person, or tuppence a month. The BBC could more than fund that from its licence fee. If the BBC saw itself as social prescribing—which it is—that would be value for money. However, licence fee payers have never been asked. I say to the BBC, “Never forget who you are there for.” I say to Ofcom, “Do your job.”
In writing to the BBC, Ofcom highlighted that over-65s would be impacted the most. Why is that okay? It is not. The House clearly believes that older members of our communities—the frailest and the most isolated—matter, although I have to say that the Government have not helped by taking away free licences for older people. Ofcom went on to say,
“We question how shared programming which will cover such large areas will still be relevant to audiences.”
Ofcom has to act. It is not a bystander but a regulator. With more people becoming isolated and 9 million people experiencing loneliness, having a friend—that reliable voice just down the road—matters. My goodness, it matters. Through covid, we learned what many people live through every day of their lives. That local connection is the thing that makes us belong. It gives us value, identity and hope. That has now been stolen.
This debate it is not just about community interest. Power, politics and decision making are shifting away from the Westminster bubble to local areas: not to Yorkshire, but to North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire—each one distinct. The new area will cover a distance of 150 miles. That is the length of a quarter of the country, so do not tell me that that is local. Digitalisation is all about diversification, not centralisation. The BBC local teams around the country understand that, because they are not in the London BBC bubble but integrated and immersed in our communities with their listeners. Well BBC, today we are here to speak up for our communities, so stop laughing at us and start listening.
In writing to the BBC, Ofcom expected the
“BBC to review the impact of its changes to local radio in England as they are implemented to ensure they are meeting audience needs”.
How can it do that if it is not talking to its audiences—audiences who are never consulted and never included? There is no baseline. In 2011, BBC local failed to consult its audiences on its “Delivering Quality First” proposals. However, it was ordered to and it must be ordered to again.
As for the presenters, many are very experienced, at the top of their profession and choose to remain in local radio because they care more about journalism, their communities and telling real stories than following the circus in Westminster or climbing the tree in London. They have been put to the test. The process determined that those journalists had to make demo tapes and talk about themselves. How utterly humiliating. Some just walked and we lost brilliant people from BBC Radio York’s family, notably Jonathan Cowap and Adam Tomlinson. I pay tribute to them today and trust that they will be back once this charade is behind us. Whoever thought up such a crass, insensitive process has no idea how to run a people-centred service. It is not a gameshow; this is about livelihoods and careers. It is not good enough for the BBC to just press on. It has got to stop.
The BBC breaches its responsibilities, ignores its listeners and insults its employees. With a 93% loss of confidence in the director general, it is seriously time for those responsible for this fiasco to consider their future. I say to Ofcom, “Do your job”; to the BBC, “Sort this out”; to the Government, “Act”; and to all who work in BBC local in York and beyond, “Solidarity”.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I fully support the motion and I call on the BBC to reconsider this incredibly poor decision to cut news output locally. I wrote a letter to BBC bigwigs about the plight of BBC Radio Solent and I am glad that seven other colleagues from across the House signed it. Instead of cutting back local BBC coverage, we should be investing in it and expanding it. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for this incredibly timely debate. It is a privilege to be a part of it and to listen to some great speeches. I want to make three points and I will do so relatively briefly to make sure that all Members can get in.
Despite representing just 3% of the BBC’s total spend, local radio reaches 5.7 million people every week, which is an extraordinarily high figure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) pointed out, it shows significant reach. It also shows very significant value for money. BBC Radio Solent, for example, covers 1.9 million people across the Isle of Wight, Hampshire and Dorset. Like many other BBC local radio stations, it broadcasts to a relatively large audience at, as I said, relatively low cost. I would also make the point that it is already an amalgam. In a perfect world, we would have our own BBC Isle of Wight, as we do not share that much in common with Dorset. What on earth we will share with Oxfordshire news-wise I do not know, because it is 100 miles away and on the mainland. We cannot have a further regionalisation of so-called local services.
The cuts will affect £19 million of spending, against a licence fee of some £3.8 billion. For me, local radio is entirely the wrong thing to cut and the wrong place to start a reorganisation of services, especially when we consider two of the BBC’s major costs. First, people always complain about its bloated management structures. There seem to be people on six-figure salaries whose purpose at the BBC is unclear, at a time when we pay junior BBC reporters just over £30,000 a year. The BBC has not got its priorities right in any way, shape or form.
Secondly, as is already well-known, rich people earn between £400,000 and £1 million a year from our national broadcaster. If they want to earn more money working for Sky or ITV, that is fine—they are commercial stations and can choose the market rate they want. I do not think that BBC audiences understand why some of those people are paid so much money when those who work for the BBC’s heart and soul—its local radio—struggle to get by on modest salaries.
I know my local BBC reporters, such as Peter Henley and Emily Hudson. I do not always agree with them, but I respect their integrity and the fact that they really care about the places they represent. They live there, and what happens in their communities in the Isle of Wight, Hampshire and Dorset matters to them. One of the BBC’s strong points is that it still cares and that local BBC reporters who serve their communities have a passion and a drive to report what they see as the truth about the workings of the council, the NHS and their MPs. They even report what happens in dull planning committees because they take the bread and butter of democracy seriously. Long may that continue.
We need to invest much more in local BBC. It seems me that one purpose of paying the licence fee is not to fund Gary Lineker’s lifestyle, but to pay for a few more £30,000 or £40,000 journalists from Southampton or the Isle of Wight to do a good job covering what happens in our area. Like others, I have written to the BBC—I thank my seven fellow Solent Members of Parliament. I hope we get an answer from the bigwigs and that they will reconsider. I hope that the Minister can impress on Ofcom the need to get a grip of the situation, because what is happening is wrong.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am secretary of the NUJ parliamentary group, and I thank all Members who came to the lobby and briefing with the NUJ a few weeks ago. It was a very successful event. I also thank all those who have offered support and joined us on the picket lines. I welcome the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) to revolutionary syndicalism. It has been interesting to see that conversion.
It is depressing for most of us who are advocates of public sector broadcasting to have to come back to this debate so often. There is genuine anxiety among many staff that we are seeing a whittling away of local radio services so that eventually BBC management will prove the point that it wants to prove: that the services are no longer supported and therefore unnecessary. It will then close them down altogether. That seems to be the strategy: to make the service unsustainable, cut by cut.
As a London MP, I will talk about services in London. Radio London produces 133 hours a week. That is being cut to 85 hours. That represents a cut from 79% to 51% in our local output. Industrial action has meant that we have won some gains in London. We are keeping the London afternoon show from 2 pm to 6 pm, but the rest will be combined with Kent, Surrey and Sussex. To be honest, that is not good enough. As everyone is saying, local radio should be truly local, which means it should be locally produced.
London needs a specific service due to its range of ethnic diversity, its differing levels of affluence and poverty, and the scale of its vulnerable audiences. In all our discussions with the broadcasters, we have made the point that local radio is not just about news; it is about companionship as much as anything. There has been no acknowledgement in our discussions with the BBC of the digital divide, which has been brought out by the data. People are angry that this has been driven through without consultation, as the director general admitted in front of a Select Committee.
We have talked a lot about presenters today, and we all have relationships with our local presenters—good, bad or indifferent—because they rightly hold us to account, but there are many more people behind them. There are producers, production assistants and others, many of whom are on even lower wages that the union has been arguing for some time are unacceptable. Since the announcements, management has told some of these people that they will not know their future until October. A sword of Damocles has been hanging over their head for nearly a year, which has had an impact on people’s wellbeing and mental health, as evidenced when we met staff.
If Members remember the briefing session, they will know that what staff find really insulting is the argument that this is all about a shift to digital. These staff do digital, with no help from the BBC. A lot of the time, these people trained themselves on digital so they could enhance their programmes and provide the BBC with a range of services. Many of the staff found it completely disingenuous and, actually, insulting when Tim Davie, Jason Horton and Rhodri Davies argued as if they were archaeological exhibits who do not provide the digital services of the future.
Sir Julian Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman is making such a strong case that the House deserves to hear an extra minute. Does he agree that, in our 26 years in the House, it is hard to think of an occasion when the House has been more united than on this cause? Does he agree that, although the Minister will inevitably point to the independence of the BBC in policy terms, the Minister can nevertheless perform a useful role in taking a message to the BBC that the House feels immensely strongly on this matter?
John McDonnell
The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point, although I do not think I need the extra minute. We all respect the BBC’s independence, but the BBC should reflect the community it serves. What has come out of all these debates is that, on this particular issue, the BBC has belligerently ignored the views of local communities. Members of Parliament are meant to be the voice of our constituents, and we are saying with a strong voice today, and the motion says it all, that the BBC needs to think again, on behalf of our communities, on behalf of our constituents and—I say this as secretary of the NUJ parliamentary group—on behalf of the staff who have served the BBC well over the years.
When we met the staff who came to the lobby, I was moved by how many of them have long service and how many of them have dedicated their life to the BBC. They love the service they provide. I caution the BBC that the strikes will be back if it does not listen, because the staff are not going to sit back and take this. At the same time, it is interesting that there has been overwhelming support within our communities for industrial action. Our communities agree with the staff. Where else can they go? What else can they do to save this service when the BBC is not listening? Let us hope the BBC will listen to this debate.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I am deeply disappointed that the BBC is continuing with its plans to cut local radio services for my constituents, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this important debate.
BBC Radio Essex is a hugely trusted and valuable resource for my constituents, not only because it reports the news and travel news, and deals with so many local issues, but because of the source of comfort that our local radio provides, as has been said by so many Members. I would go as far as to say that the voices of Sadie Nine, Sonia Watson, Ben Fryer, Simon Dedman and Andrew Sinclair, and those of our sporting commentators, Glenn Speller, Dick Davies and Dave Monk, are some of the most trusted voices in our county. Those people also do a fantastic job of holding me to account.
We have talked a lot about local radio being a lifeline and a comfort, which it undoubtedly is, but our local radio, BBC Radio Essex, also does so much work for charity and so much community building. It is about not just the fantastic local radio shows, the interviews and getting people on, but the extra things it does. One highlight of my past 16 months in this place has been the Christmas lights being switched on in Southend, and that was hosted by BBC Radio Essex. Thousands of people were out enjoying themselves and having a fantastic evening as a result of its hard work. Our local radio hosts the “Make a Difference” awards, where it celebrates community heroes all around the country. It also does its everyday work in raising money for incredible charities, such as those we have in Southend, including the Endometriosis Foundation, Prost8 UK and the unbelievably amazing, award-winning Music Man project, among so many more.
The thing I wish to stress is how important our local radio stations are in enabling people to enjoy our local football teams. With these services stopping at 2 pm, many people will not be able to follow the fortunes of Southend United, which are on the way up—
Anna Firth
They will be, I assure Members of that; we just need more people listening and more people supporting. It was such a pleasure for me to hold a centenarian tea party and have 100-year-old Annie Maxted telling me what a fan she is of Southend United. At that great age, she is glued to the radio—apart from when we took her to watch in person. That was an incredible afternoon; she was glued to what she was seeing through the window and understood a great deal more than I did. The point is that these people cannot go online and watch it live, so radio is key for them.
I have talked about the importance of our local radio to the elderly and how ludicrous it is for the BBC to be excluding its best audience, the one that is the most loyal and loves it the most. I also want to mention how important our local radio is to our disabled and partially sighted community, of whom I wish to mention one brilliant example—our blind campaigner Jill Allen-King OBE. I have talked about Jill many times in this place. She is now in her 80s, but she has been a BBC Radio Essex fiend ever since she went blind on her wedding day more than 50 years ago. On a Saturday night, she is a regular listener and she regularly calls in, and she is now a regular guest, as she campaigns for more guide dogs, so that the 1,000 people in the country who are still waiting, as she is, for a new guide dog can have one. For the Jills of this world the radio is an essential resource and it should not be removed.
I conclude by going back to the fact that the BBC was founded on the principles of informing, educating and entertaining people, as we all know. BBC Radio Essex is the very epitome of all those principles. My constituents need a local radio station that is relevant to their lives, and I urge the BBC to reconsider its proposals, recommit itself to providing a service for the very people who deserve it the most—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To give the Front Benchers 10 minutes each, we need to stick to the time limit of four minutes.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on securing this popular debate. Local radio matters. It matters for community, for inclusion and for democracy. We all know that it is a foolish politician who underestimates local radio journalists and their ability to hold power to account.
As we have heard from other hon. Members, local radio matters particularly in the north-east, where we have the highest figures for digital exclusion in England and where there is a strong sense of local identity, with local culture embedded in the lives of all my constituents. A 2021 Institute for Public Policy Research report estimated that 40% of the north-east population has no or a very low level of digital engagement. Local radio is a vital way for many people to get involved and be informed about many aspects of public life.
For many, local radio is also a source of connection, crucial to combating loneliness and instilling a sense of local community. We must not forget that point about loneliness. It is really important that we work together to address that issue, and not to make it worse. We have heard from others how important it is to local people that they have that local radio connection.
Some 92% of over 55s listen to some form of radio every week, with around 5.4 million people listening to BBC local radio weekly. Those figures tell a tale about those who rely on local radio for news and companionship. If that is to be stripped back, it will have a dire effect for all those listeners. It is the BBC’s intention to cut up to 50% of its local radio output across 39 stations in England. Clearly that fails in representing the values that those 5.4 million listeners look for in their local radio content.
Briefly, I want to talk about the issue of “local”. In the north-east, there may be a debate between Tyne and Tees for people’s local radio preference, but having that very local knowledge is important to many people in our communities. I know that from my own experience.
The question of accessibility has also been raised. Local radio is a great way of communicating. People who are blind or have other disabilities may find it very difficult to use new digital services. I worry that that has not been taken into account and needs to be looked at.
As we have heard, the changes bring about casualties among our fantastic local presenters, who are being pitted against each other and, frankly, being treated badly by their employer as they look for alternative jobs. They are being given the impossible task of competing against each other and facing uncertain circumstances. The story that local journalists and staff have told us is that there has been a managed decline by the BBC. I commend all those local journalists who are taking action to support their local station.
Others have mentioned the role of Ofcom, which has been calling for the BBC to better resonate with viewers and listeners. It is important that the BBC looks again at those provisions. I urge the Minister to work with us to get the BBC to pause this plan, and engage with the public on the restructure through the consultation, which has been sadly lacking.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It will come as little surprise that I find fault with the handling of this situation by the BBC. I always seek to look to the good, with the glass half full, and to find a solution. However, the decision by the BBC hierarchy to remove local services in a cost-cutting exercise, while continuing to pay BBC stars exorbitant amounts of money, is not something that I can agree with. I speak not just for myself as a licence fee payer, but for the vast majority of my constituents when I urge the BBC to rethink this decision. I will give a Northern Ireland perspective and add to the chorus of others who have said the same.
I am on the record as having major issues with the enshrined BBC bias—from Brexit to Northern Ireland, the BBC had it all. I could literally stand here all day— I will not do so, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that I have only four minutes—raising my concerns about the BBC’s lobbying on single-minded narratives, and its pushing of an agenda that hurts victims and justifies the unjustifiable, but that is not what this debate is about.
There have been occasions when the BBC has made mistakes, such as when its staff have refused to name Northern Ireland appropriately in events, or even to display our flag. Sometimes they even say that our flag is the tricolour—it is not; in Northern Ireland our flags are the Union flag and the Ulster flag, and sometimes they seem not to understand that. Its coverage of the 12 July is disgraceful. That is one of the biggest occasions in the year—it is coming up now—but the BBC cannot give it the coverage it should get; it gives it just a snippet.
The reason for this debate is simple. Gary Lineker gets £1.35 million a year, Zoe Ball gets £980,000, Alan Shearer gets £450,000, and Stephen Nolan gets £415,000. At the same time, 36 staff at the local Foyle Radio will lose their jobs as a result of these cuts, which will save £2.3 million, with further redundancies expected next year. The combined audience for BBC Radio Foyle and BBC Radio Ulster is almost 470,000 people a week—equivalent to 30% of Northern Ireland’s population. That is significant and should not be ignored, yet we find it is.
Clearly the likes of “The Nolan Show” will draw bigger audiences than Radio Foyle, but I believe there is a duty of care to the smaller programmes, to ensure that local people have a local voice and not simply a Belfast voice. It seems that the light of the BBC has dimmed to such an extent that we will hear only the narrative of the big hitters, such as Stephen Nolan or William Crawley in Northern Ireland, or Gary Lineker. I agree with local BBC staff that cuts should first be made to the pay brackets of senior management—those stars that I have been referring to—before entire programming is cut.
We talk about marginalisation and diversity, yet the first response to diminishing fees is to scapegoat local broadcasting, rather than rightfully looking at why people are turning BBC radio shows off and choosing instead to listen to GB News or other shows. It is not solely because young people are listening to podcasts; it is also because those who were listening to the BBC have determined that the only time they hear their views on the BBC is when they are being ripped apart by commentators. I say that from a Northern Ireland perspective. Clearly there is an issue to be addressed.
In conclusion, people now have a wide range of choices and it is clear that the voice of the BBC is no longer drawing the crowds. This will not be rectified by closing the smaller local stations that appeal to local populations. Serving the people may be the only way of rebuilding trust in the BBC, and this decision will certainly not build that trust.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Today’s debate has illustrated the power, benefit and importance of local radio across the UK. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on opening the debate so powerfully. He was absolutely right when he said that local radio is trusted like no other.
To see that in action, we need look no further than Radio Sheffield. There are so many examples of how this is done. There was an interview this week with Tomekah George from Sheffield, who designed one of the special stamps issued by Royal Mail to mark the 70th anniversary of Windrush. Then there is Toby Foster, who held Sheffield City Council to account on the tree-felling inquiry. This week, Sheffield City Council issued a full and unreserved apology, which was covered on “News at Ten” on Tuesday evening. But for years it was Radio Sheffield that was holding the council to account and providing a voice for concerned residents. That is the powerful role that it plays in local democracy—from helping to force an important policy change to interviewing Barnsley’s youngest councillor, Abi Moore, who was elected to serve the Dearne South ward at the age of 20. Then there are the super local traffic updates, such as on the recent roadworks on Summer Lane in Wombwell. This is the local granular information and content that my constituents in Barnsley find invaluable.
The changes that the BBC have proposed put such content at risk, potentially marking the beginning of the end for local radio altogether, as the NUJ has warned. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly paid tribute to the hard work of the NUJ in representing workers. He also rightly pointed out that there has been little attention paid to the digital divide, a point echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist).
It has now been eight months since the BBC announced its intention to reshape those crucial services so that content on local radio stations is regionalised after 2 pm and on weekends. In that time, despite appeals, strikes and multiple debates on the Floor of this House, the BBC has shown no sign of pausing to assess that approach. Instead, it has repeatedly insisted that those reductions, alongside a boost to online services, are the right thing to do.
It is in that context that I join my colleagues from across the House, on behalf of our constituents, in urging the BBC to finally look at the true cost of the plans and to reconsider its decision. Of course the BBC is rightly both impartial and independent, but we are elected to this place to give voice to the concerns of our constituents, and that is what everyone in this debate has done, right across the UK, from Great Grimsby to Kingston upon Hull, Worcester, the Isle of Wight, Southend West and Strangford.
The BBC’s independence should also not keep it from making decisions that are informed, transparent and in the interest of our communities. It is one of the BBC’s public purposes to reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, yet when proposing the changes to local programming that would directly threaten the delivery of that purpose, the BBC has failed to consult any of the communities that would be impacted, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) rightly pointed out. I echo the calls he made in his speech.
Likewise, the BBC remains unable to present any assessment of the impact of the changes. The National Federation of the Blind of the UK has directly requested the BBC’s equality impact assessment and the public value test regarding the plans, but the BBC said it was exempt from sharing them. As a public service broadcaster, funded through the licence fee, the BBC owes more to the public on how and why such decisions are made about its programming, particularly when they disproportionately impact marginalised groups and those with protected characteristics. It is largely older people, those with disabilities, the lonely and those who are digitally excluded who will be heavily impacted by these changes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said.
It is important that the BBC listens directly to those people, and I would therefore like to share some of their stories today, starting with Sarah from Leicestershire. Sarah is visually impaired and says that the changes to local radio would isolate and exclude many visually impaired, blind and disabled people such as her. Sarah is fortunate to be able to access the internet and is comfortable using technology, but if the text on any given website is not spaced properly—as she claims it often is not on the BBC website, despite the BBC’s insisting otherwise—her text-to-speech function does not work, leaving her to describe the pages as not accessible in any shape or form. BBC local radio is therefore an essential information service for Sarah and it was vital in protecting her during the pandemic—as many others said, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck).
Like Sarah, Annette, who is a volunteer for the charity Gig Buddies, said that many disabled people cannot or do not want to access information online or using digital devices. They just want to be able to tune in through their FM radio, which often has accessible buttons and switches rather than touchscreens, at any time of day and hear local community information. Neil from Dronfield is blind, housebound and suffers with a head injury. He says that his local radio station, BBC Sheffield, is extremely important to him for accessing information and hearing local accents each day. As it stands, the BBC is looking to take that away, with nothing to offer as a replacement. For people such as Neil, Sarah and Annette, there is no alternative.
For others, such as Angela in London, local radio has long provided companionship that simply cannot be replaced. For a few years, she says, BBC Radio London was her only entertainment and, for several months, her only communication. She speaks so powerfully about the experience that I would like to share it with the House, saying, “I heard no other human say my name other than when Jo Good or Robert Elms read out an email I’d sent in. Local radio has the power to make another less alone, to have your voice heard and to feel part of something when the world has forgotten you.” Angela also says that the presenters felt like her friends and that there is an innate intimacy about hearing discussions about her local area and the streets that she and those before her grew up in. Clearly, truly local programming means something to people such as Angela—something that the BBC fundamentally failed to grasp when announcing the changes.
The changes to local radio are also having a profound impact on the BBC’s workforce, with roles in audio teams reducing by more 100. As well as the loss of experienced talent and local knowledge from forcing out radio presenters and producers, the changes will also see a key pipeline for broadcasting and journalistic talent cut off.
Members across the House—the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), and my hon. Friends the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—have expressed concern about the treatment of workers by the BBC, and I add my voice to theirs.
Local journalism is a fragile ecosystem. The BBC plans to increase digital output in place of local radio, but that will put undue pressure on the system, as I have said in this House before, by providing unwanted competition to local papers and other media outlets that are, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) said, already struggling to stay afloat. That is not to mention the significant impact on local democracy: local radio currently holds councillors, MPs and national politicians to account in a way that no other outlet can.
While Tim Davie, the director general of the BBC, describes loyal local listeners as only “13% of the population”, we recognise that 5.4 million people are not a fringe group but an important audience made up of people who do not have an alternative way of accessing their community or local news. That is what the BBC has failed to understand: people truly value and need their local radio. These changes are the thin end of the wedge in taking it away. Once local radio is gone, it will be gone.
This debate has shown that there is strong feeling across the country that the BBC should think again about its decision, or, at the very least, pause and review it. It seems that the only person who thinks it a good idea is the director general himself. My local paper, the Barnsley Chronicle, quoted staff who described the BBC as either ignorant or arrogant. The fact that it has come to that stage is a reflection of how poorly this whole situation has been handled, and it is an incredibly sad state of affairs.
I hope that Tim Davie has listened to the calls and contributions made today. If he will not listen to our constituents up and down the country, I hope that he will listen to Sarah, Annette, Neil and Angela, all of whom rely on their local radio. I hope that he will listen to the representatives of his hardworking staff who are facing cuts and redundancy. I hope that he will listen to the charities that are concerned about the lack of local consultation and disability impact assessment. The director general can convince himself all he likes that his decision is the right one, but I am afraid that everyone else thinks he is wrong.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Minister, may I say that Mr Speaker and I share Radio Lancashire, an excellent local radio station that we value greatly for the reasons we have heard in this excellent debate. No pressure, Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
Shame it’s Lancashire, though.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for calling the debate. It is the second time that he has invited DCMS Ministers to participate in a debate on the BBC and local radio in the past year, and I thank him for his commitment to revisiting this important issue.
The fact that we have heard contributions from Hemel Hempstead, South Shields, Bootle, South Swindon, Great Grimsby, Kingston-upon-Hull North, Worcester, Wansbeck, Waveney, Reading East, Totnes, York, Hayes and Harlington, Southend West, Strangford, New Forest, Watford, Isle of Wight, Slough, North Shropshire and Blaydon shows the nationwide concern on this issue. I am taking this debate on behalf on my colleague the Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale). I know that he is incredibly passionate about local radio, and he rightly made the point during our last debate on this topic that BBC local radio is an essential and widely trusted information service, and it is hugely valued by a large number of listeners.
We recognise the strength of feeling about the importance of BBC local services—it would be impossible not to do so after this debate—and the concerns raised about the impact that the planned changes will have on audiences, many of whom rely on local radio programming for news and entertainment. Many Members have spoken about its importance to local democracy.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and apologise for not being here at the start of the debate—I was in a Bill Committee. I agree with Mr Deputy Speaker that BBC Radio Lancashire is at the heart of our communities. We have well-known and well-loved presenters in Mike Stevens, Stephen Lowe and Graham Liver. A key thing—one that the Minister has just mentioned—is audience engagement with the presenters of shows. The staff are all key. The BBC do not seem to be doing very well at ensuring that there is consultation.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend raises an important point. It has come across strongly in the debate how much local communities value their local services and how much we, as Members of this House, rely on that service too. I am glad she made that point.
Ministers at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have consistently made clear to the House that we are disappointed that the BBC is planning to reduce its local radio output in England. We are also disappointed that the BBC has announced proposed changes to its radio output in Northern Ireland, to which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred, including cuts to BBC Radio Foyle, which is a vital part of Northern Ireland’s media landscape.
Since our last debate on this in December, the BBC has also announced cuts to BBC Scotland, including the opt-out services in Shetland, Orkney and the highlands and islands. We remain clear that, while it is up to the BBC to decide how it delivers its services, it must ensure that it continues to provide distinctive and genuinely local radio services.
Stuart Andrew
I had better carry on, because of time; sorry.
Since the BBC’s announcement, Ministers have met the chair of the BBC board and the director general to express our shared concerns. The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), has made clear that the BBC must continue to provide distinctive and genuinely local radio services, with content that represents communities from all corners of the UK. She has also emphasised that we expect the BBC to consider the views of this House when it makes the decision over whether to proceed, and we are committed to raising this issue again with the BBC’s director general.
The BBC has heard loud and clear Parliament’s views on these changes. BBC executives appeared before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in December last year to answer further questions on the impact of the planned changes, particularly for staff and audiences. The issue was explored again just last week by the Committee when it invited the director general to come along to talk about it. I welcome the important role that the Select Committee is playing in this area.
As Members have highlighted, one of the crown jewels remains the 39 local radio services around England that reach 5.8 million listeners a week. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead said, BBC local radio provides a service to our constituents and communities that commercial radio cannot provide. It brings communities together and plays a vital role in reflecting local experiences. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington highlighted, BBC local radio has a track record of providing a reliable source of local news on which all our communities depend. Indeed, BBC local radio is a lifeline for many older people, particularly those living in rural areas, and it is a conduit of important information in times of emergency, which is part of its public value.
There have been some changes since the BBC made its initial announcement. It says to us that BBC local radio provides vital companionship to many listeners, and that remains a central part of its plan. The BBC has reassured us that audiences will continue to find presenters and programmes that can understand the issues that shape their lives, reassure them in times of crisis and comfort them if they are lonely.
Since its initial announcement in October last year, the BBC has confirmed to us that all 39 BBC local radio services will continue to be entirely local from 6 am to 2 pm each weekday. Outside those hours, the BBC will share some programming across county boundaries. All stations will retain the ability to break out of shared programming and respond to breaking local news stories, including extreme weather conditions and public health emergencies. It says that live local sport will be protected and all existing local news bulletins will remain. However, I have heard the many examples raised by Members today and will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Minister responsible for media, tourism and the creative industries has those at his disposal at his next meeting.
The BBC says that it has listened to feedback from audiences and Members of this House over recent months and adapted its plans in response to what it has heard. In response to feedback that some of the areas proposed for programmes are simply too large, the BBC has added additional programmes on weekday afternoons, weekend breakfasts and weekend daytimes. It has also confirmed that it is reprioritising around 10% of existing local spend from broadcast to online. Using that redeployed funding, the BBC says that it will open up 130 additional local journalist posts across England, which it believes will strengthen its local online news services across 43 local areas, with new services launching in Bradford, Wolverhampton, Sunderland and Peterborough. Again, though, I have heard many of the points that have been raised, and I will make sure that they are relayed.
On the role of Ofcom, the BBC has acknowledged that it made mistakes with regards to the handling of communications around planned service changes. We are very clear that we expect the BBC to be far more transparent with audiences and the Government about changes to its content and services. That is a requirement in the BBC’s updated operating licence, which came into effect in April. We expect Ofcom, as the regulator of the BBC, to robustly hold it to account, especially in the delivery of its mission and public purposes. Ofcom has set out what it expects the BBC to do in reviewing the impact of the changes and meeting the audience’s needs, and is commissioning new research to understand audiences’ needs and the value they get from these local services. As the Minister for Equalities and for loneliness—areas I have great passion for—I will certainly pay further attention to this issue.
The BBC’s recent decisions do appear to fundamentally impact important BBC local services, particularly BBC local radio, which is an essential part of its public service remit. It is right that this House continues to scrutinise the BBC’s continued provision of local services. We all agree that the BBC has been entertaining and informing us for 100 years. We want it to continue to succeed over the next century in a rapidly evolving media landscape, and are clear that BBC radio has a significant role to play in that success. In light of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, the BBC needs to clarify how it will manage the long-term tensions involved in modernising and becoming more sustainable while maintaining its core public service function and output. Although I recognise that the BBC faces difficult decisions in reforming its services and becoming a digital-first organisation, today’s debate has highlighted the concerns shared across the House about the BBC’s proposals to reduce its local radio output.
I stress again that the BBC is independent from Government. It is for the BBC to reflect on the concerns that have been raised about its proposals, in this debate and elsewhere. I thank all Members for their contributions today and for an enlightening debate, which has even seen my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) think about joining a picket line.
Sir Mike Penning
This is what Parliament is about. On a Thursday afternoon, Parliament has come together on a motion to tell the BBC that what it is doing is wrong. It has been very enlightening. I will join my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) on that picket line—as a member of the Fire Brigades Union, I have been on many.
The point we have been trying to make is that this weekend, when I was in Corton, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), and the road was flooded, I would not have known that had I not had BBC Radio Suffolk on. Similarly, if my bins were not collected in Hemel Hempstead this weekend, my hon. Friend’s constituents would not be the slightest bit interested. It is the localism that matters. The motion before the House is not just “We have had a chat”; I hope that in a moment, we will have made a formal decision on a motion on the Floor of the House. If colleagues in the House want to disagree with the motion, we could divide, but if it goes through on the nod, that cannot be ignored by the BBC. The BBC is independent of Government, but it is not independent of this House. This House created the mandate for the BBC to exist, and it cannot ignore the motion that is before the House today. If it does, it will be at the BBC’s peril.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the BBC to reconsider its decision to reduce local news output from local radio journalism which will have a negative impact on communities across the UK, reduce access to local news, information and entertainment and silence local voices.
Petition
Professional Rugby: West Midlands
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I see that a couple of Members here are doing some overtime.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate Government support for professional rugby in the west midlands. Last year, I secured what was almost certainly the most closely watched Adjournment debate I have ever had to raise concerns about the dire situation at Worcester Warriors rugby club and to ask Ministers to intervene. I do not propose to detain the House by repeating all the points I made in that debate about the huge value of that club to the community I represent, its passionate following and the role it has played in bringing families and generations together, but all that remains as true today as it was then. It is still the case that locally there is deep hurt about the threat to a key element of the late great Cecil Duckworth’s outstanding legacy to the city. The difference now is that we do not currently have a professional men’s rugby team in Worcester, and that is a matter of great concern to me and to thousands of my Worcester constituents. I remain as determined as ever to bring back professional elite rugby at Sixways, and to see the name Worcester Warriors back at the forefront of rugby union in this country.
Along with the Warriors, we have now seen more of the greatest names in English rugby union enter administration—Wasps and London Irish. In the context of this debate, it is worth noting that the west midlands has gone from having a choice of two teams in the rugby premiership to having none. The only remaining professional rugby union side in the west midlands is Coventry in the championship, and the sustainability of that league is being questioned almost daily.
That is not to say that rugby or even professional rugby is dead in Worcester. It is worth celebrating the ongoing success of the Warriors women’s team, and the remarkable band of local businesses and supporters that have come together to keep them going. It is fantastic that the Warriors women remain in the top flight of women’s rugby—the Allianz Premier 15s—and their victories over the DMP Sharks and Loughborough Lightning and the draw against Harlequins attest to the fact this remains a brilliantly competitive team. I am hugely grateful to Cube International, EBC, Adam Hewitt and others that have made that possible through their sponsorship, and to the brilliant Jo Yapp and Josh Payne, who held things together amid the most difficult circumstances imaginable to ensure that the team could first return to the competition in November last year and then secure its place for next season, as was announced in March. I congratulate the entire team on the example of resilience and true Warriors spirit that they have shown.
That we had a stadium for the Warriors women’s team to play in, and that this team and the men’s team survived the pandemic at all, was partly thanks to the vital support that the Government provided to get sport in general and rugby union in particular through the pandemic. In talking about Government support for professional sports, it is worth noting that without the £600 million sport survival package overseen by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, £88 million of which went to premier rugby clubs, very few clubs would have survived that generational challenge. Nevertheless, we have to acknowledge that, in its aftermath, there remain very significant challenges to overcome.
I do not have time in a short Adjournment debate to run through the whole saga of mismanagement and the journey to administration that we have been through, nor to go into the detail about the very different situation, with the same tragic end result, at Wasps. What is clear is that the financial model of professional rugby union is going through a period of profound challenge, and it is vital that the regulators of the sport show that they recognise the extent of this and take rapid action to address it.
I welcome the commitment that the Rugby Football Union made in the aftermath of Warriors and then Wasps going into administration to keep both academies going and to run them as two different streams going forward. The Warriors academy is a really important organisation, with a fantastic track record of producing international players and some valuable links in local education—many of which I have spoken about in education debates. To be sustainable in the long run, however, it needs a professional club to feed into.
I recognise the pressures on the RFU to treat clubs equally and to stand by the precedents it has set, but I am deeply concerned that its decision in the case of both the Warriors and Wasps that the only way back into professional rugby is to go all the way down to the bottom of the amateur pyramid is self-defeating. It risks removing the prospect of professional rugby from large areas of the country, most notably the west midlands, and disincentivising investment, which is vital in meeting its ambition of growing the game.
Investors who are keen to make a commitment to professional rugby are likely to be deterred by such a long journey to get there, and it seems bizarre that in rugby union—unlike in almost any other sport or sector of the economy—new investors who want to take a business out of administration are treated in the same way as related parties to those who took it in. I query the logic of the RFU’s position that any club that goes into administration should henceforth be treated as a phoenix. Most of us with experience of the business world would understand a phoenix situation to apply when, and only when, the former owners of a business or related parties to them seek to bring a business out of administration, but the current RFU guidelines require any new investor, even when they have no relation to the previous ones, to spend a long period in special measures and with extra supervision. A level playing field for supervision and greater transparency with the regulator is absolutely right in professional rugby, and the saga of the Warriors under the previous ownership very much demonstrates the need for it, but I worry that in creating extra hurdles for new investors to take a club forward and provide the investment to keep a club in professional rugby, the RFU is shooting itself in the foot when it comes to the sustainability of the professional game.
The requirement to go all the way down to the bottom of the amateur pyramid has resulted in the loss of some great names from professional top-flight rugby before, but never before has it denuded a whole region of its premiership representation. With both Wasps and Worcester out of the top flight, we face exactly that.
In the case of Worcester, there is an additional challenge in that we have a strong and well-established amateur rugby side that split from the Warriors when it went professional—another key part of Cecil Duckworth’s legacy to the city. Worcester rugby football club, which was first established in 1871, is alive and well and flourishing at its Offerton Lane home, just up the road from Sixways, but it has no desire to compete for players with any Warriors side on its way back up the pyramid, and while it constantly shows good will to efforts to bring professional rugby back to Sixways, it would understandably be concerned about any route to do so that put it directly in competition with another local team going up the leagues.
The consequences of losing professional men’s rugby union in a community like Worcester are severe. There has been the loss of jobs for players and staff alike, who moved heaven and earth to keep the show on the road during the last season but through no fault of their own have been unable to return to work. There has been the loss of income to the excellent Warriors Community Foundation, which has recently had to announce its departure from Sixways and its decision to move to a more costly city centre location. There are the fans of the professional game who have to travel far further to watch rugby, whether down the motorway to Gloucester or across to Coventry. Fans are united in saying they want the Warriors back, and MPs, councils and local businesses have all come together in stating their ambition to see professional elite rugby return to Sixways as soon as possible.
Recently, at a meeting held at Offerton Lane, Worcester Warriors fans set up a supporters trust with a view to bringing back professional rugby as swiftly as possible. Supporters trusts have played a crucial role in getting many football clubs back into contention, with Wimbledon and Wrexham being notable examples, and many supporters of the Warriors are keen to see if the model can be used in rugby.
The new owner of the club and stadium, Atlas, has itself stated that it wants fan ownership to play an increased role in the future of the club, and I strongly urge Atlas to sit down with the newly formed supporters trust to see how they can work together to achieve this. If a supporters trust can get a share of the ownership at a club such as the Warriors, I hope the Minister will consider how the Government can support them.
It is fair to acknowledge that there has been much concern about the plans of the new owners. Fans, who underwent a deeply traumatic period in the run-up and during the club’s administration understandably want more transparency from the new owners as to their future plans for the stadium and their club.
There has been much debate and huge scepticism about proposals for a rebrand or to take over another local club and bring it to Worcester. For my part, I am clear that we need to see the Worcester Warriors brand maintained, and fans made that abundantly clear to the new owners at the forum they held in February. At that time, they did seem to have listened, and I hope that shortly they will be more forthcoming about what their plans are for building back up to professional rugby in the shortest possible timescale. There have been suggestions of touring sides or demonstration matches, and rumours of concerts and other public events, but fans need clarity and they need it soon.
I remind the new owners and any prospective investor in Sixways of the clear statement by councils—including Wychavon, which is the planning authority for the stadium—MPs and key supporters of the club that the only way development will be approved at or around Sixways will be if it benefits the professional elite sport and the community.
For any investor to put money into rugby, there needs to be clarity about the proposition, and right now there does not seem to be that clarity. With three premiership sides already lost to administration and widespread concerns about the viability of the championship, there are deep concerns about the future of professional rugby in England. To attract new funding, investors in rugby need clarity over the future league structure after a period of turmoil, and that clarity is needed as soon as possible to attract the long-term investment that the game needs. What can the Minister do to ensure that we get that clarity as quickly as possible?
I know that the Minister will say that it is not his job to run the sport and that the RFU and Premiership Rugby Ltd between them have that responsibility, but they need to move swiftly to provide much-needed clarity to show how investors can bring teams into professional rugby and make it sustainable, and to ensure that there is a footprint for professional rugby union across all areas of the country where it has support. In Worcester, there are thousands of supporters—between the Warriors and Wasps, there are tens of thousands of supporters—who want to be able to support and follow the professional game. The game cannot afford to lose them. If the RFU does not act fast to provide a route that enables those supporters to get their game back and their teams back to the top flight, I do not believe that Ministers can stand back.
When I was approached by Worcester City Council with the proposal of adding rugby union to the fan-led review of football, I rejected that proposition, because I believe that the two sports are fundamentally different and face different challenges. The challenge facing top-flight football has too often been too much money and the distance that creates between management and fans. The challenge facing rugby union has been too little money and unsustainable finances. The game of rugby union would benefit from its own fan-led review, and having discussed that with my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), the Minister’s predecessor, I know that he has come to the conclusion that that needs to be explored.
The Minister has already given a great deal of time and effort to addressing the future of rugby union in general and the situation of the Warriors in particular. I have been pestering him over a long time on this issue. I have no need to remind him of his commitment to try to ensure that there is a positive outcome for the rugby offering in Worcester, and of my commitment as MP for Worcester and a personal friend of the Duckworth family to secure the remarkable legacy of elite professional rugby that Cecil Duckworth left the city.
I hope the Minister can use his influence with the Rugby Football Union to make clear to it that the current situation is not tolerable. The loss of much-loved, well-supported local sides and the jobs, investment and pride they bring to a community, as well as the inspiration and opportunities they offer to young people, cannot just be treated as par for the course. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the RFU and Premiership Rugby Ltd need to work with investors to ensure a future for the Warriors and for professional rugby in the west midlands.
When we debated this situation almost a year ago, it seemed that administration was a route to keeping the club and its assets together, attracting new investment and supporting a return to the top flight. Today, there is a real risk that there will be no top-flight team in Worcester or anywhere in the west midlands for many years to come. After millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been invested to support the sustainability of the sport, and all the many community benefits that it brings, that would not be an acceptable outcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing it to show the important role that professional rugby clubs play for fans and communities across the country—nowhere more so than in the west midlands. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that rugby has made an overwhelmingly positive contribution to sport and culture in our country. There are plenty of reasons—even now, with the challenges facing the professional level of the sport in England—to celebrate rugby in this very important bicentennial year. Indeed, I was delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) for the launch of the celebrations at Rugby School earlier this year.
The sport of rugby football, both union and league, has had a huge impact in the United Kingdom. Whether through inspiring moments at elite level or bringing people together at grassroots level, rugby enriches lives. Rugby continues to be one of our biggest participation sports, bringing communities together and helping to keep people active. We should be very proud that a sport that was born in England—in the west midlands, no less—is now a truly global one that is making a positive impact in local communities all over the world. The sport already has a great legacy, which the Government want to continue to support and see grow and develop further.
That extends beyond the men’s game and includes the growth of women’s rugby. The inspirational endeavours of the Red Roses at last year’s women’s rugby world cup caught the imagination of the country. Despite not bringing the title home, they performed valiantly in reaching the final.
We know how important professional rugby clubs have been to communities in the west midlands. The role in the region of Worcester Warriors and of Wasps evolved in very different ways, yet both clubs provided entertaining elite-level sport and brought communities together. Even during the pandemic, when players and fans were unable to engage with clubs, Worcester Warriors and Wasps stepped in to provide crucial services to their communities. Both clubs opened their doors and hosted covid-19 testing centres, and charitable foundations of both clubs supported their communities when they needed it the most during lockdown.
It was indeed during the pandemic that the whole nation recognised the value of professional sport. That is why the Government stepped in to provide critical funding to ensure that clubs across a range of sports would still be there when the restrictions were lifted. Through the sport survival package, we helped to ensure the survival of rugby union. The sport received generous financial support to ensure that clubs at all levels would still be there for the players, the fans and the wider community once restrictions were lifted. We also worked hard to enable the safe return of the grassroots game as soon as possible, despite the challenges presented by the sport being close-contact.
Even with that support, those clubs continued to experience significant financial challenges as the country emerged from the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester mentioned, sadly Worcester Warriors entered into administration in September last year. I know that he has been working incredibly hard on behalf of the fans and all those interested in his constituency on the issues surrounding the club. As a committed fan, he saw the club rise through the pyramid under the stewardship of Cecil Duckworth, as he mentioned, first reaching the top tier in 2004.
Beyond its endeavours on the pitch, and as attested to during the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee sessions last year, the club played an important role in supporting the local community. Not only did the administration of the club have an impact on players, staff and supporters, it threatened to end the fantastic work of the Worcester Warriors Foundation. I am delighted that that vital asset to the people of Worcester is embarking on a new phase of its history.
The demise of Worcester Warriors was sadly followed, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, by the administration of another famous club, Wasps RFC, in October. Since relocating to Coventry in 2014, the club had worked hard to establish itself in the west midlands, to provide fans in their local community with exciting rugby of the highest calibre, and to add more success to the club’s history. The fact that Wasps, a club with a track record of domestic and European success, could find itself in such financial distress that it entered administration emphasises the need for action now before more clubs are lost.
Losing one elite-level club would naturally have a significant impact on a region, so I recognise how painful it must be for the west midlands to have lost two clubs in quick succession. That loss was compounded by the recent administration of London Irish, another top-flight team, further reducing the provision of professional rugby to players, staff and fans in England.
The past months have been exceptionally challenging for the fans, players, staff and supporters of Worcester Warriors, Wasps and London Irish. There is an urgent need for action from the rugby authorities to address the challenges facing the top tier of the sport. I am pleased that they recognise that challenge. I was pleased to see Premiership Rugby launch its new sporting commission, which brings together leading independent figures from the world of sport and business with Premiership Rugby Ltd executives to enhance the organisation’s governance structures.
As a Government, we stepped in when no one else would to ensure the survival of the sport through the pandemic. That was primarily through loans on very generous terms, recognising the fragility of many clubs. However, the Government cannot keep stepping in. We are clear that all sport, including rugby, needs to be economically viable and financially stable. We expect to see governance reforms that include stronger financial regulations to improve the state of the sport, which will militate against the loss of other clubs in future.
We are continuing to work with the Rugby Football Union and Premiership Rugby on their plans to secure the future of rugby union as we look ahead to next season. Last month we took the decision to appoint Ralph Rimmer, the former CEO of the Rugby Football League, and Chris Pilling, the former chief executive of Yorkshire Building Society and a non-executive board member of UK Sport, as independent advisers on the future stability of rugby union. Their work will complement that of the rugby authorities as they work towards a sustainable solution. They will provide recommendations to me and the Secretary of State at the end of July. We do not intend to establish an independent regulatory body for rugby union as we are doing with football. The appointment of Ralph and Chris will provide an additional level of rigour to the ongoing efforts of the rugby authorities to find a sustainable solution to the issues facing the game.
Beyond that, the Government are committed to supporting the wider provision of rugby in England, including the growth of the women’s game. I am particularly excited about the next two rugby world cup tournaments, starting with the men’s tournament later this year in France, and then the hosting of the women’s rugby world cup right here in England. Both tournaments are important occasions for existing and perhaps new fans of the sport to come together and experience the game at the highest level. We are looking to support women’s sport more broadly at every opportunity, pushing for greater participation, employment, commercial opportunities and visibility in the media.
It is vital that other sports beyond rugby union learn from the difficult experiences of the past years. The Government are committed to supporting the sustainable growth of the sports sector, and encourage sport to build mutually beneficial relationships to share learnings, particularly when it comes to governance and economics. Our sports strategy will emphasise our commitment to supporting the sector in achieving those aims.
This is a big year for the sport of rugby union in more ways than one, and is befitting of its 200th anniversary. On the one hand, we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the birth of the game at Rugby School. In September and October we will see the men’s rugby union world cup final take place in France, which will see nations from across the globe vying to take home the cup that bears that name of the Rugby schoolboy who started it all. On the other hand, it marks the end of a season in which three clubs at the highest level in England entered into administration, with major ramifications for the state of domestic rugby union.
I hope that the sport continues to play an important role and that professional rugby union returns to the west midlands in the near future, as we have heard today how much the sport is loved by communities in the region and across the country. The Government will continue to work with the rugby authorities, including the Rugby Football Union and Premiership Rugby, as well as Sport England, to support rugby in all its forms. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester that I know how passionately he cares about this issue. We are exploring everything and working closely with all those involved to ensure we do not go through the painful experiences we have seen in the last few months again.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Energy Security and Net Zero
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bowie
The clause contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend or modify the threshold for capacity in excess of which these measures can be applied. Capacity refers to the tonnage of oil that the operator has handled in the previous calendar year. This would not change the person to whom the powers under this part could apply.
[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 15 June 2023, Vol. 734, c. 299.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie).
An error has been identified in my response to the debate on clause 243.
The correct information should have been:
Andrew Bowie
The clause contains a power for the Secretary of State to amend or modify the threshold for capacity in excess of which these measures can be applied. Capacity refers to the tonnage of oil that the operator has handled in the previous calendar year. This would change the person to whom the powers under this part could apply.
Petitions
Local post office closure
East Putney station
Incorrect child maintenance assessments
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2023 - (22 Jun 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. I call the Government Whip to move a motion to amend the programme order agreed on Tuesday. The purpose of the motion is to enable us to hear from a witness who was unable to give evidence on Tuesday because of technical difficulties.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 20 June be amended, in paragraph (2), in the Table, in the entry for Thursday 22 June until no later than 1pm, at end insert “; SafeLives”—(Fay Jones.)
Examination of Witnesses
The Right Rev. James Jones and Ken Sutton gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Right Rev. James Jones, chair of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and Ken Sutton, who was adviser to the panel. I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed to. I welcome our witnesses and invite them to make a brief opening statement.
Rt Rev James Jones: No, thank you very much. I am happy to answer the questions. I welcome the proposal to set up an independent public advocate.
The Chair
Mr Sutton, would you like to say anything?
Ken Sutton: Thank you for the invitation. I headed up the secretariat that supported the Hillsborough Independent Panel and worked with Bishop James Jones in that capacity, as I have done ever since. I hope that my experience can shed some light on the independent public advocate.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: We had to gain the trust of the families, understandably. At the outset, families were not instantly persuaded that the panel, which was set up by the Government, would do what we were charged with doing, which was to access all the documents available from public authorities, analyse those documents with a team of experts, and write an account, so that there would be greater public understanding of what happened on that day. In the end, I think we gained the confidence of the families, and due to their tenacity and the expertise of the various panel members, we were able to shed light on what happened on the day and in the aftermath.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ken Sutton: I think the success of the panel did not come from its powers; as a non-statutory form of inquiry, we did not have any powers. I think the success of the panel was built on the relationship that the panel members and the secretariat established with the Hillsborough families from the start of the work. At the heart of that—I think this is very relevant to today—was the fact that the panel listened to the families. That may sound like a very simple statement, but the experience of the Hillsborough families and others was that they were not listened to. Individual Hillsborough families made the point to the panel, and to me, that they felt listened to for the first time when the panel was established. There is a clue there for the work of the independent public advocate going forward: they should, first and foremost, be listening to the families affected.
Rt Rev James Jones: To add to what Ken has said, Maria, the title of the second report, which was about learning from the families’ experiences, was “The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power”. That is exactly how the families felt that public authorities were treating them over those years.
Maria Eagle
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: Contrary to the Government’s proposal, I believe that there should be a standing independent public advocate. Why? Because in the immediate aftermath of a public tragedy, people are grief-stricken and traumatised. They are unprepared and disorientated, and they no longer feel in control of their life. It is in that immediate moment that they need an advocate—somebody who will represent them to Government and signpost them to the agencies that are available to support them in that moment of trauma.
Maria Eagle
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: I do. I think the independent public advocate should have the right to engage with the families, but the families should also have a right to call upon the IPA if the IPA has not taken that initiative. My view is that the independence of the IPA has to be at the moment of decision. Unless the IPA is free to make the decision about engaging with the family or families, then I think the IPA is just a public advocate, and not an independent public advocate.
Maria Eagle
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: I am afraid I do not. I welcome the Government’s initiative, and I welcome their determination to continue to listen to various parties as they shape this appointment. However, I do not think that that independence is sufficiently guaranteed by the Bill as it stands; I think it can be guaranteed only if it is a standing appointment.
Maria Eagle
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: I do think the IPA has a role, but I think there is a difference between the IPA and the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I will leave it to Ken to differentiate those two things. As to your question about what specific responsibilities the IPA should have, I would list them as follows. First and foremost, the IPA should be able to instruct all implicated agencies to keep, and not to destroy, public records. We should not have to wait until a panel or public inquiry is set up to instruct those agencies to keep all records. Secondly, I think the IPA could call on all implicated agencies to adopt the charter for families bereaved through public tragedy, which in essence calls on those agencies not to put their reputation ahead of the interests of the families of the victims and the survivors.
I think, too, the IPA can advise the Government on the setting up of an appropriate review, be that a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, an independent panel or a different form of review or commission. I think, too, the IPA is in a good position to advise the Government on the terms of reference for such an inquiry or panel. One problem that I have observed over the years is that terms of reference are often cobbled together at very short notice, at the last minute, and are not adequate to the task.
The IPA could also advise the Government on the sponsoring Department. I draw attention to the infected blood inquiry: the families were very concerned about the fact that the sponsoring Department was the Department of Health, which was implicated in many of the allegations. Indeed, I was asked by the families whether I would petition the Prime Minister to transfer the sponsorship of that inquiry from the Department of Health to the Cabinet Office, which Theresa May, when she was Prime Minister, did, to the satisfaction of the families. The IPA could also have a role in scrutinising whether lessons really have been learned from the inquest or inquiry, so that those lessons can be embedded across Government and prevent future tragedies.
Ken Sutton: It was crucial to the success of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in the task that the bishop has described that it was, and was seen to be, impartial and certainly not merely an advocate for the families. Had that not been the case, we would not have had the success in publishing the documents that were published, because we would not have had the trust of the public authorities in exercising that role. I think it is important to distinguish the role of the panel from the role of an independent public advocate, going forward.
There is one other point that I think is relevant. I had the privilege of consulting the Hillsborough families about the membership of the panel, but I was very conscious that I was doing that 20 years after Hillsborough. If we were talking about a similar disaster now, where an advocate was needed, that is not the conversation that would be relevant to the families at the time of the disaster. The Bill is in some danger of creating a conversation with families that is not the right conversation to have at the moment of bereavement. I worry that the well-intentioned idea of consulting the families about prospective advocates would be more damaging than helpful at that time, and that it is wrongly placed in the process.
That is why I agree with the bishop that the better option would be for the independent public advocate to be appointed in advance, so they can discuss with the families the help that they can bring, and be immediately available for that purpose. That does not rule out there being a panel of advocates; I can well see that the independent public advocate might want to bring in a panel, or advise on other panel members being appropriate. That might be relevant for reasons to do with skills, if there are other panel members, geography, or possibly the multiplicity of incidents, if there is more than one at the same time, which is conceivable in the terrorist context. There is some learning from the Hillsborough Independent Panel, but it is important to distinguish that what the panel did is not what the independent public advocate would be doing.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ken Sutton: Honestly, I do not think it is a matter of powers; I think the independent public advocate will have a voice. The importance for me is the authority of the person in taking forward this work. That person would have the authority, and maybe in legislation could be entitled to express a view on what form of inquiry should go on alongside their work.
If I put myself momentarily in the shoes of South Yorkshire police, I would not have wanted or welcomed the panel being created through an independent public advocate who is there, by definition, for the families. The decision on an inquiry has to be for the Government, but the independent public advocate, having talked with the families in the immediate aftermath, would be well placed to offer advice on the form that that inquiry should take.
The Chair
Could I just interrupt for a moment? We do not have a lot of time and we have quite long answers. Does anybody else want to ask a question? Would you mind if I interrupt, because I want to get other people in? Sir Oliver Heald and then Sarah Champion. Please can we have short answers?
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Q
Ken Sutton: They are very different roles. It is welcome that the Government recently made it clear that the purpose of the independent public advocate is not to be the legal advocate for the families involved. I think the independent public advocate would have a role in making sure that the inquest or inquiry properly engages the families as participants. I am conscious of your remarks, Chair.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: Could you specify what bit of part 2 you are referring to, in terms of needing more work?
Sarah Champion
No, because it is not in front of me. Do you think that the Bill would get you the independence that you want, and give the families a voice?
Rt Rev James Jones: At the risk of repeating myself, no, I do not. I think independence can be assured only by there being a standing public appointment.
Ken Sutton: I agree.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: Yes, I think that there should be a duty of candour on all public officials. Anybody who accepts public office should bind themselves according to their own conscience to speak with candour and not to dissemble when called upon to give the truth and an account of what has happened. But I do not think that that is part of this Bill.
Janet Daby
It is not, but it could be included, so it is important to get your perspective. Ken?
Ken Sutton: The bishop referred to how the independent public advocate could urge the public authorities not only to adopt the charter, but to live by it. I think the influence of the independent public advocate would be to bring about more candour in the terrible circumstances that we are imagining, beyond what would otherwise be the default. Unfortunately, we have seen many examples where candour has not been apparent in those kinds of circumstances. The IPA could help to hold public authorities to a position of candour.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
Is it the proposal that a standing IPA would basically step aside once the specific IPA got involved? How do you see it all working in practice? That is what I cannot get my head around.
Ken Sutton: I certainly have not seen them standing completely aside. The independent public advocate would have an authority through that office that would be beneficial going forward.
Siobhan Baillie
It is basically doubling up.
Ken Sutton: But I can see that they might decide that, for a particular tragedy, an advocate with medical experience, let us say, would be appropriate. We were greatly aided on the Hillsborough panel by Dr Bill Kirkup, whose work was decisive to the outcome of the Hillsborough independent panel. I can see circumstances in which that kind of advocate could be brought on board when you know the nature of the so-called incident. But I do not see the independent public advocate washing their hands, as it were, of an incident going forward.
Siobhan Baillie
Bishop?
Rt Rev James Jones: If we look at Hillsborough, we see that it was the immediate aftermath that compounded the tragedy—the role of the emergency service, the police, the media, the coroner. Within 48 hours, a narrative was being shaped over which the bereaved and the survivors had no control whatever.
My concern about not having a standing IPA is that there would inevitably be a process in which the Lord Chancellor would then consult with his team to see whether or not they should set up an IPA. But even in that short space of time, a false narrative can be created. I feel that in that short space of time, too, the families, who are disorientated and traumatised, feel even more bereft.
The Chair
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: Just to say thank you very much for inviting us. We stand ready—we have made this point to the Government—to share out of our own experience information that would help to shape the IPA. The Government have put it on the record that they want to continue to consult, and the families themselves have much to contribute to this proposal.
The Chair
Thank you very much for speaking so clearly to us on a very difficult subject. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witness
Lord Wills gave evidence.
Maria Eagle
Q
Lord Wills: I thank the Committee for inviting me to give evidence today. Let me start with the good bits of the Bill. The Government have endorsed the concept of an independent public advocate and have seen through the promise they made in the 2017 Queen’s Speech. I am grateful for that, and grateful to all the Ministers and officials who contributed.
In my view, however, the Bill is flawed in two main areas. When the Justice Secretary introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he said that
“in order to deliver justice, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 583.]
Exactly right—but that is not what the proposals for the independent public advocate do. They do not give the families effective agency.
As I understand it, the Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered powers to appoint an independent public advocate or not to do so, and unfettered powers to dismiss an independent public advocate. It also gives the Secretary of State sole right to require the independent public advocate to produce a report. As I understand the Government’s proposals, the independent public advocate will not have the right enjoyed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for example, to be an independent office that has the right to produce reports on its own initiative. In that way, the Bill does not fulfil the original intention of my Bill, which was to give bereaved families and surviving victims of public disasters effective agency.
Secondly, and crucially, the Bill does not give the independent public advocate the power to convene something like the Hillsborough independent panel, which after two public inquiries and, for the families, decades of campaigning was the first time that full transparency was achieved in finding out why Hillsborough happened, and what happened in the crucial hours and days after, when, as the bishop so rightly said, a false narrative was being created that was enormously distressing for the families, who were already suffering unimaginable grief.
Maria Eagle
Q
Lord Wills: I recognise that, as Ken Sutton said, in the end the Government have to have the final say. My original Bill denied them that. I can see the case for the Government having the ultimate say, but there is a halfway position between that and this Bill as drafted. This Bill could and should fetter the Secretary of State and the Government in such a way that they must, for example, have regard to the wishes of the families, to the public interest, to full transparency and so on. That would be quite a significant fetter on Executive power, and I would like to see it incorporated in this Bill. It would not give the families full agency, but that itself is complicated: there is a question of which families and how you define the families, which is for the detailed drafting of this Bill. It would give the Secretary of State some sort of discretion, but we have to go further than this Bill does in giving the families better agency.
Maria Eagle
Q
Lord Wills: It is important to remember that at the time the Hillsborough independent panel was established, there had already been two public inquiries chaired by distinguished judges, both of which were flawed in different ways and both of which had failed to prevent the false narrative that the bishop referred to—the cover-up by the police, the brutal commentary in some of the popular press—from taking root, causing enormous trauma for the bereaved families. What I was concerned about was making sure that finally, in any kind of panel and if any documents were to be released, the families should have full transparency. There were issues with that to do with data protection regulations. We thought we would get round them by putting the panel in the position of data controllers, so they would have the power to review all the relevant documentation and would then be able to publish their report. As it happened, they did publish a very large number of the documents they reviewed, although not all; a few were redacted. Crucially, I think the fact that the panel had seen everything gave the families confidence that they were getting something very, very close to the full transparency that they had been denied up until that point. That was a crucial lesson.
The other point that might be worth making is that setting up the Hillsborough independent panel, which is now seen as a great success due to the work of the bishop and Ken Sutton—indeed, all the panel—was not easy. Politicians and Ministers often have mixed motives, and while everyone was extremely sympathetic to the families, pretty much the entire Cabinet, for various reasons, was against my efforts to set up the panel in the way that I did. Fortunately, the one member of the Cabinet who did support me was the one who really mattered, and that was the Prime Minister.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Lord Wills: Yes, I believe it should be a standing appointment, for the reasons that the bishop set out extremely well. In the turmoil of the aftermath of a big public disaster, it is important that someone is on the ground immediately to support the families. I do believe that, and I think it is a perfectly achievable position to have. A secretariat could be drawn together at short notice—a standing secretariat, as it were. It would be doing work within the civil service, but when a public disaster happened it could be brought to bear to act as a secretariat for the independent public advocate.
I hate to think of what might happen. If you imagine a big terrorist incident, for example, the Government would be in turmoil anyway, and then they would have to find the time and space to go through all the selection processes, find out people’s availability and negotiate terms of reference. In the meantime, the poor families are left without anyone to support them, as they always have been up until now. It rather defeats the object of this whole exercise. So I am in favour of having a standing appointment.
As for who the independent public advocate should be, when I originally drafted my private Member’s Bill I had it in mind that it would almost certainly be a lawyer of some sort, and they would function in a similar but not identical way to the reviewer of terrorism legislation. In other words, they would be a distinguished lawyer with a lot of experience in these sorts of areas. Every public disaster is different and it would be very difficult to find someone who had expert knowledge in every possible area, but the broad parameters would be the same.
The main point would be to be able to guide the families through all the various processes that might be taking place, and above all to secure full transparency about what had happened and produce a report on it. As I say, I had it in mind that it would be a lawyer. They are usually extremely useful in these circumstances— I do not speak as a lawyer—but it is not impossible to imagine that it could be someone else with a similar sort of expertise.
Forgive me: there was another part to your question, but I have forgotten it.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Lord Wills: I do agree with that. That is one part of the Bill that is probably sensible. I can understand why it is in there and I can see possible conflicts of interest with professional lawyers, so I do agree.
Janet Daby
Q
Lord Wills: The prevention of a cover-up is essential in the wider interests of our democracy. People are losing faith in our democratic institutions. When they feel that Governments are covering up things that are crucial to them, they lose faith. In my view, that is worrying and dangerous. We have to do everything we can to protect against that, so anything we can do to raise the barriers against those sorts of cover-ups is crucial. That is why I would also support the introduction of a duty of candour.
We have to accept that a cover-up is part of the pathology of a big public disaster. It is human nature. When something happens like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing or Grenfell Tower, it is a huge story for the nation, and obviously those in power at the time, who feel they might be blamed for it, will feel that they have to cover up in some way. We saw what the police did with Hillsborough: they created a false narrative as part of that cloud of unknowing that they wanted to create, to cover up. What they feared, rightly in the end, was that they would be blamed for it.
That is true of pretty much every public disaster: obviously the details are different, but there is that essential pathology. There is always a risk of cover-up. I hope this Bill, suitably amended, will raise the barriers against that, but it does not mean that we can drop our vigilance against the potential.
Janet Daby
Q
Lord Wills: Again, the Secretary of State has too much unfettered discretion. I am not opposed to them having the ultimate responsibility, but you have identified there a very good example of giving the Secretary of State what, in my view, they should not have.
Sarah Champion
Q
Lord Wills: You have put your finger on the whole problem with the Bill—lots of powers to the Secretary of State and very few for the independent public advocate. There are various details of the Bill where the drafting could be improved.
I return to two main points. In some way, families have to be given effective agency, and that must mean some fettering of the powers on the Secretary of State. I am agnostic about the way to do that, and I have always accepted that my private Member’s Bill was not perfect. I am agnostic about how you fetter the Secretary of State, but something like ensuring that the Secretary of State “has regard to” the wishes of the bereaved and surviving victims would be a good start in making a way forward.
The other point, as I have said, is transparency, which I cannot stress enough. We have to get to the truth as quickly as possible. The Hillsborough Independent Panel did a magnificent job in a very short space of time, when it was inevitably more difficult, because 20 years had elapsed. Therefore, my view is that there has to be a presumption—not a requirement, because there has to be an element of discretion—in the statute in favour of an independent Hillsborough-type panel being set up. The important point is it is not adversarial. Big public inquiries very easily become adversarial; all sides have lawyers that argue and dispute, so that often a fog of dispute comes over these events. The Hillsborough Independent Panel had none of that. It was an impartial search for the truth. There must be a presumption in favour of a similar type of panel in all future public disasters. That should not be an absolute requirement, but there should be a presumption in favour of it.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your evidence, Lord Wills. That concludes this session.
Lord Wills: Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Nick Hurd and Tim Suter gave evidence.
The Chair
Our next witnesses are Nick Hurd, the independent adviser to the Prime Minister on Grenfell, and Tim Suter, a solicitor at the Manchester Arena inquiry and the Hillsborough inquest. Welcome, Nick; you are appearing via Zoom. Who wants to lead off the questions? Is it Maria again?
Maria Eagle
Q
Nick Hurd: Thank you for the welcome, Chair, and thank you for the question, Ms Eagle. Every disaster has its own specific context. I will take a minute to clarify my role in Grenfell and how it came about before answering your question.
The specific context of the Grenfell disaster was that, at the time, I was Minister for Policing and the Fire Service. I had some involvement in the co-ordination of the response in the aftermath, which was inadequate. The combination of the disaster and the response resulted in a situation in which there was zero trust—negative trust—between the communities affected and the state in the form of both the local authority, which many blamed for the disaster, and the national Government, which many blamed for the inadequate response to the disaster. I was asked by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, to play a special role. It might have had some parallels with the role that Tessa Jowell played in a different context, that of 7/7. My role was to build a bridge of communication between the communities affected—the bereaved, survivors and residents close to the tower—and the state, in particular the central Government, who were more involved in the aftermath than they had expected to be. That was the specific context: I was not an independent advocate, but a Minister trying to build bridges of trust and communication.
To answer your question, I think that the central point is the one that Michael Wills made. The central difficulty that I faced was the lack of trust that the community felt and their lack of agency. In the specific context of Grenfell, many felt that they were victims of the state, and they found it difficult to believe that the state had an interest in supporting them or that they had any agency or voice in that process. In hindsight, that was one of the biggest challenges that we faced. I support the emphasis that Michael Wills put on it.
Maria Eagle
Q
Nick Hurd: If set up in the right way and with the right individual, the role could be very valuable in helping families to believe that there is someone on their side, given that of course they do not understand the system—why should they?—and feel that it is not listening to them and is not on their side. In principle, I am supportive.
I would enter a caveat around expectation, however. To the point that I think you were making, sometimes it takes a long time to get to the truth and to justice, which is the word that is used in the Grenfell context; “accountability” is a softer word. That process takes time. In the case of Grenfell, the public inquiry is generally extremely well regarded for the rigour of its processes and how it is led, but it is inevitably going to take quite a long time to get to the point of ultimate truth and accountability. I doubt that there is very much that an independent public advocate can do to speed up the process in the context of formal public inquiries and inquests. I would have a concern about expectation management and about how the thing is set up in a way that the system is required to respond to an independent public advocate.
Maria Eagle
Q
Tim Suter: Thank you for the question, and thank you to the Committee for inviting me along today. Let me just give you some context about my experience. I am a solicitor, and for the last 15 years I have helped those conducting inquests, inquiries and investigations. You referred to the new inquest into the Hillsborough disaster; I was the solicitor to that, and I am the current solicitor to the Manchester Arena inquiry. I also assisted the inquests into the Birmingham pub bombings and the 7/7 inquests. Through those and other investigations, I have had lots of experience and exposure to the difficult issues that those cases have to investigate, but also to the bereavement and anguish that those who are at the heart of those investigations go through. It is clear to me that the role of an IPA is very valuable. To be frank, I think there is some confusion in the Bill about the role that the IPA could and should fulfil, but at its core I fully support the need for an IPA.
As people gave their evidence, I jotted down words that absolutely ring true for me—references to “anguish”, “impotence”, “distrust”, “patronising” and “lack of access to power”. I have experienced all those things. On the flip side, there was talk of “agency”, “voice”, “empathy”, “the truth” and “compassion”. At its heart, that is the purpose of an inquisitorial process such as an inquest or inquiry. If the IPA can help with that in the right way, I think it is absolutely right.
Maria Eagle
Q
Tim Suter: I think the bishop summarised it very well in referring to a standing IPA. In my mind, I have characterised it as a standing office—the office of the IPA—whereby there is almost a chief IPA who is appointed. That would be a process that happens as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. It would be properly resourced; or it may not be resourced, but it should be absolutely firm that the resources for the chief IPA to fulfil their job are available. I think they should have the power to appoint IPAs in the light of a particular disaster. They may or may not be involved themselves; it depends on the nature of the disaster.
There are some issues in the Bill as well about the terms of appointment and the resignation of the IPA. I did not really understand why that is there. It needs to be much more forceful and brought almost into line with how the 2005 Act is framed, which is much clearer about the appointment process and the need for that appointment only to be terminated in very particular circumstances.
I have some questions—perhaps points of granularity—about how an IPA is going to advocate on behalf of those under 18. For the Manchester Arena inquiry, many of those affected were under 18. No one should be excluded just because of age from the vital work that an IPA would do. For me, that came across as needing a little bit more work and analysis. There was an intriguing reference to “no immunity” in the Bill as well, which I thought seemed a little out of kilter—perhaps I just do not know the detail. Why does the Bill refer directly to the IPA having no immunity? Then you go through to the process of reporting; as far as I can see, a report is not necessarily laid before Parliament, where it would get the protection of parliamentary privilege. All of felt that it needed to be reviewed with a little bit more scrutiny.
Sir Oliver Heald
Having a standing appointment or an office would mean that you could have speedy action. I was asking the previous witnesses whether they thought the role should be an impartial one, as the Hillsborough panel inquiry was. What sort of skills and qualifications should the person have? Do you agree that that person should not be able to undertake legal activity? For example, at an inquest, they would be an interested party and could be represented, but they would not be doing the representation themselves.
Nick Hurd: Oliver, good to see you. I have not thought it about very deeply.
Sir Oliver Heald
I have just one more question, Chair, which will be very quick. Please go on, Mr Hurd.
Nick Hurd: I am quite attracted to the idea of a standing body because I think it can begin to accumulate knowledge, experience and insight into what is required in these situations. The Government system struggles with that, not least with people moving on. I am attracted in principle to the idea of a standing body and my instinct, like yours, is that the person leading that should not be engaged in legal activity. That would be my instinct as well.
Tim Suter: I find the point about impartiality quite difficult because I think the role of the IPA is, in its very nature, to assist the victims of that disaster. I am not sure you can do that if you are properly going to be impartial. I have a question: they must be independent of Government, but I question whether that is different from the impartiality point. They should be able to really advocate on behalf of the particular victims.
There is also a question about how disaster is always, by its very nature, complex. There will be different types of victim—those who are bereaved, those who have suffered physical harm, those who have suffered mental harm. They will all have different needs from the IPA, which leads you through to the question about perhaps needing a number of IPAs and how that duty of impartiality would work across all of them. That gets quite complex.
As for skills, I would say this, but I think you probably have to have a lawyer. That may be something that everyone has a different view on. In terms of not undertaking legal work, I strongly agree with that. We may get on to it, but I do not think that they should be an interested person in an inquest, because there is a real risk of duplication and confusion. Provided that a bereaved family has access to a lawyer and that lawyer is properly funded so there is equality of arms, they should be the person who is standing up and advocating on behalf of a family in an inquest, not the IPA.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Tim Suter: No.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Tim Suter: Yes, I think the change was happening before Hillsborough. The 7/7 inquests were actually the process that introduced pen portraits—the memorialisation of the deceased—and the opportunity to say, “This was my loved one, and this was who they were as a person.”
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Tim Suter: That was Dame Heather Hallett. That actually came from an inquiry into an air crash in Canada, so taking learning internationally is really important. Hillsborough was a journey—it has been a very long journey—where I have had the privilege to take a small part, but yes, it did give a voice to families. It undoubtedly could have done more; any process can always do more. That is why I would support the role of the IPA to be able to report on the experiences of victims in these processes, because I think being able to be held to account for the process you have been involved in has to be of real value. You need to ensure that there is still judicial independence in that process, and not going behind the decisions reached, but I think it is absolutely understanding the experience of those. The Hillsborough inquests were a very important part of that.
The Chair
We have three more people. We have Janet Daby, then Sarah Champion, then Jess Phillips.
Janet Daby
Q
Tim Suter: I do not know all the ins and outs of the legal aid regime. For a public inquiry, section 40 allows the chair to make the provision for lawyers—for legal representation—at public expense. In that sense, there is already the ability to grant funding. For inquests, I absolutely agree that it goes to equality of arms, and that there must be the ability for bereaved families to be properly legally represented. It makes my job harder, sometimes, but that is a thoroughly good thing—that I can be asked, “Why are you advising the chair or the coroner to take this view? Have you taken this into account?” Having that makes it a proper inquisitorial process—a search for the truth—so yes, I agree.
Janet Daby
Q
Nick Hurd: Yes, I do. It came up in the Grenfell context. You will understand that what I call the system tends to try to stay rational in these situations and try to respect their processes and structures, but in my experience in these seismic moments it is better to be decisive, up front and generous and just show that you are on their side with a decisive offer such as that.
Janet Daby
Q
Nick Hurd: I have discussed this with the bishop. I am, again, in favour in principle of the duty of candour.
Janet Daby
Wonderful. Tim?
Tim Suter: The duty of candour obviously makes sense. I would just urge some caution in terms of the process of, the role of, the IPA for getting access to material, if that is a duty that is brought in. I think there is a risk of duplication of effort and added complexity if the IPA is to have the role of gathering and holding material. I think it should have the ability to direct public authorities to retain material, but I do not think it should go further. I think there might also need to be a check in the Bill about the role of FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, because for the 2005 Act, an inquiry is not a public authority that is subject to FOIA. Here, I think that does not necessarily carry across, so that probably needs to be looked at.
Janet Daby
Q
Tim Suter: I think the organisation should retain it, because there will be materials that are subject to legal professional privilege and materials that are subject or potentially subject to public interest immunity; there will be other confidences attaching to materials. Embarking on a process of redaction of that material by the IPA—when, gosh, you are in the foothills of what is going to be a very long process, I suspect—will take the IPA away from its key job of advocating on behalf of the families to make sure they get access to services. So I would urge caution.
The Chair
I had better go to Jess now, because she has not had a question, and then Sarah.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nick Hurd: I would have genuine concerns about that, fully respecting the need for speed and decisiveness. There need to be systems in place so that not least those affected by the disaster at that moment in time have some confidence in the integrity of the process, because ultimately, the individual who is appointed to that role has a very short window of opportunity to build trust. People will form a view very quickly about whether they are useful, so the recruitment is critical and I would think the system would be well advised to build in processes that increase the chances of trust from early doors.
Tim Suter: I agree wholeheartedly with that. I wrote down four words: speed, trust, confidence and independence.
Jess Phillips
Q
Tim Suter: Absolutely. In saying that a lawyer can do it, I completely agree with you. That is actually something I have seen improve remarkably through the course of the cases that I have been involved in—to the extent that for the Manchester Arena inquiry, there was something called the NHS resilience hub and it was fantastic. It was able to guide, support and assist the bereaved and victims. On the need for victim support and people who have specialist skills, I absolutely agree there is a role for that within the IPA.
Sarah Champion
Q
Tim Suter: Sorry, I used my shorthand for the Inquiries Act 2005: section 1—matter of public concern, set up inquiry.
Sarah Champion
Q
Tim Suter: I only looked at it quickly, but I just thought that it is almost saying that the IPA, through another support agency, can give you the voice of that child, or that person who is under 18, but it is not representing. I do not know where representing features in terms of the IPA.
Sarah Champion
Q
Tim Suter: I would like the IPA to be able to directly represent, subject to parental consent, someone who is under 18. It is just as important for those under 18, if they want to, to have that agency through the IPA. I think there is a real risk it gets lost.
On the Manchester Arena inquiry, we had a number of people under 18 giving evidence and they expressed the impact of the bombing on them so well, so clearly and so powerfully, and there is a real risk of creating a lacuna.
Sarah Champion
Q
Tim Suter: I just think that there is a risk that they will not be able to access services in the same way and I think we all realise that those under 18 may have a need for very specialist services. So, just making sure that it is absolutely crystal clear that the IPA can help those victims under 18 to access the services that are more specialist is going to be important.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, that concludes this evidence session. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Examination of Witnesses
Ruth Davison and Ellen Miller gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Ruth Davison, chief executive of Refuge, and from Ellen Miller, interim CEO of SafeLives. Ms Miller, thank you very much for coming; I know there was a problem on Tuesday, so thank you for coming in person.
Jess Phillips
Q
First and foremost I suppose, could you could give a brief assessment of whether you think what is currently in the Bill will make a big difference to the victims that you support—victims of domestic violence and, in lots of cases, sexual violence?
Ruth Davison: Speaking as Refuge, we are obviously the largest provider of specialist services to women who are experiencing gender-based violence, particularly domestic abuse. We absolutely support the intention of this Bill and its founding principles: to give greater voice and power to victims. Unfortunately, however, as it stands, my best description of it is a missed opportunity. Without any funding attached, we do not see any opportunity for the transformational change that these women desperately, desperately need.
To give you some sense of scale, still one in four women in this country will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. It is one of the most heinous and prolific crimes that we have in this country, yet when we are calling for full funding of community-based services, which is only estimated at £238 million a year by the Women’s Aid Federation, we are not seeing any traction on that.
So, while it is great that there is a duty to collaborate and it is very positive that statutory bodies come together and look holistically at the needs of victims, without a corresponding duty to fund, I am afraid we do not think it will make any difference to the women we are supporting, the vast majority of whom do not report to the police anyway, because confidence in the police and criminal justice system is so low and retraumatisation is so high, as you try to work through that process, that they are not really included in the scope, even though they are covered by the technical definition.
Jess Phillips
Q
Ruth Davison: Absolutely. I understand that the victims code focuses on criminal justice practitioners, but I would absolutely enshrine not just four overarching principles but the specifics of the code in the law. We met some survivors, here, two days ago. One of the panel asked them whether they knew what the code was. Only one woman in that room knew what the code was, never mind knew how to uphold and access her rights. They absolutely need to be listed in the Bill and they need to be legally enforceable as a last resort.
Jess Phillips
Q
Ruth Davison: Absolutely, I do. Victims who are experiencing domestic abuse, through no fault of their own, are suddenly having to navigate housing, the family courts and social services, as well as the criminal justice and policing system. There is no tied-up approach and yet we know that so much trauma and so much post-separation abuse is perpetrated in the family courts at the moment.
Jess Phillips
Q
Ellen Miller: Thank you; I am real! It is a shame the link does not reach as far as Blackpool, but never mind.
I will focus in on two things. We would much rather have this Bill than not. There are two things I would focus on. The first is duties. The second is teeth.
I spent 20 years in local government. I would liken putting in a duty to collaborate to when somebody puts in a planning application, send an email to the Environment Agency and, three months later, it sends one back saying, “No, we haven’t got any record of protected newts.” Any duty that you can effectively discharge by email, you might as well not bother putting in. That is what we have at the moment. If I may politely do so, I would suggest that, instead, we look at a duty to listen—to listen to survivors and hear what their lives are like, and to see them as real people.
Secondly, we should look at a duty to acknowledge the level of need. You have heard about the joint strategic needs assessment. That exists in so many other fields of the social sector and social change work; why can we not have that for victims and survivors of domestic abuse?
Thirdly, there is the duty to act. When I say that, I do not just mean the duty to act on people who come to the police force at a moment of crisis, which is the majority of people for whom there is funding at the moment. We have to have that, but at the moment the system we have is a bit like having an NHS that is just A&E. We are never going to solve the systemic issues around domestic abuse unless we have a duty to not just immediately protect, but to prevent and ensure recovery, and to allow people to have the lives they should have the right to.
I would put those duties in the Bill, if you want to take my advice on it.
Jess Phillips
Oh, I will.
Ellen Miller: The other area is teeth. I have worked in the field of victims for a long time. I have seen so many atrocious things that are not in line with the victims code of practice. The code of practice is great, if only it happened. A screen when you go into court that is 4 foot high—that is not protecting a witness. Giving them a fold-out leaflet in English—that is not telling somebody what their rights are. This just does not happen. Please, let’s have some teeth. Let’s have some accountability around this. Let’s recognise the rights that should be there.
Jess Phillips
Q
Ellen Miller: Absolutely, and that is why I really wanted to come down, apart from the duties point. There was a history; there was initially funding for the equivalent of A&E-type stuff. In order to make that credible, the IDVA role was set up. In the past, the IDVA has been associated very much with only doing those really high-risk cases.
Let us deconstruct what an IDVA is. An IDVA is somebody who has gone through a 12-day training programme. This is not a master’s degree or an impossible bar; it is a really basic level of minimum threshold that you should get to. Everybody who works in domestic abuse should have the right to that level of training. We expect it in the care sector—we expect care workers to know how to safely manage cases, to report safeguarding, and to understand the dynamics of power and control within the care setting. We expect that in care. We should expect that in domestic abuse.
To us, the biggest provider of IDVAs, it is a programme of knowledge—a starting point. It does not give you cultural competence, which you have if you are a “by and for” organisation. It does not give you in-depth knowledge around things like non-fatal strangulation, honour-based violence and so on. It is your basic core concepts. It gives a bit more power and respect to individuals who do not have parity with the police officer, the psychiatrist and the social worker—it gives them a status. I wish it was not the case that you need a badge to be respected and listened to, but on the other hand it gives the credibility of a level of basic knowledge. To me, it is about a set of learning, so it is therefore useful, but it is only a starting point.
Ruth Davison: I would build on that, and echo what the Domestic Abuse Commissioner said to the Committee on Tuesday, which is to look at and value all the community outreach roles. When we are in the context of an absolute drought of funding, there is a potential unintended consequence of elevating the IDVA and ISVA roles over and above other roles that are equally skilled and vital—as Ellen said, particularly those roles that focus on cultural competencies and serve the “by and for” community. There is a real concern from us as a sector that we could unintentionally, by elevating one role, make it even harder to access funding for those culturally specific roles in the “by and for” services, which are already six times less likely to receive statutory funding.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Ellen Miller: I would look at enforcement through the inspection and reporting regime. First, we must ensure that there is a Victims’ Commissioner and a Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and that they have the right to be very public and open. Ruth will have done this, and we have done this: when you have data and look at the differences in the level of funding, it is absolutely shocking and it is not reported. Some things that, for example, the victims grant gets spent on are just jaw-dropping. There is not that level of accountability. Accountability comes through inspections, the roles of the independent commissioners and reporting—and the right to properly kick-off in a way that will actually lead to something. There needs to be the equivalent health and care ombudsman: a proper complaints process.
Ruth Davison: I agree with what Ellen is saying. It comes back to putting the four overarching principles into the Bill. We have already seen reports saying, “That won’t go far enough. It won’t lead to the cultural change that is so necessary if victims are actually to be able to access those rights—not for those rights to just exist on a piece of paper that they may or may not be able to read even if they receive it, but to be acting throughout the whole process.”
Missing from the Bill as a whole is a recognition of how far there is to go in terms of tackling culture. The fundamental understanding of domestic abuse and of many of the crimes that are faced by women in this country is missing. We are calling for mandatory training for police forces, which would lead to the kind of enforcement and teeth that Ellen is talking about.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ruth Davison: No, it is not enough. You were there at the event, so you heard women saying, “What is this?” If they do not know what it is, it is not being upheld at the moment. We do not think that reasonable steps to raise awareness and make people aware of the code is adequate. Making it enforceable gives it teeth. I feel like I am repeating what Ellen is saying, but we need to go further.
These are women who are in a period of crisis in their lives. They may be being forced to flee their home with their children in the middle of the night, leaving friends, family, pets, and toys behind. They are dealing with all these institutions through no fault of their own. Those institutions need to have very clear and holistic approaches to their support. That is what is done on the frontline of community-based services, whether or not they enter the criminal justice system, report to the police and have their case dismissed due to lack of evidence, or endure the re-traumatisation of testifying again and again in the family court or in the legal case. Recognising that holistic support is essential, and embedding that in the Bill through the victims code being enforceable feels like a critical part of it, alongside the funding I am calling for.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ruth Davison: If they do, I do not think they are communicating it—so, no. I still think we find absolutely shocking responses from frontline policing, and at the moment obviously the level of police-perpetrated domestic abuse and sexual offences coming to light is only deterring people further from reporting to the police. The first place that many of them come—the frontline—is the national domestic abuse helpline or their local frontline community service, not the police. That needs to change, because police need to understand the dynamics of domestic abuse. I often say that if I spotted a suspicious package on the bus on my way here and I phoned it in, no one would say, “But what are you wearing and why were you on that bus on your own at that time of the day? Had you been drinking?” People would say, “Tell us where the package is,” and they would deal with the package, not start to interrogate me as if I were the criminal.
Far too many victims are unfortunately still receiving victim-blaming language and feeling as if they are criminalised themselves when they come forward. That is even before you get to the points made very well by Southall Black Sisters on Tuesday about the absolutely desperate need for a firewall to separate statutory services from immigration services, because women thinking they could be criminalised or lose their right to stay in this country is another massive deterrent to them feeling safe to come forward.
Ellen Miller: Can I add to that? There should also be a firewall to separate independent support for victims from the statutory organisations that have so often let down these individuals. That is why people are not going to the police. People are worried that their children will be taken away from them. They are worried about getting the father of their child in huge amounts of trouble. They are worried about what it might mean to them—they may not speak English in a particularly strong way, but have had it explained and know their rights. They may feel they do not have any chance of having their rights realised. Independence really matters, and that is something that is absolutely not universal in the support for victims. It is very hard, in some places, to get independent support. We see that in care: we have the independent health advocate, which is again written into the Care Act, but we do not have that provision for survivors of domestic abuse. That is a legislative issue.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ruth Davison: Maybe this comes back to understanding the dynamics of domestic abuse. An abuser will isolate you, gaslight you, tell you no one will believe you and cut off your routes to support. Something we hear time and again from survivors who come to us—survivors who phone the helpline and come to community-based services—is the unbelievable relief of someone believing you, having some empathy, listening to you and treating you like a human being. Obviously, there is then all the practical guidance that the independent advocates are able to give, but not having anywhere to speak and being silenced through these processes that are highly traumatic is dangerous for women, dangerous for their mental health, dangerous for their children and dangerous for their recoveries. Having a safe space in counselling as well as with your independent advocate in a community-based service is absolutely critical. That should not be automatically accessible by the police—who we know unfortunately have a whole habit of using that against you and looking into your past, rather than the past and motivations of the perpetrator. A firewall is absolutely essential if we to start to see confidence rebuild.
Ellen Miller: There is something about what this crime is, as well. Intimate violence does the most awful, traumatic things to your brain, and it gives you the hugest impacts that will stay with you for a lifetime. I myself have survived sexual violence—35 years ago, briefly, in an attack. That stays with me forever. The gap between that happening then and going forward to a case and prosecution—what that did to me. I have worked with survivors of sexual and domestic abuse and violence. How can we leave people—women, mothers, fathers—without someone to help them sort that out? They have been severely damaged by what has happened to them, and it feels to me callous and appalling that we then have ISVAs who have to say, “Well, I know you really, really need support, but the choice is you can have support or you can have justice.” That is just not okay.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
The Chair
Very short answer.
Ruth Davison: The default should be non-disclosure, but a judge decision, yes—not an outright ban. Hopefully that was quick enough.
Janet Daby
Q
The Chair
Very quick answer.
Ruth Davison: Very briefly, at the moment women who have no recourse to public funds are completely locked out of any provision. We would like to see that change, and that has been costed by Imkaan. We would also like to see that there is more funding and more support for the “by and for” services, which is where our slight concern around definitions of IDVA and ISVA would come in—
The Chair
Order. Thank you very much for taking the trouble to come in person. I know you have come a long way, but it is a lot better when people come in person. Thank you so much.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2023 - (22 Jun 2023)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few reminders: please switch electronic devices to silent, no food or drinks apart from the water provided, and please send speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 44
Power to make pro-competition interventions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 12.
Clauses 45 to 54 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
To create self-sustaining and dynamic competition in UK digital markets, we must address the sources of SMS—strategic market status— firms’ substantial and entrenched power in digital markets. Clause 44 gives the digital markets unit the power to address competition problems in digital markets through pro-competition interventions, which the DMU can make where factors relating to a digital activity undertaken by a SMS firm prevent, restrict or distort competition in that digital activity. That is known as an adverse effect on competition. The concept is already used for market investigations under the Competition and Markets Authority’s existing markets regime. Government amendment 12 is a technical amendment relating to PCI investigations.
Turning to clauses 45 to 54, PCIs are fundamental to the new digital markets regime. They will address the root causes of market power that can lead to one or two large firms dominating, to the detriment of consumers and businesses in the UK. Clause 45 empowers the DMU to open a PCI investigation into suspected competition problems related to designated digital activities.
Clause 46 describes the process relating to PCI investigations. Under clause 47, the DMU will be required to carry out a public consultation on a proposed PCI decision before concluding its investigation and giving notice of final PCI decisions. Clause 48 provides the procedure for the DMU to give notice of its decision when concluding a PCI investigation. When the DMU decides to make a PCI, it must do so within four months of the PCI decision.
Pro-competition orders, set out in clause 49, are the means by which the DMU can require a firm to take, or refrain from taking, specific actions. That includes orders on a trial basis. They are vital in converting the DMU’s PCI decision, from clause 48, into an operationable remedy.
To effectively address the sources of competition problems in digital markets, PCIs should be iterative and targeted, so the DMU will be able to replace pro-competition orders. That is provided for in clause 50, which will allow the DMU to initially apply lighter touch remedies and then assess their effectiveness before introducing stronger measures if necessary.
Clause 51 gives the DMU the power to revoke a pro-competition order where it deems it inappropriate to vary the order through replacement, or where the order has addressed the competition problem and is no longer required. That ensures that PCIs remain effective and proportionate and can respond to changes in the market.
Clause 52 provides that before making or revoking a pro-competition order, the DMU must carry out a public consultation. The DMU will be under both a general and specific duty to monitor and review pro-competition orders provided for in clause 53.
Finally, SMS firms should be able to offer commitments to the DMU to propose a solution to a competition problem. That supports a participative approach to regulation, which is set out in clause 54.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
We will of course look properly at the issue of consumer protections later in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston has a number of contributions to add on that topic.
Clause 44 is important in putting consumer rights at the heart of the Bill, as it enables the CMA to remedy competition problems by making direct interventions. In contrast to conduct requirements, PCIs are interventions by the CMA to remedy an adverse effect on competition by addressing the root causes of an undertaking’s entrenched market power. The CMA will need to take into account the benefits that UK users may get from the factors having an adverse effect on competition.
We note that there is no defined list of PCI remedies, but that they may include behavioural and structural remedies. Will the Minister update us on his assessment of the value of adding a list of potential remedies to the Bill? Some companies we have spoken to feel that that would be helpful to understand just how these interventions will work in practice. However, we believe that the PCI is an exceptionally useful tool and a big advantage over the EU Digital Markets Act, as it will be able to go further than the conduct requirements and address the root causes of entrenched market power.
As it stands, the Bill outlines that the CMA may make a PCI where it considers that a factor or combination of factors relating to a relevant digital activity is having an adverse effect on competition, also known as the AEC test. The AEC test is in line with the legal test in the existing market investigation regime; by contrast, the digital markets taskforce recommended an AECC test—an adverse effect on competition or consumers test—enabling the CMA to address consumer harm without always needing to show that competition has been undermined. Similar to a supplementary duty to have regard for the interests of citizens, that would give the DMU broader scope to intervene beyond its traditional focus on competition. Can the Minister outline exactly why the AEC test was chosen over the AECC test?
Labour supports the intention behind Government amendment 12, which confirms that the CMA will be able to begin a PCI investigation into a designated firm, even when it has previously made a decision not to do so. We see that as integral to the CMA’s powers, and we will support the amendment.
We see clause 45 as fleshing out the legal powers that the CMA will need to draw on in the event of a formal investigation. We welcome clarification that the CMA will form its initial view of the competition problem on the basis of available evidence, such as that arising from complaints submitted by third parties, from the CMA’s market studies or from referrals of information from other regulators. Labour has heard from some tech companies that although pro-competition interventions are viewed as a major advantage of the UK’s regime, companies are concerned about the broader effects they could have on markets, and urge for thorough consultation and for a graduated approach to the potential severity of the intervention. I am therefore keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts about this issue, as it is important for all concerned that we get some clarity.
Clause 46 is an important clause for designated undertakings that may find themselves subject to a PCI investigation. We welcome provisions that ensure the CMA will be under a duty to publish a summary of the PCI notice as soon as it is able to do so. The Minister will not be surprised that we are keen to understand more about that and what it will look like in practice. Where exactly will the summary be published? Will it be made available to others who wish to view it? We welcome subsection (2), because it is important that the CMA has the power to update a PCI investigation notice when it needs to do so. That is outlined in subsection (3), which is an important point to note.
Lastly, clause 46(4) places a duty on the CMA to publish a notice of investigation as soon as practicable. Again, can the Minister confirm whether that will be public? There is a theme in my questions to the Minister about the public transparency of such documents. Naturally, we understand that some information will obviously need to be redacted, but there is plenty of value in improving transparency.
We welcome the principles in clause 47, which we have long called for, because the regime will be effective only if consultation is truly at its heart. However, we have concerns about how the conduct requirements and PCIs will run alongside one another. In the Bill’s current drafting, it is unclear by what metrics the CMA will determine whether a CR or PCI is appropriate, and it will have discretion to choose. We could very well find ourselves in a position whereby the CMA will generally implement a CR first and see whether it is having an impact, before beginning a PCI investigation. If the CMA chooses to focus on CRs initially, it could allow SMS firms to maintain much of their entrenched market power before taking action. To improve the effectiveness of the regime, one potential option that has been raised with us is for the CMA to be required to consider whether a PCI investigation and PCI remedy may be more effective early on, or complementary to a CR, when constructing a CR. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us some thoughts on that and explain whether he will be able to instruct the CMA on which one would be best to carry out first.
Other issues that have been raised with us relate to clarity on a number of points, and I hope the Minister can provide that clarity. First, can PCIs be introduced only after conduct requirements have been imposed, rather than the alternative that is alongside them? Secondly, what is the exact purpose of the revocation process? Does it mean that PCIs cannot be adapted while they are in effect, as indicated in the Government’s consultation process, and that the CMA would have to restart the process—meaning there would be an investigation, a consultation, a decision and then an order—before introducing a new PCI? It feels like that could cause delay and uncertainty in the regime, which could ultimately impact its effectiveness. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on those specific points.
Labour sees clause 48 as fairly standard in outlining the procedure for concluding a PCI investigation. It is important that the process is outlined on the face of the Bill, and we welcome confirmation of the length and period of investigation, and of the period in which the CMA has to consult and issue a pro-competition order where required. Those are important timeframes, which Labour supports.
We note clause 48(7), which states:
“As soon as reasonably practicable after giving a notice under subsection (1) or (6), the CMA must publish a copy of the notice.”
Again, that is a key point that I want to prod the Minister on. What is his assessment of
“as soon as reasonably practicable”?
What will that be and who will the CMA be publishing the statement for?
We welcome clause 49, which outlines the way in which pro-competition orders will work in practice. In relation to clause 50, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the replacement of a PCI as outlined in the clause will require revocation, as set out in clause 51, and a fresh process involving an investigation, consultation, decision and order? Alternatively, will the process be to revise an existing PCI and will that be sped up? We do not want any delay in that happening. That is the point I am trying to make, so will the Minister elaborate on what evidence is needed to justify a revocation of that kind?
I hope the Minister will respond to my points. We support the broad intentions of the remaining clauses in this group and are therefore happy to support their full inclusion in the Bill.
The Chair
Order. I am a bear of little brain. If somebody does not stand, I do not know that they want to speak.
Seema Malhotra
I just wanted to make a general point in relation to the DMU’s powers, because they are wider and there is a question about mechanisms to address the scrutiny and accountability of DMU decisions. We support the PCI framework and the flexibility, but on the way in which decisions can be made about PCI notices, the changes to allow greater flexibility and changes to orders made, there is the potential for a lot more flexibility, but there is the balance of certainty and scrutiny. Can the Minister address how there will be greater opportunity for scrutiny, transparency and accountability over the DMU’s use of the greater powers?
Paul Scully
I will try to cover as many of those points as I can. On the difference between AEC and AECC and adverse effects on consumers and competition, that is effectively built into the regime, anyway. The DMU’s objective is to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, and that must shape the design of all its regulatory interventions, including for PCIs. Under the current drafting, the DMU is able to address the detrimental effects of a competition problem on consumers. The issue is terminology rather than anything else.
The hon. Lady asked about how PCIs will be published. They can be introduced after CR and can be published alongside them, because speed is important, which it is important to highlight. She also asked about where PCIs will be published, which I can summarise. A PCI notice launches an investigation and a summary of that will be published, with the firm having had the full notice.
Seema Malhotra
Will the Minister confirm how soon that will happen? There is a four-month timeline after that full consultation and then the pro-competition orders or alternatives. In terms of the public—
Paul Scully
That is a fair point. The best I can say is as soon as is practicable. I talked about the fact that speed is important, but it really depends on the complexity of the case and what needs to be in the summary, how quickly it will take to summarise and so on. There is a drive to get on with this as quickly as possible. The theme throughout the entire framework of the Bill is that detriment happens at speed in digital markets and we have to crack on and get those PCIs in place should they be required.
The decision notices for PCIs will go to the firm first. The full document will be published and an order will be introduced. A summary will be published. Should the PCI be replaced, an order revoked or should there be an acceptance of varying commitments on a PCI, the full document will be published.
The CMA can consult on an order as part of the earlier PCI decision, so the four months may not be necessary. Those timetables are there as a maximum, depending on the complexities.
Seema Malhotra
I would like to pick up on the point about pro-competition orders and the consultation. Clause 49(4) states:
“The provision that may be made in reliance on subsection (3) includes provision requiring an undertaking to act differently in respect of different users or customers (and such provision may be by reference to a description of users or customers, to absolute numbers of users or customers, or to a proportion of the undertaking’s total number of users or customers).”
That appears both broad and specific. Interested parties may want clarity, so is it expected that that detail will be discussed and consulted on?
Paul Scully
The way that consultation is done depends. If there is something starkly obvious to everyone, it may be that only minimal consultation is needed. If it is more technical, it will need to be more in depth, which is why we are not being prescriptive from the centre. It is up to the DMU to consider this.
The hon. Lady also asked about a list of PCIs and potential PCIs. It is very much for the DMU to address the recourse to a designated firm’s market dominance. Examples of PCIs that could be introduced include choice remedies that will allow users to make an active choice in the digital services that they use. PCIs could, for example, compel a designated firm to present users with different options for their preferred web browser, and we heard evidence on that from Gener8. Instead of defaulting to a particular browser, PCIs could include interoperability remedies that will enable users to use goods and services from different providers as opposed to being locked into one provider. For example, the DMU might require users of different instant messaging services to be able to communicate with one another.
The DMU could introduce data portability remedies, which would make it easier for users to switch providers. Such remedies could, for example, require a designated firm to make it possible for its users to download and export data to a new phone with a different operating system. PCIs could include data access remedies, which would level the playing field by requiring designated firms to share their data with competitors, which could include the data that large search engines have on users’ search history. Separation remedies would require designated firms to run different aspects of their businesses independently, so that dominant firms cannot use market power in one part of the business to gain power in another, which might involve requiring data stores for different services to be separated. It could require the firm to sell off a part of its business altogether.
Those are examples, but that was not a prescriptive or exhaustive list of PCIs. They are very much up to the DMU to frame depending on the technology and the market dominance that they are trying to remedy.
Seema Malhotra
I seek your guidance, Mr Hollobone. I was just wondering about process. I had one last question for the Minister; I thought that he was continuing his speech, but he has finished it.
Seema Malhotra
I seek clarification from the Minister on clause 51(8), which reads:
“The fact that a pro-competition order ceases to have effect does not affect the exercise of any functions in relation to a breach or possible breach of that order.”
I assume that is referring to historical breaches, but I seek clarification on that because it is not in the wording of the clause.
Paul Scully
Yes, that is the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Power to begin a PCI investigation etc
Amendment made: 12, in clause 45, page 25, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) The CMA may begin a PCI investigation in relation to a designated undertaking even if it has previously made a decision not to make a PCI in respect of that undertaking.”—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment confirms that the CMA can begin a PCI investigation in relation to a designated undertaking even if it has previously made a decision not to make a PCI in respect of that undertaking.
Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 46 to 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Duty to report possible mergers etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 56 to 59 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 60 to 66 stand part.
Paul Scully
These clauses comprise chapter 5, “Mergers”, and schedule 2 provides further detail needed for chapter 5 to function smoothly.
Clause 55 establishes a requirement for SMS firms to report possible mergers involving them that have the potential to harm competition in the UK to the CMA before they can be completed. Unlike most merger regimes, at the moment there is no obligation in the UK to notify mergers to the CMA, but firms may choose to voluntarily notify the CMA of a merger in order to receive a binding decision from the CMA on it. In digital markets, this is a very different thing, because of the speed with which it can happen and the entrenchment of power, which we have discussed at length. That is why it is important that the CMA has the opportunity to review potentially harmful mergers involving SMS firms before it is too late. This light-touch reporting requirement is designed to focus on only those possible SMS firm mergers with the potential to give rise to competition concerns.
The mergers will need to be reported only if three conditions are met, such as when the SMS firms will obtain qualifying status through holding shares or voting rights in a target firm that is a UK-connected body corporate. I will set out further detail on the former when I explain clause 56. The latter means any body corporate that carries on activities in the UK or supplies goods or services to the UK, or which has a subsidiary that does so. The consideration provided by the SMS firm for the holding of shares or voting rights must also be at least £25 million. Similar conditions will also apply for the reporting of possible mergers involving an SMS firm participating in a joint venture. When an SMS firm is part of a larger corporate group, the requirement to report will instead apply to all the bodies corporate that make up the group. In those situations, the question will generally be whether the group as a whole will meet the conditions I have set out. When I say “an SMS firm” in debates on this chapter in part 1 of the Bill, it means an SMS firm or any larger corporate group it is part of.
The reporting process should take a maximum of 10 working days. Once a report has been submitted, the CMA will have up to five working days to determine whether the report is sufficient and must therefore be accepted. Following acceptance, the CMA will have a further five working days to review the information in the report before the possible merger can be completed. If the CMA identifies a reported merger as potentially problematic, it can use its powers under the general merger regime to investigate the merger as it would any other type of merger.
Clause 56 defines qualifying status. Under the merger regime, control over a target firm or joint venture vehicle must be acquired or increased for a merger to take place. That is for the CMA to determine on a case-by-case basis. One of the ways control can be exercised is through a shareholding or through voting rights. In order to capture acquisitions of control over target firms based on shares or voting rights, clause 56 provides that SMS firms will acquire qualifying status in a target firm when the percentage of the shares or voting rights they hold in the firm crosses any of the thresholds in subsection (1)—that is, when the percentage moves from less than 15% to 15% or more; from 25% or less to more than 25%; or from 50% or less to more than 50%. These thresholds have been chosen specifically to capture circumstances in which different levels of control recognised under the merger regime are likely to be acquired by an SMS firm.
Clause 57 sets out what is meant by the “value of consideration”, which is necessary to determine whether a possible merger meets the £25 million threshold for reporting set out in clause 55. Clause 58 places several requirements on the CMA with regard to the notice it is required to make, setting out the parameters of the report that SMS firms will be required to provide to the CMA about a possible merger. The clause requires the CMA—to pre-empt a possible question—to publish online a notice setting out what information must be included in a report and what form a report must take. We decided, in subsection (2), to limit what the CMA may require in the report to only that information considered necessary to decide whether to initiate a merger investigation or make a hold separate order under the general merger regime while an investigation is ongoing.
Clause 59 sets out further detail of when and how reporting requirements will apply. Schedule 2 provides further detail as to when interests like shareholdings and rights, such as voting rights, are treated as held in a target firm or joint venture vehicle for the purposes of the duty to report a possible merger in clause 55. Clause 60 places time limits and procedural requirements on the CMA once it has received a report. Clause 61 makes it clear that a reportable event must not take place until the reporting requirements set out in the chapter are met. Clause 62 clarifies when a possible merger is considered as taking place for the purposes of the reporting requirements. Clause 63 permits SMS firms to authorise third parties to act on their behalf—specifically, to give a report to the CMA about a possible merger and to receive the notice of acceptance or rejection from the CMA. In general, those third parties are likely to be legal representatives.
Clause 64 sets out the review process for non-penalty decisions made by the CMA in connection with the chapter. We will talk about appeals and the wider area later on, but if a person is aggrieved by the decision made by the CMA in connection with a reporting requirement that is not a penalty decision, they can apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for a review of that decision. The Competition Appeal Tribunal will apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review. A full merits appeal process will apply to penalty decisions made by the CMA in connection with this chapter, as it does to penalty decisions under the wider merger regime.
Clause 65 provides the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations in relation to the duty to report. It also sets out which procedure-specific regulations are subject to that. It is appropriate that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations on the duty to report. Operational experience may reveal that the criteria needs to be changed for the reporting process to continue to function effectively. Clause 66 places a duty on the CMA to monitor and enforce the merger reporting requirements. It goes no further than requiring the CMA to consider exercising its investigative and enforcement powers where it is aware of a basis for doing so.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for outlining chapter 5 and we welcome the provisions. None of us want to see potential loopholes or designated undertakings being able to avoid their responsibilities thanks to a merger, so we see clause 55 and many of the clauses that follow in this chapter as being eminently important. More specifically, the clause sets out the circumstances in which designated undertakings or, where designated undertakings are part of a group, group members—see clause 114—will have a duty to report a possible merger involving a reportable event to the CMA before it takes place.
We welcome the clarification that there will be two categories. The first is concerned with designated undertakings or groups reaching certain percentage thresholds of the shares or voting rights held in certain bodies corporate with links to the United Kingdom. The second is concerned with designated undertakings or group members forming certain joint venture vehicles that are intended or expected to have links to the United Kingdom. We recognise the role of a minimum value requirement, which will also apply in relation to the consideration provided for the relevant shares or voting rights, or in relation to the formation of the joint venture vehicle.
We see the clause as important in clarifying where the line will be drawn for possible mergers in relation to this regime, and agree with the drafting, which sets the value of the merger as being at least £25 million. We feel that is a fair value, so we support the clause and have not sought to amend it at this stage. The same can be said for clauses 56 to 59. As we know, one of the strategic recommendations of the Digital Competition Expert Panel’s Furman report suggested that legislation adapting the merger control rules—so that the CMA could more effectively challenge mergers that could be detrimental to consumer welfare—was required. So we see clause 56, which sets out the circumstances in which a designated undertaking or group will have qualifying status in relation to a UK-connected body corporate or joint venture vehicle, as being vital to ensuring that mergers are covered by this legislation more widely.
Paul Scully
Regarding the hon. Member’s questions about the Secretary of State having the powers to amend things, I cannot give her an example but it very much goes back to what I was saying in a previous debate, namely that digital markets change really quickly and it is just so that the Secretary of State has the power to amend things quickly and so that the reporting criteria may develop and evolve over a period of time, so that they can remain relevant in the long term.
Clearly, we have safeguards in the process there, so the Secretary of State will need to consult the CMA. This is not just an isolated decision-making process; the CMA has expertise in this area, but it will be for the Secretary of State to focus on the decision. The CMA will be able to provide the expert advice, ensuring that amendments can correctly reflect the changing landscape, and Parliament will clearly need to approve any amendment.
Regarding the notice that the hon. Member was talking about, again it is appropriate for the CMA to set out by notice what a report must contain. The CMA has considerable expertise in the assessment of mergers, so it is well-placed to decide what information it needs to make an assessment. So, the approach that we are suggesting here is consistent with the wider merger regime, whereby the CMA sets out what information should be included in a voluntary merger notification.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 56 to 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 60 to 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
Power to require information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clearly the DMU needs to have access to the correct information to ensure its work is evidence-based. Clause 67 allows the DMU to request information it needs to either exercise, or decide whether to exercise, any of its digital markets functions. That includes information in any form, such as data, internal documents and forecasts. The clause also includes new powers to investigate the outputs of algorithms by requiring SMS firms to generate information and to carry out tests and demonstrations of technical processes.
Clause 68 allows the DMU to require that an SMS firm names a senior manager to be responsible for ensuring that the firm complies with a specific information request. The DMU will be able to impose a penalty on the named senior manager where they have failed, without reasonable excuse, to prevent the SMS firm from failing to comply with the request for information. Personal liability will help to embed a culture of compliance within strategic market status firms.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 67 is an important starting point as it gives the CMA powers to require the provision of information from designated undertakings and any other person believed to hold material needed for it to operate the regime. That includes any information in any form, which might include data, correspondence, forecasts and estimates.
We welcome the clarity that the CMA will be able to specify the format in which the information must be provided. That is a very important point that we feel will be critical to ensuring timely responses from designated undertakings. We have seen the dangers of what can happen when we allow these big firms to overwhelm with the provision of data in complex formats and in incredible quantities in legal proceedings around online safety, and we do not want to see the same negative consequences here.
We welcome subsection (4), which, importantly, includes provisions that will enable the CMA to compel evidence collection by requiring a person to collect and retain information that it may not otherwise collect and retain. In addition, subsection (7) specifies that the CMA can require the recipient of an information notice to give the CMA information, either in physical or electronic form, which is located outside the UK. That is an important point worth touching on.
We know that these SMS firms have a global reach. We do not want to be in a position whereby the CMA cannot access information just because it is held overseas. This is a sensible and crucial clause to ensure the CMA has the appropriate teeth and power to act when it needs to.
We are also pleased to see clause 68 included in the Bill, which references a point that Labour have repeatedly called for in other legislation. Without these provisions and the ability to name an individual, big companies will typically not take their responsibilities seriously. We therefore welcome confirmation that a penalty may be imposed on a named senior manager of a designated undertaking that fails to comply with an information notice—a point we will address later, when we discuss clause 85.
Ultimately, we feel that the provisions are in line with other regulated sectors, principally financial services, where regulation imposes specific duties on directors and senior management of financial institutions, and those responsible individuals face repercussions if they do not comply.
I feel we have lots to learn here from looking to other regulated industries. For example, in financial services regulation, the Financial Conduct Authority uses a range of personal accountability regimes, including the senior managers and certification regime, which is an overarching framework for all staff in financial services industries. The regime aims to
“encourage a culture of staff at all levels taking personal responsibility for their actions and make sure firms and staff clearly understand and can demonstrate where responsibility lies”.
If only we could have that approach to other legislation on online safety. We therefore support clause 68—we see it as standard—and have not sought to amend it at this stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Power of access
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 69, page 39, line 18, after “access” insert “business”.
This amendment limits the power of the CMA to require access to premises so that it may be used only in relation to business premises.
Paul Scully
Government amendments 13 to 24 remove possible ambiguities about the scope of the power of access, and of a firm’s duty to co-operate with a skilled person, so that they are aligned with similar Digital Markets Unit information-gathering tools. Clause 69 allows the DMU to require firm-led tests or demonstrations under the DMU’s supervision. That backstop power of access will be available when a strategic market status firm fails to comply with an information notice or with the duty to assist a skilled person. Clause 77 introduces a power for the DMU to appoint a skilled person to produce a report on an aspect of an SMS firm, or a firm subject to an SMS assessment. There will be a duty on the firm to co-operate with the skilled person, including by giving them access to their premises.
These essential clauses ensure that the DMU has the right powers, but it is important to ensure that those powers are proportionate and appropriately constrained. Government amendments 13 and 16 limit the DMU’s power of access to business premises, rather than allowing access to all premises. That ensures that the power cannot be interpreted as allowing access to domestic premises and maintains consistency with the restrictions on the DMU’s powers of entry. Government amendments 17 to 20 and 22 are consequential.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Minister will have heard the witnesses last week, including witnesses from trading standards. Will the amendments in this grouping be replicated to address the concerns of trading standards and ensure equivalence across the regulatory powers?
Paul Scully
We listened to the evidence and considered that, and we will reflect on that in our further consideration of the Bill. It was interesting to hear the evidence last week.
Neil Coyle
Is the Minister suggesting that the equivalent powers to access information, which were specifically addressed last week by trading standards representatives, will be covered by this legislation?
Paul Scully
I am saying that the amendments that we are discussing in this grouping are specifically about domestic and business premises. I am just keeping to the narrow scope of the amendments. As for the wider evidence that we heard last week, we will clearly reflect on that and work out any other parts of the legislation; I was being really specific about what these amendments do.
Government amendment 21 limits a firm’s duty to give access to a skilled person, so that it is access to business premises only, to ensure consistency with other DMU and wider CMA investigatory powers. Government amendment 14 to clause 69 limits the power of the DMU to access persons to a power to access individuals, and Government amendment 23 limits the firm’s duty to assist a skilled person to a duty to assist a skilled individual. Those changes clarify the scope of the power and the duty, as a person includes a legal person, such as a company. The clauses already specify that the DMU or skilled person can require access to a designated firm’s premises, equipment, services and information. Limiting access to individuals—or natural persons—is a more accurate reflection of the policy intention of the clauses.
Finally, Government amendments 15 and 24 clarify that the DMU may access individuals or business premises only in the UK, and similarly that a firm’s duty to assist a skilled person by giving them access applies only to individuals and business premises in the UK. The DMU’s powers of entry allow entry to domestic premises only under a warrant, under clause 73. Its interview and entry powers may also be exercised only in respect of individuals and premises in the UK. Government amendments 13 to 24 will preserve those important limits on the DMU’s powers and ensure consistency across the DMU’s information-gathering toolkit.
Neil Coyle
I am hoping for clarity. I think there were attempts to get information to the Minister when I intervened before. Last week, trading standards specifically asked for the powers that are being discussed in these amendments. I appreciate that this grouping is for a different regulatory body, but does the Minister aim to set up equivalence for regulatory bodies, or is the new body to have greater powers than an existing body with a similar purpose?
Paul Scully
I am trying to remain specific, rather than widening the discussion to other regulatory issues, because the provisions must be specific to the matter that we are discussing; I think I am correct in saying that. Effectively, this grouping tries to narrow down the enforcement powers; it clarifies that they relate to business premises, and apply within the UK, rather than extraterritorially. That is why I hope that hon. Members will support these Government amendments.
Alex Davies-Jones
The Opposition believe that clause 69 is crucial to the Government’s policy objective of empowering the Competition and Markets Authority, and ensuring that it can enforce its regime and proactively address the root causes of competition issues in digital markets.
The clause builds on clause 68 and gives the CMA the power to require a designated undertaking to obtain, generate, collect or retain specified information or to conduct a specified demonstration or test of a business system or process under the supervision of the CMA. Specifically, the power can be exercised when the designated undertaking has failed to comply with a previous request for information under an information notice or to provide sufficient assistance to a skilled person. We welcome those provisions. We also welcome the clarity provided by the clause about when the CMA can use the powers, which is when companies have failed to comply with other requirements. None of us wants the CMA to take an overly heavy-handed approach, but it must be compelled and empowered to act where necessary.
We understand that the powers in subsections (2) and (3) will be used rarely, but it is important that they be in the Bill. They are also an important step in ensuring that big strategic market status firms, which for too long have gone unregulated, cannot bypass the regime by concealing information or operating systems. It is vital that the Government do not give in here, so I urge the Minister to ensure that they do not. I imagine that there is heavy pressure from firms that will be captured by the provisions, but the Government must not cave in or weaken this regime; I hope the Minister can reassure us that they will not. That being said, we welcome the clause and have not sought to amend it at this stage.
Government amendments 13 and 14 clarify that the CMA’s access rights will be used only in relation to business premises. We see that as appropriate. Government amendments 15 to 23 are technical changes that we are happy to support. Government amendment 24 is an important clarification that limits duties to inside the UK, which again is a sensible inclusion that Labour supports.
Mr Hollobone, would you like me to discuss clause 70, or finish there?
Paul Scully
To answer the one easier question that the hon. Lady asked, I can assure her that we will not weaken the provisions.
Amendment 13 agreed to.
Amendments made: 14, in clause 69, page 39, line 18, leave out “persons” and insert “individuals”.
This amendment limits the power of the CMA to require access to persons so that it may be used only in relation to persons who are individuals.
Amendment 15, in clause 69, page 39, line 33, at end insert—
“(5) The powers conferred by this section are not exercisable in relation to premises, equipment or individuals outside the United Kingdom.
(6) But the powers conferred by this section are exercisable in relation to information and services whether stored or provided within or outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment limits the power of the CMA to require access to premises, equipment or individuals so that it may not be used to require access to premises, equipment or individuals outside the United Kingdom.
Amendment 16, in clause 69, page 39, line 33, at end insert—
“(7) In this Chapter, ‘business premises’ means premises (or any part of premises) not used as a dwelling.”—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13 and moves the definition of “business premises” from clause 72 to clause 69.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 69 is a backstop power enabling the Digital Markets Unit to supervise firm-led tests and demonstrations, either at a firm’s premises or remotely. It will be available only in limited cases in which an SMS firm has not complied with an information notice or a duty to assist a skilled person. It provides an efficient way for the DMU to get the information that it needs without placing an undue burden on firms.
Clause 70 allows the DMU to require an interview with any individual in the UK with information relevant to a digital markets investigation. That will enable the DMU to gather vital evidence that is held by individuals with relevant knowledge, rather than in digital or physical forms. Clause 71 protects individuals who are compelled to give testimony under clause 70 from self-incrimination. It limits the circumstances in which the DMU can use an individual’s interview statement as evidence against them in a criminal prosecution. Clause 72 allows the DMU to enter business premises without a warrant for the purposes of a breach investigation. It ensures that the DMU can collect information that is being withheld by an SMS firm that is accessible only on the premises. Without that power, there would be greater risk that a firm could destroy or interfere with material relevant to an investigation.
Clause 73 allows the DMU to enter business and domestic premises for the purposes of a breach investigation, after obtaining a warrant from the High Court, Court of Session or Competition Appeal Tribunal. The DMU must also establish that a firm has failed to comply with previous information requests, or that no other powers would secure the necessary evidence, and establish reasonable suspicion that the information is relevant to the investigation. Clause 74 contains supplementary requirements for how the DMU must exercise its power to enter premises under a warrant. It also clarifies the extraterritorial scope of that power. The DMU will not be able to enter premises outside the United Kingdom under clause 73, but it can access information regardless of where it is physically stored.
Clause 75 allows the DMU to take copies of, or extracts from, information and sift it off site when exercising its power to enter either business or domestic premises under a warrant, if it is unsure whether the information falls within the scope of the investigation. Clause 76 ensures that the DMU follows established judicial procedures when applying for a warrant to enter premises. It requires the DMU to follow the rules of the High Court, Court of Session or Competition Appeal Tribunal; that provides vital checks and balances.
These clauses are largely modelled on the CMA’s existing information-gathering powers, and they will be subject to the same robust safeguards. They also give the DMU new powers to scrutinise the output of algorithms in clause 69, and enhanced powers in clause 73 to access information that is stored on remote servers but accessible over the internet. It is important to recognise that without those powers, the DMU’s interventions would not be well evidenced or enforceable.
Alex Davies-Jones
I was champing at the bit to talk about these clauses. However, I will keep my comments brief because much of Labour’s thoughts align with our thoughts on previous clauses.
Clause 70 gives the CMA the power to require any individual to attend an interview and answer questions for the purposes of a digital markets investigation. That is consistent with the amendments to section 26A of the Competition Act 1998. We welcome those, so it is only right that the powers appear in this legislation, too. These are basic powers and the clause is fairly procedural. The CMA must have the power to give notice to any individual with information relevant to a digital markets investigation, requiring them to answer relevant questions at a place or in a manner specified in the notice. That is fundamental for an empowered regulator. We support the approach, so we have not sought to amend the clause at this stage. We also support the intentions of clause 71, and we believe that the approach is fair and reasonable. The clause is important for clarity. We welcome its inclusion in the Bill and we have not sought to amend it at this stage.
Turning to clause 72, it is right and proper that the CMA must have reasonable grounds to suspect that information relevant to the breach investigation can be accessed from or on the premises. We support that common- sense approach. The provisions are in line with those for other regimes, and will be important in ensuring that if the CMA is required take action for the purposes of a breach investigation, it can do so in a timely and effective manner. We support the clause and have not sought to amend it.
We also support the intentions of clause 73, which gives the CMA the power to enter business and domestic premises under a warrant, without notice and using reasonable force, for the purposes of a breach investigation. Again, the CMA has powers of entry under a warrant through sections 28 and 28A of the Competition Act 1998. It will come as no surprise, given that we support provisions for the CMA to act without a warrant, that we agree that it should be able to act with one. We value the clarification that the CMA must prove that there are reasonable grounds to act. If it has to, it can call on individuals who have expertise that is not available in the CMA but is required if the terms of the warrant are to be fully carried out. That will allow the CMA to act rapidly, which, given the level of these breaches, is vital. We therefore support this clause standing part of the Bill.
Clause 74 sets out the supplementary requirements to the CMA’s power to enter premises under a warrant. We welcome the transparency afforded by subsection (1), and the clarification that although the CMA cannot enter premises outside the United Kingdom, as outlined in subsection (6), it can access information regardless of where it is physically stored. That is an important point, given the nature of SMS firms and their global holdings. For those reasons, Labour is happy to support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Clause 75 makes necessary amendments to a range of sections of the Criminal and Justice and Police Act 2001 to enable the CMA to seize information and take copies of, or extracts from, information when exercising its power under clause 73 to enter business and domestic premises with a warrant. It is a practical clause that aligns with the CMA’s power to seize documents from business premises under section 28 of the Competition Act 1998. We therefore believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76 requires the CMA to follow the rules of the High Court, the Court of Session or the CAT when making an application. We see it as a natural consequential clause and will therefore support it.
Seema Malhotra
May I make one additional comment? We received evidence from trading standards about their access to information that could be stored online in order for them to undertake some of their responsibilities. Has any consideration been given to whether the search powers that the CMA will be given could be extended to trading standards, which sometimes undertake very similar areas of work?
Paul Scully
I note that if there were a word cloud of comments from the hon. Member for Pontypridd, “We are not amending at this stage” would be quite high up. Duly noted.
On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston, I will write to her with more detail, because I think we are talking about two different regimes across two different Departments. I do not want to pre-empt what my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton may do with trading standards. These provisions relate specifically to CMA powers, which is why I am remaining in that narrow tramline. I will write to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston about the wider trading standards regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 70 and 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Power to enter business premises without a warrant
Amendments made: 17, in clause 72, page 40, line 31, after “premises” insert “(see section 69(7))”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Amendment 18, in clause 72, page 41, leave out lines 40 and 41.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73
Power to enter premises under a warrant
Amendments made: 19, in clause 73, page 43, leave out line 22.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Amendment 20, in clause 73, page 43, line 33, after “business premises” insert “(see section 69(7))”.—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Clause 73, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 74 to 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Reports by skilled persons
Amendments made: 21, in clause 77, page 47, line 3, after “such” insert “business”.
This amendment limits the duty to assist a skilled person by giving access to premises so that it applies only in relation to business premises.
Amendment 22, in clause 77, page 47, line 3, after “premises” insert “(see section 69(7))”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Amendment 23, in clause 77, page 47, line 4, leave out “persons” and insert “individuals”.
This amendment limits the duty to assist a skilled person by giving access to persons so that it applies only in relation to persons who are individuals.
Amendment 24, in clause 77, page 47, line 5, at end insert—
“(13) The duty in section 77(12) does not include a duty to give access to premises, equipment or individuals outside the United Kingdom.
(14) But the duty in section 77(12) does include a duty to give access to information and services whether stored or provided within or outside the United Kingdom.”—(Paul Scully.)
This amendment limits the duty to assist a skilled person by giving access to premises, equipment or individuals so that it does not include a duty to give access to premises, equipment or individuals outside the United Kingdom.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clauses 77 to 80 introduce the final elements to support the DMU’s investigatory powers.
Clause 77 will give the DMU the power to authorise a skilled person to provide a report to it in relation to an SMS firm, or firm subject to an SMS investigation, on a matter relevant to the operation of the regime. That is needed to give the DMU access to expert reports to enable it to interpret technical information gathered when carrying out its digital markets functions.
Clause 78 will impose a legal duty on certain people to preserve evidence that is relevant to a digital markets investigation or to a compliance report in relation to an SMS firm. That duty will also apply when the DMU is providing investigative assistance to an overseas regulator. That will ensure that no party may destroy, conceal or falsify any relevant evidence without reasonable excuse.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to speak to this group of clauses on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, who is speaking in another debate.
We support clause 77, which will give the CMA the power to require a skilled person, which could be a legal or other person, to provide a report to it on a matter relevant to the operation of the regime. That is in line with other regimes of that nature, and we therefore support its inclusion.
The clarity afforded by subsection (1), which sets out that the CMA can use this power in
“exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of its digital markets functions”,
is welcome. It is also right that the CMA can exercise the power only in relation to a designated undertaking or an undertaking subject to an SMS investigation.
In order to ensure no unnecessary delay, subsections (2) and (3), which will give the CMA the power to appoint a skilled person to provide a report and give notice of the appointment and other relevant matters to the undertaking in question, while also specifying the form of a report, are an important inclusion. That aligns well with subsection (12), which imposes a duty on the designated undertaking or undertaking subject to an SMS investigation, and any person connected to those undertakings, to assist the skilled person in any way reasonably required to prepare the report.
One hopes that designated undertakings would co-operate in such instances, but it is welcome and helpful to have their obligations outlined as they are in clause 77. Clarity on the consequences of failing to comply, in the form of penalties or other enforcement provisions, is also an important and positive step. Labour has therefore not sought to amend the clause at this stage; we believe it should stand part of the Bill, as drafted.
As with any regulatory regime, the CMA should of course preserve relevant evidence. Clause 78 is integral, because it places a legal duty to preserve evidence that is relevant to a digital markets investigation, a compliance report by a designated undertaking, and evidence where the CMA is providing investigative assistance to an overseas regulator. The Bill also confirms that where the CMA has made a formal request for information, there are penalties for non-compliance, or for falsifying, concealing or destroying information.
Labour supports the purpose of clause 78, which is to preserve evidence before and after the CMA has made a formal request. We believe that it is consistent with the existing duty to preserve evidence under section 201(4) of the Enterprise Act 2002 on cartel offence investigations. We note, however, that the duties within this clause do not apply
“where the person has a reasonable excuse to do so.”
I—and, I am sure, others—would welcome clarification from the Minister on that point. We support the intentions of the clause and have therefore not sought to amend it at this stage, but I would appreciate further clarity on the definition and how it will work in practice.
Clause 79 is helpful because it specifies that the CMA cannot require any information subject to legal and professional privilege, or, in Scotland, confidentiality of communications. That is an important point to make and is in line with similar regimes. We support the clarity outlined in subsection (2), which specifies that the limitation applies to producing, taking possession of, and taking copies of or extracts from a privileged communication. I do not need to elaborate much further here. Labour considers this to be a fairly standard procedure and we therefore support clause 79 stand part.
Finally, clause 80 gives the CMA the power to publish a notice of any decision to use its investigatory powers under the digital markets regime to assist an investigation by the regulator in another jurisdiction. The notice may include the regulator that the CMA is assisting, the undertaking that is the subject of investigation, and the matter for which the undertaking is under investigation. Labour welcomes the transparency measures here.
My question is about why that approach has not been afforded to the CMA’s domestic work on digital markets. If the CMA is able to support overseas regulators in ways that might identify the undertaking, I am unclear as to why the CMA is not compelled in the same way for issues that might arise in the UK. I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that point, because it is an important one for companies likely to be captured in the SMS definition and for challenger firms that might one day find themselves subject to these regulations, too.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady. I will probably write to her with examples of where that measure might come in. As I have said, it does not come in if there is an exemption for people with a reasonable excuse. I am not fleet enough of foot to come up with a good example for her at the moment, but I will certainly write to her.
On the domestic situation for the DMU, I will, again, probably write to the hon. Lady, but my interpretation is that it is easier to deal with the potential for defamation and so on when someone has full control of the case in one jurisdiction. If we are working across jurisdictions internationally it is more complex, so the protections need to be there.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 78 to 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)
Energy Bill [ Lords ] (Fourteenth sitting)
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Energy Act 2023 View all Energy Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2023 - (22 Jun 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are considering:
Clauses 271 to 273 stand part.
New clause 52—Principal objectives of Secretary of State and GEMA—
“(1) Section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986 (principal objective and general duties of Secretary of State and GEMA) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (1A)(a), for ‘the reduction of gas-supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases’ substitute ‘the Secretary of State’s compliance with the duties in sections 1 and 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (net zero target for 2050 and five-year carbon budgets)’.
(3) In subsection (5B), omit the definitions of ‘emissions’, ‘gas-supply emissions’ and ‘targeted greenhouse gases’.
(4) Section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties of Secretary of State and GEMA) is amended as set out in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In subsection (1A)(a), for ‘the reduction of electricity-supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases’ substitute ‘the Secretary of State’s compliance with the duties in sections 1 and 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (net zero target for 2050 and five-year carbon budgets)’.
(6) In subsection (5B), omit the definitions of ‘emissions’, ‘electricity-supply emissions’ and ‘targeted greenhouse gases’.”
This new clause is intended to replace clause 271. The intention is for it to appear at the start of Part 6. It is equivalent in substance to clause 271 but includes some drafting changes and consequential amendments.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I want to make quite a few comments on the clauses, but I hope we are more than halfway through the debate, given how long we spent on it on Tuesday. You were not here then, Mr Gray, but the Labour Front Benchers shared their contributions, which is a luxury that I do not have as the only SNP Front Bencher. I warn the Committee to buckle up for what is now going to be an Alan monologue for a wee while, so be prepared!
First, I want to make some comments about Tuesday’s discussion of the merits of clause 270, which was inserted by the Lords. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Ribble is not in her place; I would rather be saying this with her directly opposite—
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Alan Brown
Shortly; I will make the point first. On Labour and the SNP being against opening coal mines, the hon. Member for South Ribble said:
“This is one of the most jaw-dropping moments I have ever had in my parliamentary career. The Scottish National party and the Labour party are arguing against domestic jobs, our proud coalmining heritage and energy security for this country. Is that not flabbergasting?”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 356.]
That was a week in which the former Prime Minister resigned and was proven by the Privileges Committee—with a Tory majority—to be a serial liar, and in which Parliament voted to effectively sanction what would have been a 90-day suspension. I find that a bit more jaw-dropping than ourselves and Labour opposing new coal mines.
Alec Shelbrooke
To help the hon. Gentleman, I merely say that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble is unfortunately detained in the Chamber because a huge bomb factory was found in her constituency this morning and she needs to raise that on the Floor of the House. I know that my hon. Friend will be here later.
Alan Brown
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I was not casting any aspersions about the hon. Member not being here; I was just saying that it was unfortunate when I am addressing her comments. I note how important that issue in her constituency is and hope it gets resolved.
On coalmining heritage—I do not think I need to point this out, but I will anyway, as an obvious history lesson—the coalmines were shut down as a result of Maggie Thatcher putting her anti-union ideology ahead of the coalmining industry. At that time she was more than happy to import coal from the likes of Poland and bring it in from overseas while shutting the coalmines here. That is a fact.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
indicated dissent.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree with the former Labour leader of one of the Aberdeen councils, Barney Crockett, that Labour’s energy policy will wreak more harm on industrial communities than anything that Margaret Thatcher ever did?
The Chair
Order. Before we allow ourselves to get into what might be an amusing, if controversial, area, I remind the Committee that we are dealing specifically with clause 270, which prohibits new coalmines in the six months after the Bill is passed. Perhaps we could restrict ourselves to that, rather than getting into more exciting rabbit holes.
Alan Brown
Excitement is sometimes quite tempting, Mr Gray, but I will try my best. I am trying to draw together the history of the coalmines and the issue of whether we should go forward with more. On the intervention, it is not usually for me to agree with Barney Crockett, but Labour’s energy policy is certainly all over the place.
We are debating opening new coalmines, but the reality is that there are now not too many people, even of working age, who have actually worked in coalmines—that is how long ago they were shut down—so there is not even a skillset out there that would be able to operate much of the mines. I realise that technology has moved on—the proposed mine at Whitehaven will use modern technology—but skilled labour will still be hard to get and the Government’s immigration policies will prohibit skilled miners coming from elsewhere.
Labour and the SNP are against coalmines, but we need to look at the wider context and consider the comments of the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who was commissioned by the Tory Government to undertake a net zero review. His report was supported and commended by Members on both sides of the House, who agreed with its recommendations. Before the decision on the Whitehaven mine, he said:
“Opening a new coal mine in the UK would send the wrong signal across the world. We are international leaders when it comes to tackling climate change. To act differently, having pledged the ending of coal, would be to surrender that leadership.”
After the decision to grant planning permission for the coalmine, the right hon. Gentleman stated that if the recommendations in his report, such as on net zero tests, were part of the process, the coalmine would have been refused. He added:
“I obviously personally believe the coal mine decision is a mistake.”
A senior Tory parliamentarian is saying the same things as us. He is against the opening of new coalmines, and by default therefore supports clause 270. On international leadership, he effectively said that by opening new coalmines, the UK can no longer claim to be world leading on climate change.
I understand the importance of the jobs that go along with coalmines. My constituency needs new jobs, but we cannot use the phrase “local jobs” to justify bad decisions. Prioritising jobs above everything else leads to a race to the bottom. We could create jobs by chopping down all the trees in the UK and burning them, but that is a ludicrous proposition, so we cannot use new jobs as a justification.
If we want to talk about jaw-dropping comments, I was surprised to find that the hon. Member for South Ribble was a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Sir Alok Sharma), so it is worth while to look at what he said about the proposals for opening new coalmines. He said:
“Over the past three years the UK has sought to persuade other nations to consign coal to history, because we are fighting to limit global warming to 1.5C and coal is the most polluting energy source…A decision to open a new coalmine would send completely the wrong message and be an own goal. This proposed new mine will have no impact on reducing energy bills or ensuring our energy security.”
Our comments were deemed jaw-dropping, but I assume that those of the COP26 President, who led the worldwide negotiations on emissions reduction, and those of the chair of the net zero review should not be regarded as jaw-dropping and should be respected.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman said the proposals will not improve our energy security, but will he comment on what will happen to the steel industry if we are not able to produce the electricity needed to move to arc furnaces in the timeframe outlined by the clause? As I said at the end of the previous sitting, we keep identifying areas that will be powered by electricity, but we do not seem to have the ability to catch up with that. On energy security, will he comment on what will happen if we are unable to generate the electricity that the steel industry needs?
Alan Brown
I am happy to comment on energy security, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that those were not my words but the words of the former COP26 President. He said that the proposed new mine will not deliver energy security. I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman respects the President of COP26 and believes that he did a good job.
This argument about supplying coke and coal to the steel industry has already been debunked: 85% of the coal from the new coalmine will go abroad, so it will not provide energy security by supporting the steel industry in the UK. That is a bogus argument.
Mark Jenkinson
The hon. Gentleman says that that point has been debunked, but I actually debunked the debunking in the previous sitting. I am sure he heard those comments. On the issue of 85% being for export, that all depends on whether we want a UK steel industry and whether we want to grow it. Does he agree that we should be growing the UK steel industry and using 100% of that coal here?
Alan Brown
I want to debunk the hon. Gentleman’s debunking of the debunking. Let me come to the comments of the chair of the Climate Change Committee, Lord Deben, who the last time I checked is a Tory and was a Tory Minister.
The Chair
Order. This has become a bit chatty. I think perhaps we should restore a bit of order.
Alan Brown
This is an important point. The chair of the Climate Change Committee condemned the opening of the new coalmine and said that opening it would mean the UK emitting 400,000 tonnes of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. He also pointed out that 85% of the coal will be exported because it is high in sulphur and therefore not suitable for the UK steel industry. A former chief executive of British Steel, Ron Deelen, said:
“This is a completely unnecessary step for the British steel industry”.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman is being exceptionally generous with his time. He said that exporting 85% of the coal does not add to our energy security, but does he accept that if we have energy at home and do not have to import it, that is energy security by definition?
Alan Brown
I agree, which is why I want to see more renewables deployed. That is why I keep arguing for pumped-storage hydro, but the Government have fought that. It would give us storage and additional security and resilience. Obviously, I want the UK to become a net exporter of energy overall—that is the ideal place to get to—but renewables and storage are the answer.
Plenty of other senior Tory voices are saying that we should not open coalmines, so I do not see why the SNP and Labour should not be on the side of science and of such otherwise-respected senior Tory parliamentarians. It is also ludicrous that we are still effectively banning onshore wind in England but the Government will not accept a ban on opening up new coalmines and burning fossil fuels. When we talk about trying to lead the world on energy change, that is rank hypocrisy.
I realise the reality is that the transition will use some carbon fossil fuels. We need to understand that. That is why I believe in a just transition and have tabled a new clause that asks the UK Government to follow the lead of the Scottish Government by setting up a just transition commission. I have also tabled a new clause about net zero impact assessments. That in itself should underline Government policy and make the decision-making process transparent, so that we fully understand the impacts of policy decisions on net zero.
The Minister said it was important we ensure that industries that rely on coal can rely on domestic sources of coal, but that is a vacuous comment, because any coal mined in the UK goes on the open market and to whoever pays the most money for it. Having a new UK coalmine does not mean that that coalmine will automatically supply UK-based steel makers.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman accept that any new piece of energy infrastructure or production from the North sea, or indeed on the land in the UK, can be subject to whatever licence terms the licence issuer, which is the Government, decides? Would he therefore accept that, if the licences have specific restrictions, what he says may not necessarily be true?
Alan Brown
I cannot disagree with that premise—that could happen—but it is interesting that an ardent free marketeer is advocating for special conditions to be put on licences such that oil, gas or coal could be sold only in the UK. I think the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that international companies would be loth to accept a licence on that premise. We would be better off nationalising the industry than putting conditions such as those on licences, but in theory the hon. Gentleman is right: we could make that a condition of the licence.
To return to Tuesday’s debate, for me it seemed that there were mixed messages about the possible burning of coal for electricity generation. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell stated:
“I believe that we cannot just disregard the opening of coalmines, because this is about where we generate all this electricity from. If we cannot generate that electricity, we need back-up plans, including these mines.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 376.]
Could the right hon. Member tell me how many new coal mines he envisages opening for the burning of electricity?
Alec Shelbrooke
I do not know, but what I do know is physics. The physics says that we have to maintain a baseload. If we are unable to maintain that baseload, other options may have to be looked at, as Germany has done.
Alan Brown
The whole point is that coal is not being used to support baseload. Even if we believe in the concept of electricity baseload, it is not coal that is doing that. Coal is being used as a back up to the back up for when peak demand is hit, so that argument is wrong. Coal is not used for baseload.
The hon. Member for Workington stated:
“We are far too parochial on the subject of net zero and emissions.”
He seemed to be saying that if we do not do it, somebody else will, which is not showing international leadership. He went on to say:
“if we can export to Germany or somewhere else where people make large quantities of steel using coking coal, that is a reduction in total global emissions that we should champion.”––[Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 373.]
The hon. Member has still not explained how the UK shipping coal to Germany is going to reduce global emissions—I still do not see how that follows—but I do share his concern that a lot of emission reductions have come from that offshoring manufacturing and industry. That is something we have to stop, so I fully agree with him on that, but opening a coalmine to export coal to Germany is not the way to re-shore industry.
Mark Jenkinson
The hon. Member is being incredibly generous with his time. On the point on how shipping coal from the UK to Germany lowers emissions, if that happens instead of coal being shipped from the US, Russia or somewhere further afield, then the shipping emissions are greatly reduced. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell points out, it is also much cleaner coal to start with.
Alan Brown
I understand the point that Government Members are trying to make but, at the end of the day, if we are shipping coal to Germany, we are still increasing UK shipping emissions. We are increasing emissions from the UK to about 400,000 tonnes of CO2. In the global context, there is no saying whether those coal emissions are getting displaced if the coal is going to Germany, so we cannot guarantee a reduction in global emissions. We would be putting more coal on the market, which is coal somebody else will snap up elsewhere. The likelihood is that we would actually increase emissions.
I should have said in my opening remarks that I represent a former coalmining area, so I recognise the devastation caused by pit closures. My area recovered some jobs through open-cast coalmining, but even that industry collapsed a few years ago, leaving us with devastating blights on the landscape and huge craters that needed filling. Unfortunately, again, there was no help from the UK Government when we needed it. I understand the legacy of coalmining and I want support for these areas, but opening new coalmines is not the way to do it.
We cannot turn back the clock. What we need to do is create jobs for the future. We need green-based jobs in coalmining areas such as mine, using geothermal energy and making use of the closed mines. Let us make them an asset for the future, providing clean energy and reducing energy bills at a local level.
The Committee will be pleased that I am bringing my monologue to an end. I hope that my comments are going to convince the Government and Conservative Committee members that there is no need for new coalmines going forward. I would be delighted to hear the Minister, in his summing up, say that he is not going to move against clause 270, but is going to retain it and listen to those of us who want it.
Clause 271 is to be replaced by new clause 52. I welcome the Government’s change on that and their making reaching net zero a statutory duty of Ofgem. Will the Minister tell us whether new clause 52 and Ofgem’s new statutory duties will make it much easier for Ofgem to allow anticipatory investment? That has been one of the issues, so we want to make sure that it can do that and do that forward plan-ahead, rather than building more constraints into the grid while upgrading it at the same time.
Turning to clauses 272 and 273, it seems like for ages Energy Ministers have stated their support for the principle of the Local Electricity Bill—community electricity generation and the sale of electricity locally—but they have always said that the Bill was not the right solution to facilitate that. The original drafters and MPs who have tried to bring forward private Members’ Bills have changed the Bill to try to address the concerns of Ministers, but that still was not enough.
The cross-party group of peers who drafted clauses 272 and 273 to mimic the effect of the Local Electricity Bill again tried to address the Government’s concerns. I fail to understand why the Government are still against the two clauses. It is worth pointing out that 323 MPs overall, including 128 Tory MPs—let alone myriad local authorities, environmental groups and individuals—have supported the Bill. The feet-dragging makes no sense. I commend the hon. Member for Bristol East for pointing out that the Minister himself was a signatory to the Local Electricity Bill. I wonder what about a ministerial car made him change his mind about supporting it.
Alan Brown
Not of one down here!
Community energy schemes have seen almost no growth for six years, despite renewables clearly being cheaper than ever. Of course, that is tied in with the removal of feed-in tariffs, which were very successful in delivering the likes of small-scale hydro across the highlands, for example.
The Government are pressing ahead with voting to remove clauses 272 and 273. What are their proposals for facilitating community energy generation and providing the certainty of price that groups and companies need to be able to move forward? The Minister must be aware that the smart energy guarantee does not deliver at present and, as I say, there has been no growth in community energy schemes in six years.
At the moment, community energy schemes account for just 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. According to the Environmental Audit Committee, that could increase twentyfold in 10 years, so something like 10% of energy by community generation could be achieved in 10 years if the right conditions are put in place. Even if that is overstated and the reality is only 5%, that would still represent a huge shift in generation and would provide local grids with stability and resilience. That would be much better value than the new £35 billion Sizewell C nuclear station.
If we consider nuclear, price certainty is not a new concept. It underpins the contract for difference auction rates, and it is what is provided for Hinkley Point C. A great example of the potential scope for community energy generation is a study being undertaken in my constituency by the Newmilns Regeneration Association, which is investigating the installation of solar panels on the brownfield site of the former Vesuvius factory. The aim is to sell electricity to local industry, reducing its bills and helping it to be sustainable, and for Newmilns to be a net zero town going forward. The national regulatory authorities believe that the Local Electricity Bill, or the alternative in the form of clauses 272 and 273, needs to be in place to facilitate trading of the electricity that would be generated. That is why I fully support the clauses’ retention in the Bill.
Clause 272 would provide guaranteed income for electricity for small-scale renewable energy generators, and clause 273 would enable community schemes registered under the clause 272 guarantee to sell the electricity they generate locally. The Committee Clerks circulated additional written evidence today, in which professors from the University of Manchester say there should be no fear about clauses 272 and 273, because they will not unduly affect the prices that suppliers have to pay for electricity; at worst, the effect will be marginal. They also recommend that the Government retain the clauses. I really hope that they do.
Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Gray. After a fairly lively start to the morning, I want to focus predominantly on the matter about which we are all largely in agreement: the addition of new clause 52 to replace clause 271.
I will briefly address clauses 270, 272 and 273, which we have debated at length. I do not wish to add anything particularly new; I will just reiterate colleagues’ comments about the clauses’ importance. The Minister and the hon. Member for Hyndburn previously supported clause 270, so I am bewildered by their shift, given that, as we have heard, building a new coalmine will not make a material difference to the British people’s energy prices, yet it certainly grates against our broader net zero ambitions.
It is a real shame that the Government intend to strike clauses 272 and 273 from the Bill, not least because all we seek is surety for smaller generators that their investment is worthwhile. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test gave the example of a hydro turbine that costs in excess of £1 million. It is incredibly difficult for a small-scale producer to make that investment without a guarantee, which the clauses would provide, that it will see a return in the form of a guaranteed purchase by energy suppliers. None the less, although we have not heard in detail why the Government are opposed to the clauses, we are where we are.
As I said, I want to focus most of my comments on new clause 52. I am a little surprised that the Government feel the need to rework clause 271, but we should none the less take the concession for what it is. New clause 52 is incredibly welcome, as it will legally require Ofgem to ensure that its decisions assist the Government’s drive to deliver net zero by 2050. Reaching net zero is, of course, one of the most urgent and challenging tasks that we face as a nation, and it is right that we pull every lever at our disposal to achieve it. I am pleased that the Government have conceded that the new clause is a necessary step, given that they previously stated that Ofgem’s existing decarbonisation objective was sufficient. That objective was set in 2010, it is limited to targeting greenhouse gases only, and it has no specific timescale attached to it.
The move to update Ofgem’s duties so that it has a statutory requirement to support the UK in reaching our net zero emissions targets has huge backing from every part of the energy industry, as well as from consumer campaigners and climate activists. It was recommended by the Skidmore review and by the Climate Change Committee earlier this year. Crucially, it has the support of Ofgem itself. Ofgem’s CEO, Jonathan Brearley, said that the net zero duty is
“the best option, not only from a climate perspective, but to ensure a secure, low-cost energy future.”
Ofgem’s support is most welcome, and the new duty makes its responsibility for ending our reliance on fossil fuels crystal clear. Making net zero one of its core duties will empower Ofgem to deliver the long-term investment in our electricity network and grid that the National Infrastructure Commission has said is critical to achieving the large-scale shift to renewable energy and low-carbon transport and heating that we need. Indeed, there seems to be a broad consensus in the industry that the lack of a clear duty that specifically refers to our net zero targets is a key reason for the historical underinvestment in the grid. This overdue duty can play a key role in reversing that trend and putting an end to a situation in which the absence of investment in the grid has made it very difficult for new renewable infrastructure to be connected to it.
Placing this duty on a national regulator that was created to serve consumers is, in effect, a statutory recognition that the needs of consumers and the planet are very much aligned. The long-term investment that will help us to achieve net zero will also mean sustainable, cheaper forms of energy for consumers and an end to the volatility in the market that has caused such misery to millions of households across the country in recent years. I therefore fully support new clause 52, and I pay tribute to everybody, across parties, who was involved in bringing it to this stage.
Andrew Bowie
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
Andrew Bowie
Well, I hope it will remain a pleasure—I am sure it will. Here we are on day eight, sitting 15 of the Committee. There has been a comprehensive debate on the clauses, and I thank all Members on both sides and from all three parties represented for their full contributions. I will respond to some of the points that were made.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston just referred to the Ofgem net zero duty. I am delighted that the Committee has welcomed the Government’s commitment on the duty and our new clause, and I pay tribute again to Members across the House and in the other place for their constructive dialogue on the issue. I confirm to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that the measure will allow for anticipatory investment. I have engaged with industry and others, and they are confident that that is the case and welcome this step.
Community energy projects can have real benefits for the communities in which they are based, which is why so many Members supported the private Member’s Bill on the issue. However, the Government and I do not believe that every consumer should have to bear the cost of such projects. That does not seem a fair way to fund them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain why he does not think that consumers should bear the cost of community energy projects but does think that they should bear the cost of new hydrogen, through the hydrogen levy? That seems rather inconsistent.
Andrew Bowie
As the hon. Lady knows, we are listening and acting on the concerns raised by many in this place and the other place, including on Second Reading in the Commons, when issues regarding the hydrogen levy were raised. I am sure that we will have much more to say on that when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House.
I am also not convinced that the Lords amendments tackle the real issues faced by community energy groups: high start-up costs and lack of expertise. I have had positive engagement with Members on that. The Government are therefore considering other options that could tackle such issues in a fairer and more proportionate way ahead of Report stage. I hope that members of the Committee and those who are following our proceedings with interest are reassured by those comments.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun spoke at length, as did other Members—I hope to cover most contributions in my response—about coal. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned exporting coal to Germany. It is rather ironic that the only reason that Germany is importing coal is its nonsensical position on nuclear and new nuclear power—a position that is shared by the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman might want to take that away and consider it.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that he disagreed with the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble that the debate in Committee the other day was one of the “most jaw-dropping” moments of her political career, given the events of the week. I concur with the hon. Gentleman that that was a bit surprising, given that this was the week that a former leader of Aberdeen Labour claimed that Labour’s energy policies were the “final straw”—this is a Labour councillor saying this—and that
“Margaret Thatcher never delivered a more brutal put down of an industry than that delivered by Keir Starmer in Edinburgh.”
In the same week, a Green Minister in the Scottish Parliament faced a vote of no confidence, the Whip was withdrawn from a former SNP Minister, and a person of interest in an ongoing police investigation professed their innocence but could not do the same for another person of interest, to whom she is married. The last week was quite an exciting week for politics—I agree.
Our reliance on coal is rapidly diminishing, but there is still a need for it in industries such as steel and cement, so now is not the right time to make these licensing changes. I thank colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, for highlighting the role that these industries play in our constituencies, where they provide jobs and contribute to the economy.
Alan Brown
On coalmines, what does the Minister think about the suggestion from the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden that any new licences could be supplied on the condition that the coal be sold only on the domestic market?
Andrew Bowie
I would not like to shut down any of the ideas put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden; the Government will consider all suggestions for the future licensing of coalmines. I do not want to go down a rabbit hole and make commitments on matters for which I may not be responsible in future.
I found the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell fascinating, as I do all his comments. I was particularly interested in his intervention on the hon. Member for Southampton, Test regarding the situation in Germany, which I also referenced.
A number of Opposition Members mentioned the coalmine in Cumbria. The decision by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities followed a comprehensive planning inquiry, which heard from 40 witnesses, and considered matters including the demand for coking coal and its suitability, climate change, and impact on the local economy. The full reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision are set out in a published letter, which should be read in its entirety, but he concluded that
“there is currently a UK and European market for the coal,”
and that
“it is highly likely that a global demand would remain”.
Alongside that, the UK is working to support the decarbonisation of steel and other industries that still rely on coke and coal through our £315 million industrial energy transformation fund, which helps businesses with high energy use to cut their energy bills and carbon emissions by investing in energy efficiency and low-carbon technologies.
For those reasons, I do not agree with the hon. Members for Bristol East, for Southampton, Test, and for Sheffield, Hallam. A complete ban is not appropriate, and risks our having to meet future demand for the industries that I mentioned from our own resources. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam—I am sorry that she is not here today—mentioned the Government’s commitment to COP26. As I said in my opening remarks, coal’s share of our electricity supply has already declined significantly in recent years; it has gone from providing almost 40% of our electricity in 2012 to less than 2% in 2021. I do not agree with professions from Opposition Members that we are surrendering our lead on climate issues to the Biden Administration in the USA. It is not for me to question the decisions of that Administration, or to say whether they are for good or ill, but they have just approved a drilling licence in the Arctic circle, so I suggest that our lead on these issues remains extant.
Alan Brown
Remember, we are talking about comments from not just Opposition Members; comments about us losing our international lead were made by the right hon. Member for Kingswood, who did a net zero review; the COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West; and the chair of the Climate Change Committee. That is three senior Tories who are saying that the UK is losing its international lead.
Andrew Bowie
I recognise that. I speak with my right hon. and hon. Friends on thisissue and others, and I understand the concerns, including those of Committee members. However,I reassure all right hon. and hon. Members that phasing out unabated coal power generation within timeframes that keep 1.5°C within reach remains a key UK Government priority, and the Government are leading on that. That builds on our COP26 energy transition legacy, which included securing agreement to accelerate efforts
“towards the phasedown of unabated coal power”
in the Glasgow climate pact, our co-leadership of the Powering Past Coal Alliance, and launching an international just transition declaration at the Glasgow summit. I would be very surprised if we did not return to some of these issues on Report, but I hope that the Committee will carefully consider my remarks.
Alan Brown
I had not expected to be given that privilege, Mr Gray. I remain unconvinced by the Minister’s arguments, and I refer him again to the fact that comments about the UK losing its international leadership have come from senior members of his party. He really should reflect on that, instead of arguing that opening new coalmines is the way forward.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. May I ask for clarification of the voting process on clause 271 and Government new clause 52? As I am sure all Committee members are aware, new clause 52 will effectively replace clause 271, with the consent of each side. However, although we will be voting on clause 271 stand part today, we will not be voting on new clause 52 until the end of the Committee’s business. We could therefore conceivably end up with clause 271 being dropped but not replaced by new clause 52. Is it within procedure to retain clause 271 but assume that new clause 52 will replace it in due course, or are there other ways of doing it?
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but he is of course not correct.
The Chair
Well, I am answering the question in that case. The answer is that I will put the Question on clause 271 now and, depending on what the majority decides, it will either remain in the Bill or be removed. At the end of consideration, we will come to new clause 52. If there is a majority for it, it will be added to the Bill. If there is not, it will not. The two are not conditional on each other; they are entirely separate.
Clause 271
GEMA general duties relating to climate change
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 20.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 133 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 134 and 135 stand part.
Government amendment 19.
Andrew Bowie
I now return to part 4 of the Bill, which relates to the independent system operator and planner, or ISOP.
Clause 132 introduces schedule 7. The purpose of the schedule is to empower the Secretary of State to make transfer schemes to create the ISOP and give it the capacity to carry out its functions. As discussed already, the ISOP will be founded on the existing capabilities and functions of National Grid Electricity System Operator and, where appropriate, National Grid Gas. That will require several transactions between Government, National Grid plc and other relevant parties, because the property that the ISOP requires is not currently owned by a single entity. The transfers could include matters such as personnel, IT systems, physical assets, methodologies, models, data, and other resources and inputs used by the existing entities in performing their functions.
Schedule 7 sets out a set of principles, procedures and expectations in relation to the transfer scheme that will help provide clarity to affected parties. For example, it outlines that the Government are required to consult the transferor or transferors when the transfer scheme power is expected to be used. Not all the detail of the scheme can be determined in advance, so the Bill also includes a small number of time-limited powers to make regulations, which include regulations to provide further details to all parties, including third parties, on procedures for agreeing and paying compensation.
Government amendment 19 makes a minor procedural amendment to clause 275, to include the Treasury in the list of persons that can make regulations under the Bill. Amendment 20 clarifies that, because regulations under paragraph 9 of schedule 7 deal with financial matters, they can only be annulled in the House of Commons.
Clause 133 introduces schedule 8, which relates to pensions. As part of the transfer of functions, some employees will transfer into the ISOP. The purpose of the schedule is to allow the Secretary of State to separate the pension arrangements of the ISOP and to provide scope for various forms of reorganisation that may be appropriate in the light of the transfer. That includes making provision for the responsibility for the affected employees’ qualifying pension schemes and protecting the value of their benefits during the transfer. In exercising powers, the Secretary of State must ensure that the arrangements made for each employee’s pension provision is, in all material respects, at least as good immediately after any transfer-related changes are made as they were before that point.
Clause 134 grants the Secretary of State the power to provide financial assistance to the ISOP—that is, to draw on the financial resources available to Government in the kind of circumstances when the existing electricity system operator and gas system operator would have relied on the financial strength of their corporate group to raise capital sums. The Secretary of State will have the power to set conditions on the financial assistance provided, which may include conditions about repayment with or without interests or other return. In the highly unlikely situation that the ISOP faces financial difficulty, the power would also allow the Secretary of State to step in and avoid any disruption to the electricity and gas sectors.
Finally, clause 135 removes the barriers, in section 7 of the Electricity Act 1989 and section 7B of the Gas Act 1986, to payments raised in one sector being used to benefit consumers in the other. It also introduces a provision, in each Act, to expand licence holders’ statutory duties and require them to have regard to the interests of consumers of the other energy sector where directed by their licence. The removal of such barriers is fundamental, because it will enable the ISOP to co-ordinate and ensure strategic planning across the energy sector more effectively.
Dr Whitehead
We come to a part of the Bill that we should have discussed a couple of weeks ago: clauses 132 to 139. When we discussed the rest of the business relating to the ISOP, these debates were moved by the Government towards the end of the consideration of later clauses in the Bill. At the time, I thought that was because there was some blockbusting new clause that the Government were thinking of introducing, which was not quite down the slipway at that point. I thought it would appear when we considered the clauses today.
I was disappointed to see that nothing has appeared. There are two Government amendments that were there previously, and nothing in the way of new clauses. I assume the reason for discussing the provisions now—although the Minister may have an interesting explanation up his sleeve—may well be because Ofgem has just produced a consultation—[Interruption.] No, the Minister is shaking his head. In any event, had the Minister consulted with Ofgem about whether it was going to produce a consultation on transfers and various other things, then he would have found that they have produced a consultation, “Funding the transition to a Future System Operator”, which was published today. The Minister will understand that not a great deal of time has elapsed since the publication of that consultation.
That consultation is very relevant to the provisions we are discussing. If the Minister did think the consultation would be published in time, it would have been helpful of him to bring that to the Committee’s attention. Apparently, however, there are different reasons for discussing these provisions later in the Committee cycle than planned.
A headline in Utility Week said the full costs of the transition to a future system operator could come to about £392 million. I read that headline but I am too mean to go behind the paywall of Utility Week to read the rest of the article. I sought out the Ofgem consultation instead and got the full picture. The consultation indicates that this level of cost for the transition is accurate. In clauses 132 to 139, provision is given for the bringing together of the various agencies’ present responsibilities for what would be the new independent system operator. That extends beyond just taking the National Grid ESO away from National Grid and putting it into ISOP. It involves other agencies—the Minister is absolutely right.
In this instance, however, the prime issue of the transition is of course the ESO itself. At the moment and for a long time, the ESO has had a relationship with National Grid involving separation by Chinese walls. It was, in effect, owned by National Grid and so was part of the National Grid family of companies, but over the recent period, since the ESO was set up, its operation has been separated from that of National Grid. Previously, we have discussed the extent to which the Chinese walls were strong enough for what ESO was doing in relationship to what National Grid might be doing—for example, potential conflict on interconnectors, with National Grid owning at least part of an interconnector while ESO was planning for interconnectors overall.
The fact that the separation will take place and that the business of the ESO will be transferred fully into the ISOP is important. That will complete the process of setting up the ISOP properly, so that it can operate fully independently from day one—in Committee, we have expressed strong interest in ensuring that. However, with the Ofgem consultation, the issue of compensation for those transfers arises to some extent. According to the consultation, part of the transfer arrangements relates to transferring personnel across and part to what assets and so on will be transferred. What is not entirely clear in the consultation is also alluded to in the provisions in the group, in particular schedule 7.
Paragraph 8 of schedule 7, headed “Compensation”, appears to start talking about compensation in general terms for, as it were, the loss to National Grid of its ownership of the ESO, as well as of the various things relating to the transfer of assets and individuals. Compensation would be couched in two parts: literally, which desks and pot plants are going over to the ISOP, with personnel and various other things, and what the compensation for that is, presumably; and compensation for the fact that the ESO was part of the National Grid corporate family and no longer will be.
I am not clear whether the provision on compensation encompasses that consideration. If so, what might that consideration be? Do the Government have a figure in mind for compensating National Grid for its losing ESO to the ISOP? Is that facilitated through these clauses or a separate arrangement to be arrived at? In other words, do the clauses deal just with compensation relating to bodies, pot plants and desks, or with compensation more widely?
Dr Whitehead
Good.
As I was saying, this is potentially important, because the clauses in this part of the Bill relate to the Secretary of State’s ability to provide the ISOP with finance. Will the ISOP undertake the job of providing the compensation due under the clause—presumably it would be provided with money by the Government to do that—or will the Government deal with that separately before the ISOP is set up?
There is also an important point about compensation for the loss of the ESO to the ISOP. It would seem inappropriate for the ISOP to pay compensation to National Grid, given its removal from National Grid in the first place. I therefore assume that other mechanisms will be in place to provide that compensation. If that compensation is paid, there are provisions in the Bill allowing for such payments to be recovered by companies involved in the process in the course of their activities. [Interruption.] I will pause for a moment while the Minister consults his Whip.
Dr Whitehead
This is something I specifically want the Minister to say something about. It is important that we get it right.
Assuming that compensation is given for the loss of the ESO and the companies concerned can recover that, do the Government intend for the ISOP to have a part in the mechanism whereby costs are recovered through standing charges on bills? As the Minister knows, standing charges are substantially made up of a combination of charges for TNUoS and DUoS—transmission network use of system and distribution use of system—and a balancing charge, and, as he and other hon. Members will know, standing charges are increasing substantially as a proportion of our electricity bills. They are now about 25% of our energy bills.
It looks as if the compensation, if it can be recovered by somebody—I assume it could be recovered one way or another by National Grid in its network charges, or by the ISOP in what it eventually contributes to the standing charge—will eventually work its way into the standing charge, and hence on to customers’ bills. That makes it important to understand what the Government have in mind about what compensation should be paid to National Grid for the loss of ESO and its transfer to the ISOP.
It may be that there has been a nice agreement that no one will pay anyone compensation, and National Grid will just hand over ESO to the ISOP. I suspect that is not the case, but I have not seen anywhere—and it is not explicit in the consultation—what the level of compensation might be, who will pay it, how it might be transferred to bills and standing charges, if necessary, and how the process overall might work. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an understanding of all that. It would certainly enable us to better judge schedule 7, as it relates to the process of how those transfers take place and what their consequences are.
Andrew Bowie
On the question of why we have returned to these clauses, I am sorry that I was unable to turn up today with a blockbuster moment for the Committee. I know they were all expecting it and waiting with bated breath. Unfortunately, it is a simple matter of procedure. We temporarily skipped over the remaining clauses in part 4 to ensure that the necessary Ways and Means motion could be agreed by the House. I am pleased to confirm that the resolution was obtained on Tuesday, allowing us—I was expecting a “Hear, hear!”—to continue with clauses 132 to 139.
The Ways and Means resolution was necessary as a result of provisions that confer power on the Treasury to make regulations setting out the way taxes have effect in connection with a transfer of assets from one body to another. It was impossible to proceed with debate on the clauses until the motion was passed by the House. That has now been done, so we can proceed.
On the consultation that was published this morning, I cannot mandate when Ofgem publishes its consultations, so unfortunately that was not a consideration. However, we note that the Ofgem consultation launched today, and I will of course consider it in detail. I am happy to provide hon. Members with more detail in writing should they wish.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test spoke about transfers. The Bill provides multiple steps for agreement on the value of compensation: first, simple agreement between parties—in this case the Secretary of State, National Grid and the owners of National Gas—secondly, in a situation of non-agreement, the joint appointment of an independent valuer to assess the value of the assets to be transferred; or, thirdly, as a fall-back option, the appointment of an independent valuer by the Secretary of State on behalf of both parties. The framework of considerations to be made by the independent valuer will be set out in regulations to be made under the Bill.
The entire process is an ongoing commercial transaction, so the Government are limited in the extent of the information they can provide at this point, although I recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I will respond specifically to his point about the standing charge and his worry that that could have an effect on bills. We do not expect costs to rise at all as a result of the establishment of the ISOP. The ISOP will be funded by Government, and its ongoing operations will continue to be supported by funding from the network balancing charges at a level determined through a price-control mechanism, much like the current gas and electricity system operators are. However, we expect the ISOP to enable a long-term reduction in costs compared with the status quo.
Dr Whitehead
I think the Minister just said that he expects compensation to be included in network charges, which means that in the end it will go on standing charges for customers. There will be an effect on customers’ bills.
Andrew Bowie
I reiterate that we are not expecting any increase in customers’ bills as a result of the creation of the ISOP. There will be no increase. We expect the ISOP to enable a long-term reduction in costs, so its creation will have the opposite effect on customers’ bills. Future network decisions will be built on the expert and impartial advice of the truly whole-system body that many in the industry and outside it have been calling for for some time.
Dr Whitehead
I appreciate that the Minister cannot tell me—presumably because of an ongoing discussion relating to commercial companies—what the compensation for National Grid is likely to be. However, I assume that, in stating that he cannot tell me, he has confirmed that that will be part of the transfer arrangements. I was trying to distinguish between the compensation for pot plants and desks, and compensation for the loss of the ESO by National Grid.
That leads us to an unsatisfactory position in which we do not know how much the compensation will be. Presumably, we have to take it on trust that the Government will be fairly rigorous about ensuring that the compensation is proportionate to the actual loss, but I am not sure how it will be determined. Sorry, Mr Gray, this is a long intervention.
The Chair
No, it is a speech. The Minister finished, and therefore the hon. Member is making a speech.
Dr Whitehead
Good, I can go on forever then. I was trying to make my remarks as brief as possible in order to accommodate the Minister’s previous comments, so I will just round them off.
We do not know the detail of the procedure for determining compensation, we do not know even what ballpark figure the Government have in mind for compensation to National Grid for the loss of the ESO, we do not know what strategies the Government might adopt in their negotiations on what the compensation might consist of, and we do not know whether there is any process of arbitration if National Grid, for example, thinks that the compensation it receives is not the right amount, or what mechanisms—perhaps under the Bill—would enable the final amount to be determined to the satisfaction of all sides.
We do know that some compensation may find its way on to network charges, one way or another. Therefore, it is important for the economy and the effectiveness of network charges that we at least have a ballpark figure for the sort of compensation that might be considered. If the Government are minded to provide huge amounts of money in compensation to National Grid, that might have an inflationary effect on network charges; if they have a more robust view of what the compensation should look like, that would have a lesser effect on charges. Either way, as I think the Minister will agree, we are in a position of some fog.
As the Bill makes progress we legislate for all this to happen, we still do not have a clear handle on what those procedures will look like or the money that might be involved. I do not know whether the Minister will respond to this speech, but I think that he should be able at least to write to us about the procedure and the arrangements. Ideally, that would include further and better particulars on the range of compensation, while not giving away anything commercially sensitive. Alternatively, he could take His Majesty’s loyal Opposition into a position of trust and get around a table with us to talk these things through, so that, between us, we are clear about how they might proceed.
Andrew Bowie
Let me briefly answer those points. As I have set out, this is an ongoing commercial discussion between parties. The Bill provides multiple steps for agreement on the value of compensation, which has yet to be determined, and I do not think that it would be good governance to insert a ballpark figure into the Bill. I cannot underline enough that the creation of the ESO will not have any adverse effect on consumers’ bills. In fact, as a result of it, we will see bills reduce in time. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more information.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 132 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Independent System Operator and Planner: transfers
Amendment made: 20, in schedule 7, page 282, line 7, at end insert—
“(3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This amendment provides for a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Treasury under paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 134 and 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 136
Principal objective and general duties of Secretary of State and GEMA under Part 4
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 137 stand part.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 138 stand part.
Government amendment 18.
Clause 139 stand part.
Andrew Bowie
Clause 136 ensures that when carrying out various functions in relation to the ISOP under the Bill, the Secretary of State and Ofgem must have regard to their principal objective and general duties as defined in the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986. The principal objective of the Secretary of State and Ofgem can be characterised as protecting the interests of existing and future electricity and gas consumers. General duties include promoting effective competition in the energy sector, having regard to security of supply and securing a healthy energy market.
It is relatively common to extend the application of those principles where a new Act gives new, freestanding functions to the Secretary of State or Ofgem. The clause states that the Secretary of State must have regard to the principal objective and general duties when carrying out new functions relating to designation under clause 120 or when making an order that an existing transmission licence becomes the ISOP’s electricity system operator licence.
Clause 137 introduces schedule 9, which contains necessary consequential amendments to the Gas Act and Electricity Act to enable the ISOP and its licensable activities to be integrated into the existing framework of the energy system regulated by Ofgem.
Clause 138 contains provisions on the interpretation of terms used in part 4 of the Bill. I draw hon. Members’ attention in particular to subsection (3), which is intended to make it clear that whenever part 4 includes a proposition about the ISOP’s functions, that is to be understood as applying to any and all of the ISOP’s functions, whether provided by the Bill, by other legislation, or as functions ancillary to them.
Clause 139 concerns the limited regulation-making powers in part 4. Government amendment 18 is consequential on Government amendment 20, which we have already discussed. It ensures that regulations made by the Treasury under schedule 7(9) are not subject to the negative procedure. As these are financial regulations, the intention is for them to be laid before the House of Commons only and approved by the House of Commons alone.
Dr Whitehead
These measures are essentially consequential on those we have already discussed. I have no particular comment to make on them other than to say hooray; I am happy to let them go through undiscussed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 136 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 139
Regulations under Part 4
Amendment made: 18, in clause 139, page 122, line 32, at end insert—
“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to regulations under paragraph 9 of Schedule 7.”
This amendment excludes regulations made by the Treasury under paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 from the provision about negative procedure in Parliament made by clause 139. This is consequential on Amendment 20.—(Andrew Bowie.)
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
New Clause 8
Key definitions
“(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2) ‘Carbon storage licence’ means a licence granted, or having effect as if granted, by the OGA under section 18(1) of the Energy Act 2008 (and references to a ‘licensee’ are to a person who holds such a licence).
(3) ‘Exploration operator’, in relation to a carbon storage licence, means a person who is responsible for organising or supervising—
(a) the carrying on of exploration, within the area within which activities are authorised under the licence, with a view to, or in connection with, the carrying on of activities within section 17(2)(a) or (b) of the Energy Act 2008, or
(b) the establishment or maintenance in a controlled place (as defined in section 17 of the Energy Act 2008) of an installation for the purposes of such exploration.
(4) ‘Carbon storage information’ means information acquired or created by or on behalf of a licensee in the course of carrying out activities under the licensee’s carbon storage licence.
(5) ‘Carbon storage samples’ means samples of substances acquired by or on behalf of a licensee in the course of carrying out activities under the licensee’s carbon storage licence.
(6) ‘Sanctionable requirement’ means a requirement imposed on a person by or under a provision of this Chapter which, by virtue of the provision, is sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.—(Andrew Bowie.)
NC8 to NC28 and NS1 and NS2 make provision about carbon storage information and samples, and the powers of the OGA, corresponding to the provision made by Chapters 3, 5 and 6 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2016 in respect of offshore petroleum. They are intended to form new Chapter 4A in Part 2. This new clause defines key terms for the purposes of the intended new Chapter.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 9—Retention of information and samples.
Government new clause 10—Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans.
Government new clause 11—Information and samples plans: supplementary.
Government new clause 12—Information and samples coordinators.
Government new clause 13—Power of OGA to require information and samples.
Government new clause 14—Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples by OGA.
Government new clause 15—Power of Secretary of State to require information and samples.
Government new clause 16—Power of OGA to give sanction notices.
Government new clause 17—Enforcement notices.
Government new clause 18—Financial penalty notices.
Government new clause 19—Revocation notices.
Government new clause 20—Operator removal notices.
Government new clause 21—Duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices.
Government new clause 22—Publication of details of sanctions.
Government new clause 23—Subsequent sanction notices.
Government new clause 24—Withdrawal of sanction notices.
Government new clause 25—Sanctions: information powers.
Government new clause 26—Appeals in connection with Chapter.
Government new clause 27—Procedure for enforcement decisions.
Government new clause 28—Interpretation of Chapter.
Government new schedule 1—Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA.
Government new schedule 2—Carbon storage information and samples: appeals.
Andrew Bowie
New clause 8 provides the key definitions for the purposes of this new chapter, enabling the effective understanding of all carbon storage information and samples provisions. The powers provided by this chapter specifically support the Oil and Gas Authority, the business name of which is the North Sea Transition Authority, in its role as a regulator of carbon storage.
New clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations on the retention of information and samples acquired by carbon storage licensees acting under the authority of the NSTA. The provisions will align carbon storage information requirements with existing petroleum licensing provisions, as established in the Energy Act 2016.
The specific type of information and samples that licensees will be required to retain will be set out in regulations. That will be alongside the form and manner in which they are to be retained, the period of retention and the events that trigger the commencement of such requirements. The various exploration, appraisal and monitoring activities that will be carried out on and under the seabed by carbon storage licence holders will yield important information, supporting the NSTA to carry out its regulatory functions.
New clauses 10 and 11 establish requirements for the preparation and agreement of information and samples plans. These are agreements between the NSTA and a carbon storage licence holder that set out what should happen to carbon storage information and samples held by the licence holder before the occurrence of certain carbon storage licence events. Provisions involving information and samples plans were introduced for petroleum licences in the Energy Act 2016. We therefore expect them to provide the same benefits for carbon storage licence events.
New clause 12 establishes provisions for the designation of information and samples co-ordinators, which will monitor compliance with obligations imposed under the new chapter, uphold the requirements of any information and samples plans, and help to protect against the risks of data loss during a licence event. Information and samples co-ordinators are expected to prove a valuable aid in respect of data reporting compliance. That is evident in the instrumental role they currently play in relation to petroleum licensees under the Energy Act 2016.
New clause 13 establishes powers for the NSTA to obtain information and samples collected through carbon storage activities to support its regulatory functions. This includes information and samples held by persons in accordance with regulations made under new clauses 9 and 10.
New clause 14 prohibits the NSTA from disclosing any information and samples it holds in accordance with the powers in this chapter, subject to the provisions of new schedule 1 and the power of the Secretary of State to obtain information from the NSTA in new clause 15. This will provide carbon storage licensees with the reassurance that any information and samples provided to the NSTA in support of their regulatory functions will not be allowed to be disclosed, except in specified circumstances.
New schedule 1 sets out the circumstances in which, to whom, and for what purposes the NSTA can disclose information. This includes providing for disclosure in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State that may permit protected material to be published, or made available to the public, after a specified period. The public disclosure of this information after a suitable period of confidentiality will support effective regulation by the NSTA.
New clause 15 provides powers to the Secretary of State to require information and samples held by, or on behalf of, the NSTA. It will align powers for carbon storage information and samples with the equivalent powers established for petroleum information and samples under the Energy Act 2016. This power will be used to enable the Secretary of State to carry out statutory functions, to monitor the performance of the NSTA, or to provide information for the purposes of parliamentary proceedings. Carbon storage licences return to the Government once storage sites have been closed for a designated period, and the Government are liable for any potential future leakage.
I turn now to new clauses 16 to 25. New clause 16 provides the NSTA with powers to issue sanction notices to persons who fail to comply with the requirements imposed on them under this chapter of the Bill. Such sanction notices can be in the form of an enforcement, a financial penalty, a revocation or operator removal notices. New clauses 17 to 20 make the necessary provisions for each of those types of notice. Importantly, new clause 21 places a requirement on the NSTA to issue a sanction warning notice ahead of any sanction notice that it proposes to issue under the powers established in new clause 16.
New clause 22 establishes that the NSTA may publish details of any sanction notices issued under new clause 16, including details of any sanction notice that is cancelled or withdrawn. New clause 22 also provides that the NSTA may not publish information that it considers to be commercially sensitive, not in the public interest or otherwise inappropriate to publish. New clause 23 places a restriction on the NSTA issuing more than one sanction notice in respect of the same contravention. New clause 24 provides the NSTA with the power to withdraw any sanction notices issued. Finally, new clause 25 enables the NSTA to require specified documents or information to support an investigation into whether a sanction notice ought to be provided under new clause 16.
New clause 26 introduces new schedule 2 to the Bill. Alongside new schedule 22, new clause 26 provides for an appeal to be made to the first-tier tribunal against any decision made by the NSTA. This is in relation to the NSTA exercising its new power to require carbon storage information samples. As I am sure Committee members will agree, the right of appeal for licence holders is a necessary and important part of conferring new regulatory powers on the NSTA.
New clause 27 will require the NSTA to determine and publish the procedure it proposes to follow in its decision making when issuing a sanction notice under new clause 16, which ensures public transparency in how the NSTA will enforce the sanctionable requirements and provides clarity for licence holders in respect of the NSTA’s procedures.
Finally, new clause 28 provides definitions to aid the interpretation of the provisions relating to carbon storage information samples detailed in this chapter. The definitions cross-reference the relevant existing legislation where appropriate.
Dr Whitehead
This group consists primarily of new clauses that the Government introduced. A substantial number of new clauses relate to the very sensible business of securing samples and various other things that can be of use in the regulation of the process and quality control, and in various other things relating to carbon capture and storage activity. So far, so good. These are certainly sensible clauses that establish arrangements for disputes and various other things, such as sanctions for when samples are not properly provided and so on—all good stuff.
However, there is an important point about the collection and retention of samples, as set out in the factsheet, which was subsequently published, that the Minister kindly provided me with when he said he intended to produce these new clauses. By the way, the factsheet refers to the NSTA, but the legislation refers to the OGA—again, maybe that is something we can discuss later. The Government say:
“We are legislating to provide the NSTA with appropriate powers to require carbon storage licensees to retain and report information and samples gathered as part of activities associated with the geological storage of carbon dioxide, and to enable the NSTA to publicly disclose this information after a suitable confidentiality period.”
I understand and appreciate the need for a suitable confidentiality period, but it is really important that the samples and data collections are available publicly for the greater benefit of the sector as a whole, in terms of its future development of carbon capture and storage. Government new clause 14 has a fairly fierce title: “Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples by OGA”. It effectively prohibits disclosure except under slightly unclear circumstances set out in new schedule 1, which states that the material may nevertheless be published and put into the public domain, but there is no real definition of how that may be done.
Andrew Bowie
As ever, I do not have all the information the hon. Gentleman is asking for at my fingertips, but I am happy to write to him with more detail on exactly how we will proceed.
On information samples being stored, and how they are publicly disclosed, as in the petroleum industry, the reporting of information to the North Sea Transition Authority will allow it to be securely stored in the NSTA controlled online data systems, such as the national data repository, or as open data in the NSTA data centre, which are both accessible via any internet browser.
Information in the national data repository becomes publicly accessible, online, upon disclosure. All information in the NSTA open data centre is disclosed information and is publicly accessible online. Reported samples are held by the British Geological Survey on behalf of NSTA. Disclosed geological samples are physically accessible by the public at the British Geological Survey geological sample storage facility in Nottinghamshire.
The hon. Gentleman asks why we are not fully changing the name of the OGA to the NSTA. We understand that the name change is important. We are considering legislative options for amending the statutory name of the Oil and Gas Authority. However, as was outlined in the other place, if we legislatively changed the OGA’s name to the NSTA, we would need to address all the instances in which the OGA is mentioned in primary and secondary legislation, and any partial name change could undermine or change the North Sea Transition Authority’s statutory functions, powers and objectives. I promise that I will write to the hon. Gentleman will more information on the other points he raised.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Retention of information and samples
“(1) Regulations made by the Secretary of State may require—
(a) specified licensees to retain specified carbon storage information;
(b) specified licensees to retain specified carbon storage samples.
(2) ‘Specified’ means specified, or of a description specified, in regulations under this section.
(3) Regulations under this section may include provision about—
(a) the form or manner in which information or samples are to be retained;
(b) the period for which information or samples are to be retained;
(c) the event that triggers the commencement of that period.
(4) Regulations under this section may provide for requirements imposed by the regulations to continue following a termination of rights under the licensee’s carbon storage licence (whether by transfer, surrender, expiry or revocation and whether in relation to all or only part of the licence).
(5) Regulations under this section may not impose requirements which have effect in relation to particular carbon storage information or particular carbon storage samples at any time when an information and samples plan dealing with the information or samples has effect.
(6) Requirements imposed by regulations under this section are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.
(7) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult each licensing authority that may under section 18(1) of the Energy Act 2008 grant a licence in respect of the carrying on, in a place to which the regulations would apply, of activities within section 17(2) of that Act.
(8) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), enables the Secretary of State to make regulations about the retention of information acquired or created, or samples acquired, by or on behalf of the holder of a carbon storage licence.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 10
Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans
“(1) The responsible person must prepare an information and samples plan in connection with any of the following (each ‘a licence event’)—
(a) where a licensee is a company, a change in control of the company within the meaning of paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2221) (inserted by Schedule 6 to this Act);
(b) a change in the identity of—
(i) the exploration operator under a carbon storage licence, or
(ii) where a storage permit has been granted under a carbon storage licence, the operator in relation to the storage permit (within the meaning of regulation 1(3) of the Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc.) Regulations 2010);
(c) a transfer of rights under a carbon storage licence, whether in relation to all or part of the area in respect of which the licence was granted;
(d) a surrender of rights under a carbon storage licence in relation to all of the area in respect of which the licence was granted, or in relation to so much of that area in respect of which the licence continues to have effect;
(e) the expiry of a carbon storage licence;
(f) the termination of a carbon storage licence;
(g) the revocation of a storage permit.
(2) ‘Responsible person’, in relation to a licence event, means the person who is or was, or the persons who are or were, the licensee in respect of the relevant licence immediately before the licence event.
(3) ‘Relevant licence’, in relation to a licence event, means the carbon storage licence in respect of which the licence event occurs.
(4) ‘Information and samples plan’, in relation to a licence event, means a plan dealing with what is to happen, following the event, to—
(a) carbon storage information held by the responsible person before the event, and
(b) carbon storage samples held by that person before the event.
(5) The responsible person must agree the information and samples plan with the OGA—
(a) in the case of a licence event mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), before the licence event takes place, or
(b) in the case of a licence event mentioned in subsection (1)(f) or (g), within a reasonable period after the termination of the carbon storage licence or revocation of the storage permit.
(6) An information and samples plan has effect once it is agreed with the OGA.
(7) If an information and samples plan is not agreed with the OGA as mentioned in subsection (5)(a) or (b), the OGA—
(a) may itself prepare an information and samples plan in connection with the licence event, and
(b) may require the responsible person to provide it with such information as the OGA may require to enable it to do so.
(8) The OGA must inform the responsible person of the terms of any information and samples plan it prepares in connection with a licence event.
(9) Where the OGA—
(a) prepares an information and samples plan in connection with a licence event, and
(b) informs the responsible person of the terms of the plan,
the plan has effect as if it had been prepared by the responsible person and agreed with the OGA.
(10) Where an information and samples plan has effect in connection with a licence event, the responsible person must comply with the plan.
(11) The requirements imposed by subsection (5) and (10), or under subsection (7)(b), are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about the preparation and agreement of plans dealing with what is to happen to carbon storage information and samples following certain events.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 11
Information and samples plans: supplementary
“(1) Where an information and samples plan has effect in relation to a licence event, the OGA and the responsible person may agree changes to the plan.
(2) Once changes are agreed, the plan has effect subject to those changes.
(3) Where—
(a) two or more persons are the responsible person in relation to a licence event, and
(b) those persons include a company that has, since the licence event, been dissolved,
the reference to the responsible person in subsection (1) does not include that company.
(4) An information and samples plan, in relation to a licence event, may provide as appropriate for—
(a) the retention, by the responsible person, of any carbon storage information or carbon storage samples held by or on behalf of that person before the licence event,
(b) the transfer of any such information or samples to a new licensee, or
(c) appropriate storage of such information or samples.
(5) Where an information and samples plan makes provision under subsection (4) for a person, other than the responsible person, to hold information or samples in accordance with the plan—
(a) the plan may, with the consent of that other person, impose requirements on that person in connection with the information and samples, and
(b) any such requirements are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.
(6) An information and samples plan prepared by the OGA under section (Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans) may not include provision under subsection (4)(b) for the transfer of information or samples to another person without the consent of the responsible person.
(7) An information and samples plan may provide for the storage of information or samples as mentioned in subsection (4)(c) to be the responsibility of the OGA.
(8) Where a transfer of rights under a carbon storage licence relates to only part of the area in relation to which the licence was granted, the information and samples plan prepared in connection with the transfer is to relate to all carbon storage information and carbon storage samples held by the responsible person before the licence event, and not only information and samples in respect of that part of the area.
(9) In this section, ‘licence event’ and ‘responsible person’ have the same meaning as in section (Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans).”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision supplementing the provision about information and samples plans made by NC10.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 12
Information and samples coordinators
“(1) A person within subsection (2) (a ‘relevant person’) must—
(a) appoint an individual to act as an information and samples coordinator, and
(b) notify the OGA of that individual’s name and contact details.
(2) The following persons are within this subsection—
(a) a licensee, and
(b) an exploration operator under a carbon storage licence.
(3) The information and samples coordinator is to be responsible for monitoring the relevant person’s compliance with its obligations under this Chapter.
(4) A relevant person must comply with subsection (1) within a reasonable period after—
(a) the date on which this section comes into force, if the person is a relevant person on that date, or
(b) becoming a relevant person, in any other case.
(5) The relevant person must notify the OGA of any change in the identity or contact details of the information and samples coordinator within a reasonable period of the change taking place.
(6) The requirements imposed by this section are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision requiring licensees and exploration operators to appoint an individual (an information and samples coordinator) to be responsible for monitoring their compliance with obligations imposed by or under the intended new Chapter.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 13
Power of OGA to require information and samples
“(1) The OGA may by notice in writing, for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions under Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008 (storage of carbon dioxide), require—
(a) a licensee to provide it with any carbon storage information, or a portion of any carbon storage sample, held by or on behalf of the licensee;
(b) a person who holds information or samples in accordance with an information and samples plan to provide it with any such information or a portion of any such sample.
(2) The notice must specify—
(a) the form or manner in which the information or the portion of a sample must be provided;
(b) the time at which, or period within which, the information or the portion of a sample must be provided.
(3) Information requested under subsection (1) may not include items subject to legal privilege.
(4) Requirements imposed by a notice under this section are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.
(5) Where a person provides information or a portion of a sample to the OGA in accordance with a notice under this section, any requirements imposed on the person in respect of that information or sample by regulations under section (Retention of information and samples) are unaffected.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about the power of the OGA to require licensees and certain other persons to provide it with any carbon storage information or samples they hold (or that are held on their behalf).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 14
Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples by OGA
“(1) Protected material must not be disclosed—
(a) by the OGA, or
(b) by a subsequent holder,
except in accordance with section (Power of Secretary of State to require information and samples) or Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA).
(2) In this section and in Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA)—
‘protected material’ means information or samples which have been obtained by the OGA under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples) or (Sanctions: information powers);
‘subsequent holder’, in relation to protected material, means a person holding protected material who has received it directly or indirectly from the OGA by virtue of a disclosure, or disclosures, in accordance with Schedule (Permitted disclosures of material obtained by OGA).
(3) References to disclosing protected material include references to making the protected material available to other persons (where the protected material includes samples).”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision prohibiting the disclosure by the OGA of information and samples obtained under NC13 except in accordance with NS1 or with a requirement imposed by the Secretary of State under NC15.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Power of Secretary of State to require information and samples
“(1) The Secretary of State may require the OGA to provide the Secretary of State with such information or samples held by or on behalf of the OGA as the Secretary of State may require for the purpose of—
(a) carrying out any function conferred by or under any Act,
(b) monitoring the OGA’s performance of its functions, or
(c) any Parliamentary proceedings.
(2) The Secretary of State may use information or samples acquired under subsection (1) (‘acquired material’) only for the purpose for which it is provided.
(3) Acquired material must not be disclosed—
(a) by the Secretary of State, or
(b) by a subsequent holder,
except in accordance with this section.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), ‘subsequent holder’, in relation to acquired material, means a person who receives acquired material directly or indirectly from the Secretary of State by virtue of a disclosure, or disclosures, in accordance with this section.
(5) Subsection (3) does not prohibit the Secretary of State from disclosing acquired material so far as necessary for the purpose for which it was provided.
(6) Subsection (3) does not prohibit a disclosure of acquired material if—
(a) the disclosure is required by virtue of an obligation imposed by or under any Act, or
(b) the OGA consents to the disclosure and, where the acquired material in question was provided to the OGA by or on behalf of another person, confirms that that person also consents to the disclosure.
(7) References in this section to disclosing acquired material include references to making the acquired material available to other persons (where the acquired material includes samples).”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision, corresponding to the provision made by section 11 of the Energy Act 2016, about the power of the Secretary of State to require the provision of carbon storage information or samples held by or on behalf of the OGA.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 16
Power of OGA to give sanction notices
“(1) If the OGA considers that a person has failed to comply with a sanctionable requirement imposed on the person, it may give the person a sanction notice in respect of that failure.
(2) If the OGA considers that there has a been a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement imposed jointly on two or more persons, it may give a sanction notice in respect of that failure—
(a) to one only of those persons (subject to section (Revocation notices)(2)),
(b) jointly to two or more of them, or
(c) jointly to all of them,
but it may not give separate sanction notices to each of them in respect of the failure.
(3) In this Chapter ‘sanction notice’ means—
(a) an enforcement notice (see section (Enforcement notices)),
(b) a financial penalty notice (see section (Financial penalty notices)),
(c) a revocation notice (see section (Revocation notices)), or
(d) an operator removal notice (see section (Operator removal notices)).
(4) Sanction notices, other than enforcement notices, may be given in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement even if, at the time the notice is given, the failure to comply has already been remedied.
(5) Where the OGA gives a sanction notice to a person in respect of a particular failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement—
(a) it may, at the same time, give another type of sanction notice to the person in respect of that failure to comply;
(b) it may give subsequent sanction notices in respect of that failure only in accordance with section (Subsequent sanction notices) (subsequent sanction notices).
(6) The OGA’s power to give sanction notices under this section is subject to section (Duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices) (duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices).
(7) Where the OGA gives a sanction notice to a licensee in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement—
(a) the matter is to be dealt with in accordance with this Chapter, and
(b) any requirement under the licensee’s carbon storage licence to deal with the matter in a certain way (including by arbitration) does not apply in respect of that failure to comply.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about the power of the OGA to give sanction notices to persons who have failed to comply with requirements imposed on them by or under the intended new Chapter.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 17
Enforcement notices
“(1) An enforcement notice is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement in question,
(b) gives details of the failure to comply with the requirement, and
(c) informs the person or persons to whom the notice is given that the person or persons must comply with—
(i) the sanctionable requirement, and
(ii) any directions included in the notice as mentioned in subsection (2),
before the end of the period specified in the notice.
(2) The notice may include directions as to the measures to be taken for the purposes of compliance with the sanctionable requirement.
(3) Requirements imposed by directions included in an enforcement notice as mentioned in subsection (2) are sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about enforcement notices (notices requiring a person to take measures for the purposes of complying with a requirement imposed by or under the new Chapter), which may be given by the OGA under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 18
Financial penalty notices
“(1) A financial penalty notice is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement in question,
(b) gives details of the failure to comply with the requirement, and
(c) informs the person or persons to whom the notice is given that the person or persons must—
(i) comply with the sanctionable requirement before the end of a period specified in the notice, where it is appropriate to require such compliance and the failure to comply with the requirement has not already been remedied at the time the notice is given, and
(ii) pay the OGA a financial penalty of the amount specified in the notice before the end of a period specified in the notice.
(2) The period specified under subsection (1)(c)(ii) must not end earlier than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the financial penalty notice is given.
(3) The financial penalty payable under a financial penalty notice in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement (whether payable by one person, or jointly by two or more persons) must not exceed £1 million.
(4) If a financial penalty notice is given jointly to two or more persons, those persons are jointly and severally liable to pay the financial penalty under it.
(5) A financial penalty payable under a financial penalty notice is to be recoverable as a civil debt if it is not paid before the end of the period specified under subsection (1)(c)(ii).
(6) The OGA must—
(a) issue guidance as to the matters to which it will have regard when determining the amount of the financial penalty to be imposed by a financial penalty notice, and
(b) have regard to the guidance when determining the amount of the penalty in any particular case.
(7) The OGA may from time to time review guidance issued under subsection (6)(a) and, if it considers appropriate, revise it.
(8) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the OGA must consult such persons as it considers appropriate.
(9) The OGA must—
(a) lay any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, before each House of Parliament;
(b) publish any guidance issued under this section, and any revision of it, in such manner as the OGA considers appropriate.
(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure amend subsection (3) to change the amount specified to an amount not exceeding £5 million.
(11) Money received by the OGA under a financial penalty notice must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about financial penalty notices (notices requiring a person to pay a financial penalty for failure to comply with a requirement imposed by or under the intended new Chapter), which may be given by the OGA under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 19
Revocation notices
“(1) A revocation notice may be given only in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement imposed on a licensee in that capacity.
(2) Where two or more persons are the licensee in respect of a carbon storage licence, the revocation notice must be given jointly to all of those persons.
(3) A revocation notice is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement in question,
(b) gives details of the failure to comply with the requirement,
(c) informs the person or persons to whom the notice is given that—
(i) where no storage permit has been granted under the carbon storage licence, the licence is to be terminated, or
(ii) where a storage permit has been granted under the carbon storage licence, the permit is to be revoked,
on the date specified in the notice (‘the revocation date’).
(4) The revocation date must not be earlier than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the revocation notice is given.
(5) A revocation notice may not be given in circumstances where the carbon storage licence to be terminated, or the storage permit to be revoked, in accordance with the notice is one which, on the date the notice is given, the OGA would not have the power to grant.
(6) Where a carbon storage licence is terminated in accordance with a revocation notice—
(a) the rights granted to the licensee by the licence cease on the revocation date;
(b) the revocation does not affect any obligation or liability imposed on or incurred by the licensee under the terms and conditions of the licence;
(c) the terms and conditions of the licence apply as if the licence had been terminated in accordance with those terms and conditions, subject to section (Power of OGA to give sanction notices)(7)(b).
(7) Where a storage permit is revoked in accordance with a revocation notice—
(a) the authorisation granted by the storage permit ceases on the revocation date;
(b) the revocation does not affect any obligation or liability imposed or incurred under the terms and conditions of the storage permit;
(c) the terms and conditions of the carbon storage licence apply as if the storage permit had been revoked in accordance with those terms and conditions, subject to section (Power of OGA to give sanction notices)(7)(b).” —(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about revocation notices (notices terminating a carbon storage licence, or a storage permit, where a licensee has failed to comply with a requirement imposed by or under the intended new Chapter), which may be given by the OGA under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Operator removal notices
“(1) An operator removal notice may be given only in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement imposed on an exploration operator under a carbon storage licence in that capacity.
(2) An operator removal notice is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement,
(b) gives details of the failure to comply with the requirement, and
(c) informs the exploration operator to whom it is given that, with effect from a date specified in the notice (‘the removal date’), the licensee under whose carbon storage licence the exploration operator operates (‘the relevant licensee’) is to be required to remove the exploration operator (see subsection (4)).
(3) The OGA must—
(a) give a copy of the operator removal notice to the relevant licensee, and
(b) require the relevant licensee to remove the exploration operator with effect from the removal date.
(4) Where a licensee is required to remove an exploration operator from a specified date, the licensee must ensure that, with effect from that date, the exploration operator does not exercise any function of organising or supervising any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section (Key definitions)(3).
(5) The removal date must not be earlier than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the operator removal notice is given.
(6) An operator removal notice may not be given in circumstances where the carbon storage licence under which the exploration operator operates is one which, on the date the notice is given, the OGA would not have the power to grant.
(7) A requirement imposed on a licensee under subsection (3)(b) is sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.” —(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about operator removal notices (notices requiring a licensee to remove an exploration operator who has failed to comply with a requirement imposed by or under the intended new Chapter), which may be given by the OGA under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 21
Duty of OGA to give sanction warning notices
“(1) This section applies where the OGA proposes to give a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement.
(2) The OGA must give a sanction warning notice in respect of the sanctionable requirement to—
(a) the person or persons to whom it proposes to give a sanction notice, and
(b) where it proposes to give an operator removal notice, the relevant licensee (see section (Operator removal notices)(2)(c)).
(3) A sanction warning notice, in respect of a sanctionable requirement, is a notice which—
(a) specifies the sanctionable requirement,
(b) informs the person or persons to whom it is given that the OGA proposes to give a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with the requirement,
(c) gives details of the failure to comply with the sanctionable requirement, and
(d) informs the person or persons to whom it is given that the person or persons may, within the period specified in the notice (‘the representations period’), make representations to the OGA in relation to the matters dealt with in the notice.
(4) The representations period must be such period as the OGA considers appropriate in the circumstances.
(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where the OGA gives a sanction warning notice to a person or persons in respect of a sanctionable requirement.
(6) The OGA must not give a sanction notice to the person or persons in respect of a failure to comply with the requirement until after the end of the representations period specified in the sanction warning notice.
(7) Having regard to representations made during the representations period specified in the sanction warning notice, the OGA may decide—
(a) to give the person or persons a sanction notice in respect of the failure to comply with the requirement detailed in the sanction warning notice under subsection (3)(c),
(b) to give the person or persons a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with the requirement which differs from the failure detailed in the sanction warning notice under subsection (3)(c), or
(c) not to give the person or persons a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with the requirement.” —(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about the duty of the OGA to give a sanction warning notice where it proposes to give a sanction notice under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Publication of details of sanctions
“(1) The OGA may publish details of any sanction notice given in accordance with this Chapter.
(2) But the OGA may not publish anything that, in its opinion—
(a) is commercially sensitive,
(b) is not in the public interest to publish, or
(c) is otherwise not appropriate for publication.
(3) If, after details of a sanction notice are published by the OGA, the sanction notice is—
(a) cancelled on appeal, or
(b) withdrawn under section (Withdrawal of sanction notices),
the OGA must publish details of the cancellation or withdrawal.” —(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about the publication by the OGA of details of sanctions notices given under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
Subsequent sanction notices
“(1) This section applies where the OGA gives a sanction notice in respect of a particular failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement (whether the notice is given alone or at the same time as another type of sanction notice).
(2) If the sanction notice given is a revocation notice or an operator removal notice, no further sanction notices may be given in respect of the failure to comply.
(3) If the sanction notice given is a financial penalty notice which does not require compliance with the sanctionable requirement, no further sanction notices may be given in respect of the failure to comply.
(4) Subsection (5) applies if the sanction notice given is—
(a) an enforcement notice, or
(b) a financial penalty notice which requires compliance with the sanctionable requirement.
(5) No further sanction notices may be given in respect of the failure to comply before the end of the period specified under section (Enforcement notices)(1)(c) or (Financial penalty notices)(1)(c)(i), as the case may be (period for compliance with sanctionable requirement).”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision restricting the power of the OGA under NC16 to give more than one sanction notice in respect of the same failure.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Withdrawal of sanction notices
“(1) The OGA may, at any time after giving a sanction notice, withdraw the sanction notice.
(2) If a sanction notice is withdrawn by the OGA—
(a) the notice ceases to have effect, and
(b) the OGA must notify the following persons of the withdrawal of the notice—
(i) the person or persons to whom the notice was given;
(ii) in the case of an operator removal notice, the licensee under whose carbon storage licence the exploration operator operates.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about the withdrawal of sanction notices given by the OGA under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 25
Sanctions: information powers
“(1) This section applies for the purposes of an investigation which—
(a) concerns whether a person has failed to comply with a sanctionable requirement, and
(b) is carried out by the OGA for the purpose of enabling it to decide whether to give the person a sanction notice, or on what terms a sanction notice should be given to the person.
(2) The OGA may by notice in writing, for the purposes of that investigation, require the person to provide specified documents or other information.
(3) ‘Specified’ means specified, or of a description specified, in a notice under this section.
(4) A requirement under subsection (2) applies only to the extent—
(a) that the documents requested are documents in the person’s possession or control, or
(b) that the information requested is information in the person’s possession or control.
(5) A requirement imposed by a notice under subsection (2) is sanctionable in accordance with this Chapter.
(6) The documents or information requested—
(a) may include documents or information held in any form (including in electronic form);
(b) may include documents or information that may be regarded as commercially sensitive;
(c) may not include items that are subject to legal privilege.
(7) The notice must specify—
(a) to whom the information is to be provided;
(b) where it is to be provided;
(c) when it is to be provided;
(d) the form and manner in which it is to be provided.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about the power of the OGA to require the provision of information for the purposes of an investigation carried out to enable it to decide whether to give a person a sanction notice under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 26
Appeals in connection with Chapter
“In Schedule (Carbon storage information and samples: appeals)—
(a) Part 1 contains provision about appeals against decisions by the OGA relating to the preparation of an information and samples plan and appeals against the giving of a notice under section (Power of OGA to require information and samples), and
(b) Part 2 contains provision about appeals against the imposition of sanction notices and appeals against the giving of a notice under section (Sanctions: information powers).”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause introduces NS2, which contains provision about appeals in connection with the new Chapter intended to be formed by NC8 to NC28 (see the explanatory statement for NC8).
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 27
Procedure for enforcement decisions
“(1) The OGA—
(a) must determine the procedure that it proposes to follow in relation to enforcement decisions, and
(b) must issue a statement of its proposals.
(2) The procedure mentioned in subsection (1)(a) must be designed to secure, among other things, that an enforcement decision is taken—
(a) by a person falling within subsection (3), or
(b) by two or more persons, each of whom falls within subsection (3).
(3) A person falls within this subsection if the person was not directly involved in establishing the evidence on which the enforcement decision is based.
(4) The statement mentioned in subsection (1)(b) must be published in whatever way appears to the OGA to be best calculated to bring the statement to the attention of the public.
(5) When the OGA takes an enforcement decision, the OGA must follow its stated procedure.
(6) If the OGA changes its procedure in a material way, it must publish a revised statement.
(7) A failure of the OGA in a particular case to follow its procedure as set out in the latest published statement does not affect the validity of an enforcement decision taken in that case.
(8) But subsection (7) does not prevent the Tribunal from taking into account any such failure in considering an appeal under paragraph 4 or 5 of Schedule (Carbon storage information and samples: appeals) in relation to a sanction notice.
(9) In this section, ‘enforcement decision’ means—
(a) a decision to give a sanction notice in respect of a failure to comply with a sanctionable requirement, or
(b) a decision as to the details of the sanction to be imposed by the notice.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause, which is intended to form part of new Chapter 4A in Part 2 (see the explanatory statement for NC8), makes provision about the procedure for the taking of decisions by the OGA in relation to the giving of sanction notices under NC16.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 28
Interpretation of Chapter
“In this Chapter—
‘information and samples plan’ has the meaning given in section (Preparation and agreement of information and samples plans);
‘items subject to legal privilege’ —
(a) in England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (see section 10 of that Act);
(b) in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 412 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002;
(c) in Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1341 (NI 12));
‘OGA’ means the Oil and Gas Authority;
‘protected material’ has the meaning given in section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA);
‘sanction notice’ has the meaning given in section (Power of OGA to give sanction notices);
‘storage permit’ has the same meaning as in the Storage of Carbon Dioxide (Licensing etc) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/2221) (see regulation 1(3) of those Regulations);
‘subsequent holder’ has the meaning given in section (Prohibition on disclosure of information or samples obtained by OGA);
‘Tribunal’ means the First-tier tribunal.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause makes provision about the interpretation of the new Chapter intended to be formed by NC8 to NC28 (including NS1 and NS2): see the explanatory statement for NC8.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 29
Designation of hydrogen transport counterparty
“(1) The Secretary of State may by notice given to a person designate the person to be a counterparty for hydrogen transport revenue support contracts.
(2) A ‘hydrogen transport revenue support contract’ is a contract to which a hydrogen transport counterparty is a party and which was entered into by a hydrogen transport counterparty in pursuance of a direction given to it under section (Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen transport provider)(1).
(3) A person designated under subsection (1) is referred to in this Chapter as a ‘hydrogen transport counterparty’.
(4) A designation may be made only with the consent of the person designated (except where that person is the Secretary of State).
(5) The Secretary of State may exercise the power of designation so that more than one designation has effect under subsection (1), but only if the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of ensuring that—
(a) liabilities under a hydrogen transport revenue support contract are met,
(b) arrangements entered into for purposes connected to a hydrogen transport revenue support contract continue to operate, or
(c) directions given to a hydrogen transport counterparty continue to have effect.
(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after a designation ceases to have effect, the Secretary of State must make one or more transfer schemes under section 82 to ensure the transfer of all rights and liabilities under any hydrogen transport revenue support contract to which the person who has ceased to be a hydrogen transport counterparty was a party.
(7) In this Chapter ‘hydrogen transport provider’ means a person who carries on (or is to carry on) in the United Kingdom activities of transporting hydrogen.
(8) In subsection (7) the reference to carrying on activities in the United Kingdom includes carrying on activities in, above or below—
(a) the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom;
(b) waters in a Renewable Energy Zone (within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004);
(c) waters in a Gas Importation and Storage Zone (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Energy Act 2008).
(9) In subsection (7) ‘transporting hydrogen’ includes transporting a compound, of which hydrogen is an element, which revenue support regulations specify as a qualifying compound for the purposes of this section.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause and NC30, NC31 and NC32 (which are intended to be inserted after clause 60) enable the Secretary of State to designate a counterparty and direct it to offer to contract with hydrogen transport providers or (as the case may be) with hydrogen storage providers.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 30
Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen transport provider
“(1) The Secretary of State may, in accordance with any provision made by revenue support regulations, direct a hydrogen transport counterparty to offer to contract with an eligible hydrogen transport provider specified in the direction, on terms specified in the direction.
(2) Revenue support regulations may make further provision about a direction under this section and in particular about—
(a) the circumstances in which a direction may or must be given;
(b) the terms that may or must be specified in a direction.
(3) Provision falling within subsection (2) may include provision for calculations or determinations to be made under the regulations, including by such persons, in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons, as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Revenue support regulations must make provision for determining the meaning of ‘eligible’ in relation to a hydrogen transport provider.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
See the explanatory statement for NC29.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 31
Designation of hydrogen storage counterparty
“(1) The Secretary of State may by notice given to a person designate the person to be a counterparty for hydrogen storage revenue support contracts.
(2) A ‘hydrogen storage revenue support contract’ is a contract to which a hydrogen storage counterparty is a party and which was entered into by a hydrogen storage counterparty in pursuance of a direction given to it under section (Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen storage provider)(1).
(3) A person designated under subsection (1) is referred to in this Chapter as a ‘hydrogen storage counterparty’.
(4) A designation may be made only with the consent of the person designated (except where that person is the Secretary of State).
(5) The Secretary of State may exercise the power of designation so that more than one designation has effect under subsection (1), but only if the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the purposes of ensuring that—
(a) liabilities under a hydrogen storage revenue support contract are met,
(b) arrangements entered into for purposes connected to a hydrogen storage revenue support contract continue to operate, or
(c) directions given to a hydrogen storage counterparty continue to have effect.
(6) As soon as reasonably practicable after a designation ceases to have effect, the Secretary of State must make one or more transfer schemes under section 82 to ensure the transfer of all rights and liabilities under any hydrogen storage revenue support contract to which the person who has ceased to be a hydrogen storage counterparty was a party.
(7) In this Chapter ‘hydrogen storage provider’ means a person who carries on (or is to carry on) in the United Kingdom activities of storing hydrogen.
(8) In subsection (7) the reference to carrying on activities in the United Kingdom includes carrying on activities in, above or below—
(a) the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom;
(b) waters in a Renewable Energy Zone (within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Energy Act 2004);
(c) waters in a Gas Importation and Storage Zone (within the meaning given by section 1 of the Energy Act 2008).
(9) In subsection (7) ‘storing hydrogen’ includes storing a compound, of which hydrogen is an element, which revenue support regulations specify as a qualifying compound for the purposes of this section.’—(Andrew Bowie.)
See the explanatory statement for NC29.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 32
Direction to offer to contract with eligible hydrogen storage provider
“(1) The Secretary of State may, in accordance with any provision made by revenue support regulations, direct a hydrogen storage counterparty to offer to contract with an eligible hydrogen storage provider specified in the direction, on terms specified in the direction.
(2) Revenue support regulations may make further provision about a direction under this section and in particular about—
(a) the circumstances in which a direction may or must be given;
(b) the terms that may or must be specified in a direction.
(3) Provision falling within subsection (2) may include provision for calculations or determinations to be made under the regulations, including by such persons, in accordance with such procedure and by reference to such matters and to the opinion of such persons, as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Revenue support regulations must make provision for determining the meaning of ‘eligible’ in relation to a hydrogen storage provider.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
See the explanatory statement for NC29.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 52
Principal objectives of Secretary of State and GEMA
“(1) Section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986 (principal objective and general duties of Secretary of State and GEMA) is amended as set out in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (1A)(a), for ‘the reduction of gas-supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases’ substitute ‘the Secretary of State’s compliance with the duties in sections 1 and 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (net zero target for 2050 and five-year carbon budgets)’.
(3) In subsection (5B), omit the definitions of ‘emissions’, ‘gas-supply emissions’ and ‘targeted greenhouse gases’.
(4) Section 3A of the Electricity Act 1989 (principal objective and general duties of Secretary of State and GEMA) is amended as set out in subsections (5) and (6).
(5) In subsection (1A)(a), for ‘the reduction of electricity-supply emissions of targeted greenhouse gases’ substitute ‘the Secretary of State’s compliance with the duties in sections 1 and 4(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2008 (net zero target for 2050 and five-year carbon budgets)’.
(6) In subsection (5B), omit the definitions of ‘emissions’, ‘electricity-supply emissions’ and ‘targeted greenhouse gases’.”—(Andrew Bowie.)
This new clause is intended to replace clause 271. The intention is for it to appear at the start of Part 6. It is equivalent in substance to clause 271 but includes some drafting changes and consequential amendments.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Joy Morrissey.)
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2023 - (22 Jun 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)
I beg to move amendment 25, clause 81, page 49, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) a requirement in a direction under section 87 of EA 2002 (delegated power of directions) given by virtue of a pro-competition order (see section 49(1)).”
This amendment makes a requirement in a direction under section 87 of the Enterprise Act 2002 given by virtue of a pro-competition order a related requirement for the purposes of this clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 82 stand part.
Paul Scully
Government amendment 25 seeks to correct the list of “related requirements” in clause 81 to include pro-competition order directions. The Competition and Markets Authority has the power to impose directions on a firm with strategic market status to take specific action to come into regulatory compliance with a PCO, under section 87 of the Enterprise Act 2002.
As currently drafted, a nominated officer would not be responsible for a direction issued in relation to a PCO because this is not listed as a “related requirement”. The amendment will clarify that nominated officers will be responsible for directions issued in relation to a PCO to which they are assigned by the SMS firm, and that compliance reports in clause 82 will have to cover these directions. The amendment will ensure that the digital markets unit is able to monitor whether an undertaking is complying with directions issued in relation to a PCO. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Clauses 81 places requirements on SMS firms to assign appropriate senior managers as “nominated officers” to monitor compliance with specific regulatory requirements. That will help to facilitate co-operation between SMS firms and the DMU and ensure that information included in compliance reports is accurate and complete, and that reports are submitted to the DMU in a timely manner. SMS firms will be required to assign nominated officers in respect of each conduct requirement, pro-competition order or commitment made in lieu of a pro-competition order. A nominated officer appointed in relation to a conduct requirement will be automatically responsible for overseeing compliance with any subsequent orders that are imposed by the DMU in relation to that conduct requirement.
Clause 82 place requirements on SMS firms to submit compliance reports to the DMU. A compliance reporting obligation can be imposed by the DMU in relation to conduct requirements and PCOs, and can be extended to cover additional requirements related to those requirements, such as an enforcement order in relation to a conduct requirement. Compliance reports can also be imposed when a firm has had a binding commitment accepted by the DMU, in lieu of the DMU imposing a pro-competition order. A compliance report will include details of how the firm has complied and will continue to comply with the regulatory requirement and any related requirements. Reports will also set out the extent to which the nominated officer assigned to the particular regulatory requirement considers that the firm has complied with that requirement. Information in compliance reports will be essential to the DMU’s assessment of whether an SMS firm is complying with the regime, and will enable the DMU to take swift where it identifies risk of non-compliance.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak to the amendment and clauses on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, and I will be brief. Government amendment makes a requirement in a direction under section 87 of the Enterprise Act, given by virtue of a pro-competition order a related requirement for the purposes of clause 82.
Labour supports clause 81, which requires a designated undertaking to assign an appropriate senior manager to the role of “nominated officer” when the CMA imposes a digital markets requirement, for the purpose of monitoring the undertaking’s compliance with that requirement. We strongly believe this level of personal liability is required for big tech firms, which have dominated for too long, to listen and engage fully with this regime. We welcome clarity such as that in subsection (2), which sets out the tasks of the nominated officer and requires them to carry out those tasks in relation to
“digital markets requirements and all related requirements”.
It makes sense that if a nominated officer is assigned to a conduct requirement, they are automatically assigned to any subsequent enforcement orders made in connection to it. We therefore support clause 81 and have not sought to amend it at this stage.
Government amendment 25 makes a change to the Enterprise Act to bring the provisions in line with the current Bill. We support its inclusion. It is vital that existing legislation is brought in line if this regime is going to work to its full effect.
Labour sees compliance reports and the formal duties outlined in clause 82, which ultimately require designated undertakings to provide the CMA with reports setting out how they are complying with requirements imposed upon them, as a natural step in the implementation of this regime. For transparency, accountability and fairness all round it is right that the CMA has a duty to notify a designated undertaking of any compliance reporting requirements and will specify in the notice when reports should be submitted, what information they should contain and what form they should take. Labour has long called for those powers, and we have also argued that they should be flexible, so we are pleased to see provisions that allow the CMA to alter the reporting requirements on a designated undertaking by giving the undertaking a further notice.
Specifically interesting to see in the Bill are the provisions around subsection (5), which permit the CMA to require a designated undertaking to publish a compliance report or a summary of that report. Will the Minister confirm the form and the location that he feels would be suitable for such reports to be published?
We recognise that the provisions in clause 82 allow for the version the designated undertaking is required to publish to be different from the version provided in private to the CMA under subsection (1). For example, some information may be redacted for confidentiality purposes. It is still unclear, though, exactly where the report will be published, so it would be helpful to have the Minister’s response on that point.
Paul Scully
The CMA could ask for a public version to be published on its website. It will be reported to the firm in full, but the majority of the publication in all such things will be online.
Amendment 25 agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83
Penalties for failure to comply with competition requirements
Paul Scully
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 83, page 50, line 11, leave out “a designated” and insert “an”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 confirms that a penalty can be imposed on an undertaking that has ceased to be a designated undertaking in respect of things done (or not done) while the undertaking was a designated undertaking.
Paul Scully
Government amendment 26 seeks to clarify that the CMA can impose a penalty on a former SMS firm that no longer has strategic market status in relation to conduct that occurred before the designation ended or in relation to breaches of obligations that exist after the designation ends. With that aim, the amendment, together with its related amendments, replace the wording “a designated undertaking” with “an undertaking” in clauses 83 and 86. That ensures the change relates to penalties for failure to comply with competition requirements, as well as any penalties for failure to comply with investigative requirements. I hope the Committee will support the amendments.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for his remarks. We certainly support these Government amendments, and I will reserve the rest of my comments for the clause stand part debate.
Amendment 26 agreed to.
Amendments made: 27, in clause 83, page 50, line 23, leave out “a designated” and insert “an”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 26.
Amendment 28, in clause 83, page 50, line 24, leave out “designated”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 26.
Amendment 29, in clause 83, page 50, line 26, leave out “a designated” and insert “an”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 26.
Amendment 30, in clause 83, page 50, line 28, leave out “designated”. —(Paul Scully.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 26.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Paul Scully
Clause 83 allows the DMU to impose penalties on SMS firms where it is satisfied that the firm breached a regulatory requirement without reasonable excuse. Clause 84 sets the maximum penalties that the DMU can impose under clause 83. Substantial financial penalties are necessary to deter and tackle non-compliance, especially given the size of the firms in scope and the significant advantages that such firms could accrue from breaching the regime. Where an SMS firm has failed to comply with a conduct requirement or a merger reporting requirement, the DMU will be able to fine the firm by up to 10% of its worldwide turnover.
For other types of breaches, such as breaches of remedies, the DMU can impose a penalty of up to 5% of a firm’s daily worldwide turnover for each day of continue non-compliance, in addition to fixed penalties of up to 10% of worldwide turnover. That is needed, because remedies represent specific actions that an SMS firm should carry out once an investigation has found an issue. Breaches should be addressed promptly, and punished accordingly if they are not. The DMU will have the discretion to choose whether to impose a fixed penalty, a daily rate or a combination of both, depending on the breach, and it will be expected to take a proportionate approach when imposing penalties. The penalty levels will help prevent SMS firms from absorbing financial penalties as a cost of doing business.
Clause 85 sets out that the DMU can impose penalties on firms or individuals where they have, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with an investigatory power or a compliance reporting obligation, or provided false or misleading information to the DMU or another person while knowing that the information would be given to the DMU to be used in connection with any of its functions. In certain circumstances, the DMU will be able to impose financial penalties on senior managers assigned to an information request that has not been complied with, nominated officers assigned to a regulatory requirement for which a compliance reporting requirement has not been complied with, and individuals who have obstructed an officer of the DMU while entering premises under the powers set out in chapter 6 of the Bill. Having senior liability for the provision of information will help to ensure that a culture of compliance is embedded in SMS firms.
Clause 86 sets the maximum fixed and daily-rate penalties that the DMU can impose under clause 85. For firms, the DMU can impose a fixed penalty of up to 1% of a firm’s worldwide turnover, a daily penalty of up to 5% of a firm’s daily turnover for each day that non-compliance continues, or a combination of both. For individuals, the DMU can impose fixed penalties of up to £30,000, daily penalties of up to £15,000 each day, or a combination of both. The clause also grants the Secretary of State the power to amend the maximum penalties.
Clause 87 sets out the procedural requirements that the DMU must follow when issuing a penalty notice. It also sets out provisions relating to the payment and recovery of penalties. The clause applies sections 112, 113 and 115 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to penalties imposed by the DMU under clauses 83 and 85. Those sections cover procedural requirements when issuing a penalty, the payment of a penalty and interest by instalments, and the procedure for recovering a penalty that has not been paid. Clause 87 also states that challenges to merger-related penalty decisions made under clauses 83(4) and 85 should be brought under the existing merger review provisions set out in section 114 of the Enterprise Act.
Clause 88 sets out how the DMU will calculate the daily rates and turnover for the purpose of imposing a monetary penalty, so that there is clarity about the period of time that daily penalties will cover and when they will cease to accumulate. The ability to change how turnover is to be calculated is crucial to ensuring that the machine is flexible and can be updated in the future to reflect changes.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, who is still in the debate in the Chamber. As we know, the clause sets out that the CMA can impose monetary penalties on a designated undertaking where it is satisfied that the undertaking has breached a regulatory requirement, including for merger reporting and commitments, without reasonable excuse.
The clause’s wording affords substantial flexibility. Indeed, the provisions are in place only when the designated undertaking has failed to comply “without reasonable excuse”. None of us wants designated firms to be able to block action with excuses, so it would be helpful to hear how the Minister would quantify a reasonable excuse. That said, the Opposition welcome the clause, which is central to the regime. The ability to impose a penalty where appropriate is an important power that we hope will go some way towards encouraging companies to work with the regulator. For those reasons, we will not oppose it.
I turn to amendments 26 to 33, some of which we have already debated. It is helpful that we have made those amendments to ensure that a penalty can be imposed on an undertaking that was once designated and therefore captured by the regime but now no longer to subject to it. That will assist in capturing historical offences of failure to comply and goes to the heart of the importance of compliance.
Clause 84 outlines the maximum penalties that the CMA can impose. As we know, the CMA can impose penalties of up to 10% of worldwide turnover and, in the case of breaches of orders or commitments, of up to 5% of daily worldwide turnover for each day that a breach continues. Subsections (2) and (3) state that the CMA will, in most situations, have the discretion to choose whether to impose a fixed penalty, a daily-rate penalty or both. However, where an undertaking breaches a conduct requirement as opposed to an enforcement order or breaches any requirements under chapter 5 on mergers, the CMA will be able to impose only a fixed penalty.
The Opposition welcome these provisions. They afford the CMA flexibility and discretion, and we believe that financial penalties are an important power for any regulator to be able to impose. We therefore support the clause and do not seek to amend it. As with other formal liabilities, Labour believes that the CMA absolutely should be able to impose penalties on designated undertakings or individuals within them for failing to comply with certain investigative requirements. The powers are important to the regime and we welcome their inclusion.
In addition, clarity on exactly what will constitute, or be defined as failure to comply, is also helpful. We know that actions such as providing false or misleading information in the course of an investigation, or in relation to compliance reporting, will fall under this definition. That is a sensible approach, which we support.
Furthermore, clause 85(2) clearly sets out the circumstances in which the CMA can impose civil sanctions against either a named senior manager assigned to an information request or a nominated officer with relation to a compliance report. We feel that that personal duty is crucial to the success of the regime, as we hope that it will act as a deterrent, as companies will want to avoid personal duties, and that such a level of personal liability is crucial for SMS firms to take the CMA’s powers and regulatory regime seriously. We therefore support clause 85 and its intentions and believe it should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86 establishes the maximum fixed and daily rate penalties that the CMA can impose under clause 85 on undertakings and individuals. As outlined in clause 86(3), under the provisions, the CMA may impose a fixed penalty on an undertaking of up to 1% of the undertaking’s worldwide turnover, or a daily penalty of up to 5% of the undertaking’s daily worldwide turnover for each day of non-compliance, or both. Similarly, subsection (6) sets out that the CMA may impose a fixed penalty on an individual of up to £30,000, or a daily penalty of £15,000, or both. We welcome that clarity on the face of the Bill. Labour has been clear for some time now that financial penalties are vital for compliance, and that the CMA must have the statutory footing to be able to impose them in the most severe cases of non-compliance.
We further note clause 86(7) to (9), setting out that the Secretary of State has the power to amend the maximum amounts of penalty that can be imposed on an individual. Naturally, that is a point that I must press the Minister on: in what circumstances does he imagine that the Secretary of State would make such changes? It is an interesting power to ascribe to one individual, therefore we welcome subsection (8), which states that the Secretary of State must consult the CMA and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate before making the regulations. We therefore support clause 86 and believe it should stand part of the Bill unamended. Labour sees clause 86 as fairly procedural, setting out which sections of the Enterprise Act 2002 apply for penalties imposed under clause 83 or clause 85 of the Bill.
I will keep my comments on clause 87 brief as we see it as clarification rather than contentious, in particular given that we agree with the Government’s approach more broadly on enforcement and appeals. My one plea to the Minister is that he and his colleagues in the Department do not bow down to likely pressure from big SMS firms.
We appreciate that in recent months we have faced headlines about some tech companies threatening to withdraw from the UK if provisions on online safety become—as they see it—too cumbersome. However, when it comes to regulating the online space more widely, whether in our digital markets or through safety provisions, we know that companies have remained unregulated for too long, and that that is having a massive impact on consumers. That applies to all of us in Committee and the hundreds of thousands of constituents across the country we represent. That said, we support clause 87 and have not sought to amend it.
Clause 88, too, we see as fairly standard, in that it sets out exactly how the CMA will calculate daily rates and turnover for the purpose of imposing a monetary penalty. This clause clarifies that daily penalties will accumulate until the person complies with the requirement—for example that the requested information is provided—or, where the penalty is incurred in relation to an overseas investigation, when the overseas regulator no longer requires assistance.
Labour further welcomes the fact that clause 88 will give the CMA the discretion to determine an earlier date for the amount payable in order to prevent that amount from accumulating. We of course hope that application of the provisions will rarely be required, but they are welcome additions to have on the face of the Bill.
Lastly, we note that clause 88(2) to (4) gives the Secretary of State the power to specify how turnover is calculated in secondary legislation. Again, I would welcome some clarity on this point. I wonder whether the Minister can further clarify in exactly what circumstances he envisions these powers will be required and, if he can confirm whether, when the Secretary of State has to draw upon those powers, what action will be taken to ensure the secondary legislation required is not subject to further delay? That point aside, we understand the need for clause 88 and welcome its inclusion in the Bill.
Clause 89 is important in that it places a statutory duty on the CMA to prepare and publish a statement of policy in relation to the exercise of powers to impose a penalty under clauses 83 and 85. In doing so, the statement must include considerations around whether a penalty should be imposed, as well as details of the nature and amount of any such penalty. We welcome the provisions in subsection (3) that confirm that the CMA may revise its statement of policy and, where it does so, must publish the revised statement.
We also feel that the requirement of the CMA to consult the Secretary of State before publishing a statement is an important step. However, Labour feels some clarity is needed here to establish exactly when and where that statement will be published. Will the Minister confirm the timelines for when the CMA will be required to publish the statements? It is important that there is no delay; any specific timelines will be gratefully received. Following those assurances from the Minister, I am sure we will be happy to support the clause standing part of the Bill.
Lastly, we see clause 90 as a standard clarification that ensures that where a person has been found guilty of a criminal offence committed under clauses 91, 92 or 93, which we will soon debate, they will not be required to pay a civil penalty for that same offence. It is also right that where a person has paid a civil penalty for an act of the kind referenced under clause 85, they cannot be criminally convicted for that same offence. We also welcome the clarity that the clause does not prevent criminal or civil proceedings from being started where, respectively, a penalty has been imposed but not paid or someone has been charged but not convicted.
Again, we hope that these clauses will never have to be enforced in reality, but they are important additions and Labour support them, given the importance of ensuring the CMA has the teeth to implement this regulatory regime in full.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady mentioned “without reasonable excuse”. The onus is on SMS firms to prove that they have an excuse for committing a breach. That approach reflects the bespoke targeted nature of the regime, which means that firms should be fully aware of whether they are compliant. That same threshold is used in the competition regime already for breaches of specific directions and commitments; other prohibitions in the competition regime are more high level than any other obligations within the digital markets regime, making it harder for firms to assess their own compliance and therefore requiring a different legal threshold.
On updating penalty limits, and the Secretary of State’s power to do so, it is important that the new regulatory regime is agile, flexible and can be adapted to changing circumstances. The power is the same as is already used under the Enterprise Act 2002, which ensures consistency across the legislation and will ensure that the power remains an effective enforcement mechanism in the future. The Secretary of State must consult the DMU and other persons before making changes to the penalty levels. Importantly, proposed changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will need to be approved in Parliament. Another hon. Member asked about where the policy will be published; again, that will be online and in full. Clearly, that will be as soon as is practicable, because we want to keep the pace of the policy as fast as possible, in order to keep up to date with any detriment to especially challenging tech, and obviously to consumers as a consequence.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston asked about the power to update turnover and how that might be calculated. It is really important that in this area the regulatory regime remains agile and flexible, and granting the Secretary of State the power to specify how turnover is calculated in secondary legislation will allow any future changes in accounting principles, for example, to be taken into account to ensure that these calculations remain relevant. Again, that power is the same as that already used under section 94A of the Enterprise Act 2002, ensuring consistency across the two pieces of legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 84 and 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Amount of penalties under section 85
Amendments made: 31, in clause 86, page 52, line 29, leave out “a designated” and insert “an”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 26.
Amendment 32, in clause 86, page 52, line 31, leave out “designated”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 26.
Amendment 33, in clause 86, page 52, line 33, leave out “designated”.—(Paul Scully.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 26.
Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 87 to 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mike Wood.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2023 - (22 Jun 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again, and the proceedings are being broadcast. We now hear oral evidence from Jenni Hicks, a Hillsborough justice campaigner. Good afternoon, and thank you for coming. Do you want to say anything briefly at the start or do you just want to take questions?
Jenni Hicks: I have got something to say. Would you like to hear a little bit about my story?
The Chair
Q
Jenni Hicks: About my journey, I should say.
On 15 April 1989, my then husband Trevor and I, along with our daughters Sarah, who was 19 years old, and Vicki, who was 15 years old, drove from our home in north London to the Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield to watch our team, Liverpool, play Nottingham Forest in the FA cup semi-final. We were all Liverpool season ticket holders and had been allocated four tickets for the semi-final at Hillsborough.
Trevor and I drove home from Sheffield that night with an empty back seat in our car, having had to leave Sarah and Vicki in body bags on a dirty gymnasium floor at the Hillsborough football stadium. After identifying Sarah and Vicki, we were told that they were no longer our property; they were now the property of the coroner of South Yorkshire. We were questioned by two police officers for over an hour about our movements that day since we had left home that morning—mainly about how much alcohol we had had to drink. Trevor was asked to make a statement, which was later used at the Taylor inquiry. No solicitor was present when we were being interviewed. It felt more like an interrogation than an interview.
That night in Sheffield, we were treated like criminals by the police, who did not show an ounce of compassion. What followed is the reason I support the urgent need to appoint an independent public advocate panel. The lies, corruption and dirty tricks campaign began immediately, informing the press, media and anyone who would listen—hideous, nauseating lies about the Liverpool fans’ misbehaviour. I will not repeat those now disproven hideous lies here, as that would give them some kind of credence and publicity, which is what South Yorkshire police had intended.
It took 26 years for the Liverpool fans to be exonerated; however, the mud from those lies and that corruption still sticks in certain quarters of society to this very day. It took what seemed like a lifetime of banging our heads against brick walls and climbing seemingly unsurmountable barriers before—following the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, and thanks to the courage of the then PM Gordon Brown and the foresight of Lord Michael Wills, my unsung hero—the process of setting up the Hillsborough Independent Panel began.
With the release of previously withheld documentation, enabling families to finally find the truth about the causation of their loved ones’ deaths, a second inquest found that all 96 at the time—children, women and men—had been unlawfully killed; a 97th victim was added later. This is why we need an independent public advocate, with a public advocate panel based on the format of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. That’s me up to now. I have written down some other points, so that I do not forget anything. If you bear with me, I can read them out and then you can ask me questions if you like. Is that okay?
The Chair
I am afraid we only have half an hour. Why don’t we just take questions—then perhaps you can add some points. Is that all right?
Jenni Hicks: Well, there’s something important that I would like to say. I won’t read the whole thing; I will just jump about a little bit.
It took me and the other bereaved Hillsborough families 23 years of campaigning to finally hear from the Hillsborough Independent Panel in 2012 the truth about how our loved ones had died. It then took another four painful years to finally have, in 2016, the correct inquest verdicts that all 96 victims had been unlawfully killed, which I am sure you know is gross negligence manslaughter to a criminal standard. Importantly, the 96 innocent children, women and men—the Liverpool fans who had been cruelly blamed for causing the disaster—were also exonerated at the inquest of any blame whatsoever.
Here we are 26 years later to hear that truth. That can’t happen again. It mustn’t. Other families must not suffer what the Hillsborough families suffered. I mean, 26 years is over a quarter of a century of your life, just to have the truth and the correct inquest verdict. That cannot be allowed to happen. This is why I wholly support an independent public advocate—I keep stressing “independent” because the clue is in the title—and an independent public advocate team. In my opinion, it must be set up in the same way as the Hillsborough Independent Panel was. All the documents should be available to the independent public advocate and his team or her team right from the very start. People should not have to wait 23 years to have documentation of the truth. That is a summary of what I am saying in these notes.
The other point I made in these documents—as you say, I do not have time to read it all out now—is the fact that as it stands at the moment, the Government’s suggestions for an independent public advocate just would not work. It would just not be independent, because it is too dependent on the Minister. It seems that the supposedly independent public advocate will be answerable to the Secretary of State, which does not sound like independence to me.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Jenni Hicks: Well, if they are an independent public advocate, they should be like the Hillsborough Independent Panel were; they did not have to answer to anybody. They looked in, saw the documentation, and then reported on what they saw. They were not answerable to anybody, I don’t think. Is that correct, Maria?
The Chair
We are very grateful to you—this is a very moving testimony and you have had the most appalling experience—but we cannot have a general conversation; we have to have set questions. Can I now ask Maria Miller to ask her questions?
Jenni Hicks: Yes, sorry about that.
The Chair
That’s all right—we quite understand.
Jenni Hicks: I am an amateur at this, I am afraid.
Maria Eagle
It is fine. I have been called some names in my time—usually Angela.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: That is why I automatically asked Maria. I do apologise.
Maria Eagle
I am just making it clear that I do know the witness.
Jenni Hicks: Maria is the only person that I know here.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: I am hoping that an independent public advocate and their team would be able to have sight of the documentation that is needed to get to the truth. There has got to be transparency. We did not have that transparency until 2012—it took 23 years for us to have transparency about how our loved ones died. That is the difference that I am hoping it would make. That is such an important part.
Obviously, the independent public advocate would be able to guide people towards help in other ways, but for a major public disaster like the Hillsborough disaster, which was surrounded by a lot of lies and corruption, just to have transparency about the truth of what really happened was vital. We would never have known the truth without that. That is what was so good about the Hillsborough Independent Panel: it operated through transparency and sight of the documentation that it needed to come to its conclusions.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: It was horrendous. It was cruel. We were put through such an inhumane process. Not only had we lost our loved ones—in my case, my two daughters—but we did not have the truth about how they died. It was surrounded by lies.
I was there on the day. We were there as a family, and my ex-husband was there on the pitch with the girls, so we knew that the propaganda was lies. We were up against organisations like the police and the Government—like I said in my statement, those were huge, huge obstacles at the time—but we still carried on fighting, because we knew in our hearts what the truth was. Finally, 23 years later, we did have that truth, but it was a long, hard and gruelling process. It is not something that I would want anybody else ever, ever to have to go through.
It is bad enough to find yourself as part of a disaster and to be bereaved by a disaster. Then, when you cannot even get to the truth about what happened—or you know the truth and you know that lies are being put out there—it is not good. Nobody should ever, ever have to be put through that process again. I would like it to be a legacy for the 97 people who died that nobody else has to suffer like the Hillsborough families did.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: No.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes. We felt on our own with this huge fight to find out what had really happened, or in our case—because we were at the match and knew what had happened—it was to find the evidence of the truth. We basically knew the truth but we could not get hold of the evidence; nobody could. It was not until the Hillsborough Independent Panel that we had that evidence, finally, and we finally—as I say, four years after HIP—had the correct inquest verdicts. The first inquest put a 3.15 cut-off in, so a lot of the vital evidence after 3.15 pm could not be heard. There was absolutely nothing we could do about it. It is very, very frustrating.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes, that is vitally important. That is why I am supporting it. That is why I am here today speaking about it—because I think it is vitally important that we have this facility, but that we have it correctly and they do keep their independence. When you are caught up in disasters, particularly if there is propaganda surrounding it, you need to be able to trust—you would need trust in a public advocate in a team. By having to report to a Minister, you are thinking, “Well, who is in charge of this? Is it the public advocate or is it the Minister?” I do not think that would go down very well.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Q
Jenni Hicks: Thank you, but it was not just me. It was me and the rest of the families, and the whole city of Liverpool, which suffered a huge injustice that day.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: I actually think this is the point in having an independent advocates panel. I think we need to have experts on that panel, as the Hillsborough Independent Panel did, such as an archivist and a researcher—perhaps even a historian, certainly a trauma expert and perhaps even a forensic pathologist. We were given incorrect evidence about the pathology and everything, so you need people who are experts in their field, in my opinion, as part of the independent panel.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes, I think that is really important. I have some bullet points here, and that is what I have got down here—even a lawyer who knows, but certainly people with the skills needed.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: That is a huge question. I think that as long as the Hillsborough families were happy, it would work. Yes, they are going to support families, but there also has to be an independence when you are looking for the truth, from both sides; that is how it worked with the Hillsborough independent panel. As long as the families felt that the advocate and the teams were independent and there was not anybody on the panel they particularly had an objection to, I think it would work.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes. Transparency is so, so important.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: If we had had the transparency, it would have prevented having to wait 23 years for the truth. They could also have pointed us in the right direction and they could perhaps have helped with people who needed support in other ways—counselling, perhaps, or whatever support they needed. That is why you have experts on the team who could help with the various issues that come up. But for me the most important part is to have the transparency.
As Hillsborough families we did not have a level playing field of funding, either. As Maria rightly said, when we went into the first inquest in 1990, we had a junior barrister who the families had all clubbed up to pay for: I think we all paid £3,500 each, 40-odd of the families, but all we could afford was a junior barrister. He was up against 12 top QCs with all their teams of lawyers. You can imagine.
We had this junior barrister and he did very well, considering. He ended up having to speak about every fan—not just the people who died, but everything that had happened with Liverpool supporters. He had a huge, huge job on his hands. We were told by the QC that we could either have him, the Rolls-Royce, or have the clapped-out Mini, which was the junior. That was Tim King, who we had. He did his best, but there certainly was not a level playing field of funding for families. As Maria quite rightly said, too, it did become very adversarial, considering it was an inquest.
Sarah Champion
Two quick questions from me. First of all, can I just say thank you so much for coming and sharing your experiences? I am so deeply sorry for what you and so many others have gone through.
Jenni Hicks: Thank you for having me.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: How soon can you do it?
Sarah Champion
One of the examples that we heard from earlier witnesses was that they have a series of people who are on stand-by, so they could literally come in immediately.
Jenni Hicks: I didn’t realise that.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes. I think it has got to be immediately.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: Because, certainly in our case, there was a huge cover-up. The longer you wait, the longer the cover-up stands, so it has to be immediately. Also, it is in the immediate aftermath that the victims’ families need the support anyhow, so it has to be as soon as. In fact, I think there should be somebody in place or on stand-by.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: Oh yes, and to have the correct cause of death on the death certificate.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: I have four death certificates for Sarah and Victoria. The first two said, “Sarah Louise Hicks. Cause of death: accidental death”, and the same for Victoria, who was 15. Twenty-three years later, we had the death certificates reissued and they said, “Sarah Louise Hicks; unlawfully killed” and “Victoria Jane Hicks; unlawfully killed.” That is very important—extremely important. I agree with the family from South Shields.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Q
Jenni Hicks: Certainly, because we finally had the evidence of what had really happened and the second inquest got to see that evidence where, in the first inquest, because of the 3.15 cut-off, how the victims died and how long they lived afterwards was not put to the jury, because the jury did not ever get to see that evidence. It was deemed at the first inquest that everybody who died had received their injuries before 3.15, which was blatantly untrue. That is why I am saying the transparency of and having that documentation and evidence, if you want to get the right inquest verdict, is imperative.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Jenni Hicks: Certainly. One of the major things at the second inquest was when we did our pen portraits of our loved ones. That was a pivotal moment for everybody in the inquest. We had an opportunity to talk about the person who had died. They were not just a number; they were a person. When you are involved in a huge disaster where numerous people died, you do become part of just that number. Like I said there, I would like the independent public advocate to be a legacy for the 97, but, at the second inquest, it was broken down into individuals. I learned a lot myself just listening to the other families’ pen portraits about their loved ones. That is very important. I am pleased that the inquests are going that way now.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Jenni Hicks: Thank you. All the families are saying it—the city as well.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Q
Jenni Hicks: That is huge—there has to be a duty of candour. I do not just mean a duty of candour where you—how can I put this without being offensive to anybody?
Anna McMorrin
Don’t worry about that.
Jenni Hicks: Where you do not lie, but you do not tell the truth. I am talking about telling the proper truth, because often you do not actually lie, but you do not tell the truth. If it is a duty of candour, it has to be a proper duty of candour, and there should be consequences if you do not tell the truth.
When I spoke to the last Committee, we had Paul Greaney KC here and he said, “Apparently, there is some sort of duty of candour at the moment, but there is only a £2,000 fine.” To big organisations, that is just pocket change. It should be something a little stronger than just a £2,000 fine if you do not tell the truth. That and transparency are the two really important things.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Mrs Hicks. We salute your courage. Thank you for coming.
Examination of Witness
Kimia Zabihyan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Kimia Zabihyan of Grenfell Next of Kin. I think we are having some technical problems with Dr Stuart Murray, so we have just one witness for this quarter of an hour session.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: Actually, I started off on the ground as a volunteer. There were many, many people who came to the area affected by the tower. I have my roots in that borough and I grew up there, so it touched me very deeply, but the thing that struck me the most was seeing pictures of the missing people. Many of them looked like people who were familiar to me, because they looked like my family members. It really felt very personal, because 85% of the people who died in the tragedy were black and brown people. I felt that it was really important to make sure that there was advocacy for that, particularly given that most of the people who died were recent migrants.
It is very different from the Hillsborough experience and many other experiences—the Marchioness, for instance. This was the first national tragedy that predominantly affected black and brown people, and it became very obvious that the system responding to the moment was entirely white. That created dissonance, and it felt as though there was room to advocate for those people, because the majority of them did not have roots in this country; they were recent migrants.
Immediately, we were told, “Don’t talk about race. Let’s just deny that whole part of it, because it will turn off public sympathy.” These were the things that I was experiencing and seeing as someone from that background and that heritage who is very blessed with the advantage and privilege of a good education, life experience and work experience. It felt really important to play a role, so that was really what brought me there and kept me there. I am still there after six years.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: That is a really big question. Actually, it is not just those few years; we are still in exactly the same place. We are still stuck in the same place because we do not have an independent public advocate and there is no recognised role for it, really, even though I am called an advocate by all the systems and I engage with all the systems. Ultimately, it has been one of choice, and in a way you are trapped by it, because you know that if you step away, there is nothing in its place. There is nothing to take that place.
With those families who have lost immediate family members, several things happen. In the first instance, it will be a disaster by its very nature, because it is not expected. There is chaos—absolute chaos. The people who know pretty quickly that their family—their child, mother, father, husband or wife—is missing are in shock. What happens is that immediately there is a separation; they become invisible, because they are sort of protected by the police—quite rightly—and the victim support units etcetera, so they are literally invisible on the scene.
We had survivors on the scene and we had systems engaging with survivors, but we did not have anything in place for the actual bereaved—nothing. None of the policies addressed their needs and their specific characteristics, which in this case were essentially rooted in their otherness, if you like. Their otherness became even more othered, and they became even more marginalised. The system responded with policies for the tragedy, but it was very much through one particular prism, which was through only the survivor prism. To this day, we still do not have any policies that actually address the specifics of the next of kin of the deceased, because there was never that public advocacy role.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: No, not at all. I am passionate about the fact that there needs to be a public advocacy role, to the point where I have basically been doing it pro bono for six years, because I cannot believe that we do not have such a thing in place. Coming back to some of the questions you were asking Jenni Hicks earlier, it is really important to have that whole system set up, because disasters do not make appointments—they happen. You need to have a system and structure in place that can just be instigated as part of a resilience plan or disaster response. It needs to be extremely diverse, and it needs to have people who are awkward and definitely on the side of the victims.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: It is very difficult, because what does independence really mean? You can call a person independent, but actually they are really not that independent. The pool of people you need to be looking at are people who have a huge amount of integrity and a footprint in speaking truth to power. If a person has that sort of credibility, it does not matter who they are reporting to.
The disadvantage of their being completely separate from our democratic system is that essentially they are toothless, so this independent person just becomes another report that is given to the Minister. It does not have any weight; it does not have any power. It needs to be someone who has the power to make policy interventions and decisions, at ministerial level—appointed by the PM even, not Ministers.
With Grenfell, we had a conveyor belt of Ministers. We had three name changes and six Ministers. The Department started off as the Department for Communities and Local Government, then it became the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and then the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and Ministers do not really mean anything, because they come and go. It has to be at Prime Minister level.
More importantly, “independent” can mean different things to different people. It was interesting watching the covid inquiry the other day, when Sir Oliver Letwin talked a little about that. It is about having people in the room who ask the awkward questions and are able to make a difference. We do not want someone else who just writes another report that goes nowhere. That is why it can take 30-something years.
We need to do that for our democracy and for our efficiency. You would be amazed at how much money has been wasted in the Grenfell response and recovery—ridiculous amounts of money—because the whole system is so inefficient.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: To give you an example, very early on, when it became apparent that the majority of the people who had died were ethnic minorities in this country, because this is London and it happened in London—Grenfell will not be the last time this happens—the system did not know how to respond to that. The next of kin tended to live abroad, so we had to locate them and arrange for visas and what have you to bring them to the UK for the processes of identification, DNA tests and that sort of thing.
At the time, we were very lucky, because Amber Rudd came down and got it very quickly. She absolutely got it very quickly. The one thing that happened really promptly was that she allowed for that; she made sure that we had processes to identify the next of kin, get them on a plane and make sure they had visas—or even, sometimes, just to get them on a plane and issue the visa as soon as they arrived at the airport. People were coming from conflict zones, places where there might not be an embassy or places where they would not even be allowed past the first security gate. We had people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and all sorts of places that were quite awkward.
The assumption that the system makes is a sort of myopic, white middle-class assumption about who victims are and therefore what the responses should be. The IPA or the panel has to be really quite progressive, sophisticated and understanding, and it has to have the experience that the world does not really function like that any more.
That was an example of something that worked—just doing something very practical—but only Amber Rudd had the power to do that, because she was the Home Secretary. We are now at a stage where we are trying to execute things that respond to the need of the next of kin, but time passes and the system moves at a different pace—it is on a different timeline. Six years for those in the system is, “Oh, we’ve sorted everything; we’re at the six-year mark,” whereas for the people who are affected, the six-year mark does not mean anything, because they are still at ground zero trying to get policies or attention for issues that speak to their particular characteristic.
If we have a panel or an independent advocate who can speak to Ministers and make policies that address the specificity of the victims, that will serve not only the victims, but our democracy. It will also save a ton of money.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: I have, but I can only speak of my own experiences. The majority of my experience has been with the immediate family members, and they were the ones who defined what is a disaster, or a national disaster. It is the sort of tombstone imperative: once you get a certain number of fatalities, it is a thing. That was made very clear to me by someone very senior in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, who said, “You do realise that if less than 10 people had died in the tower, we wouldn’t even be obliged to rehouse everybody.” They would have just gone on the housing list. They might have got lots of points, but they would have had to wait on the housing list for appropriate accommodation. It is because of the number of fatalities that the thing becomes a thing, yet they are denied that power, or respect.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, but we have to stick to the programme motion, according to the rules of the House. I am given no flexibility. We have to end your evidence there, but we are very grateful.
Kimia Zabihyan: You are more than welcome. I am always available to anybody who would like to have any kind of conversation, because I think what you are doing is really important. Everyone has a contribution to make, but Grenfell is the last disaster that presented specific challenges, and we are very frustrated that there is no learning from it.
The Chair
Our next witness is Sophie Cartwright KC, a solicitor at Deans Court Chambers.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: Good afternoon. Just for clarification, I am not a solicitor; I am a barrister.
On legal aid, specifically in respect of the IPA it is slightly different because they are not to provide legal activity, but absolutely there should be non-means-tested legal aid available for victims of major incidents. That to some extent cures part of the issue around ensuring that there is access to the necessary advice and support for victims of major incidents, which, as the genesis of the IPA was, is a landscape that is daunting, confusing and overwhelming. Allowing non-means-tested legal aid so that victims can get access to appropriate advice through solicitors and latterly barristers, if necessary, is essential to address the concerns that led to the proposal for the IPA.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: I think there is a slight confusion at the moment about what is set out in the Bill, particularly in clause 27 on the functions of an IPA. What is slightly confusing is that the IPA has been given the role of an independent public advocate, but it is not meant to be an advocate in the classical sense of being an advocate that provides legal activity, because that is precluded under clause 27(6). Essentially, therefore, the IPA is not intended to be an advocate in the legal sense of the word.
When one looks at the function envisaged in clause 27, it is to
“provide such support to victims…as the advocate considers appropriate”.
To that extent, I think there is still some confusion about what the purpose of the IPA is intended to be—whether it is just to provide support in the immediate aftermath, or whether it is to be a signposting service. There is a slight disconnect, because what is proposed is that the Secretary of State will appoint IPAs after major incidents occur, which will inevitably create delay. You will almost have a vacuum when a major incident occurs, because you do not have an IPA in place to give that support.
There will then be a whole process of liaison with the Secretary of State to appoint an IPA, so there is likely to be a recruitment, with a number of people putting themselves forward to be that IPA, which will inevitably cause delay. If the IPA is to have that clear role of offering support in the immediate aftermath of a major incident, they really need to be in place already so that they can provide the support as envisaged. If there is then to be a negotiation with the Secretary of State about the appointment, the terms of the appointment, the remuneration and what their functions can be, the IPA will inevitably get bogged down in delays, meaning that it is not providing what it is intended to provide in the immediate aftermath of these major incidents.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: If there is a commitment that there needs to be an IPA, and if there is to be such a person or individual, then in my view it should be a function that is in place and appointed, with someone already in post, whether or not it is full time. It is envisaged that part of the role of the IPA, if they are individually appointed, is that they have a report-writing function and capture the views of victims. That necessarily allows the work of an IPA to be taken more slowly, in order to capture the victims’ experience and to learn lessons from major incidents that can bring about lasting and meaningful change.
I know that as part of this process you are speaking to a number of victims of major incidents. I think every victim and family experience will capture learning or things that could be done to make the process better for them. There is a lot that victims of major incidents have said about the intrusion of the press, and about not knowing where they need to go. If the IPA’s role is full time, that can allow them, when they are not dealing with the quick-time, immediate aftermath of these devastating major incidents, to be putting in place the system for capturing the victim experience, to feed into report-writing, and to ensure that there are recommendations and that lasting change occurs in respect of how to make the victim experience better and the structure and systems that are in place.
Rob Butler
Q
Sophie Cartwright: Yes.
Rob Butler
I am not sure whether you heard the evidence from previous witnesses, but Jenni Hicks of the Hillsborough campaign in particular was talking about a panel of support, with people who have different skills and different experiences. What do you think are the roles that are most important to the function of a successful IPA?
Sophie Cartwright: Certainly the IPA should have a trauma focus. Plainly, there should be a knowledge and experience that involves an understanding of the impact of trauma, so almost supporting from a resilience point of view with accessing necessary support through psychological services. In our experience of the Manchester Arena, we were absolutely blessed with the work of the resilience hub, which had a team of psychotherapists and psychologists who were providing that trauma focus. Essentially, the work of that body should not make things worse and should have a trauma focus to it.
I would definitely say that if there is to be a panel, it needs to be people with the right skillset, so that in their dealings with victims and obviously with victims’ families, they are not making things worse. They would definitely need a background that involves a psychological, therapy-type role, so they have that understanding. Also, if there is to be that practical support, it has to have the necessary skillset.
Clause 28 also envisages that IPAs will be asked to be properly interested persons at inquests. There needs to be clarity as to the purpose of the IPA, because that certainly suggests that there will be a form of providing advice. In terms of functions, clause 27 also talks about assisting with investigations by public authorities and assistance with the inquest and inquiry. Those are very much almost legal roles. The IPA should not in any way be a substitute for the access of families and victims to their own independent legal advice and representation.
Rob Butler
Q
Sophie Cartwright: Part of the function of the IPA is said to be a signposting role, but if it is not in place in the immediate aftermath and then there is this delay in putting it in place, I cannot quite see what the function is, if it is not to replace the role of legal representation, which it is not intended to do.
If it is not in place to deal with the immediate aftermath, for support and signposting, I do not see what its functions really are in terms of challenging public authorities, unless it is going to be a role that is linked to the changes on the duty of candour, which is being massively championed on the back of the work of Bishop James Jones, and that sort of role for challenging public authorities.
It is about clarity on what the function of the IPA is intended to be. At the moment, I do not see, practically, as the role is envisaged through the Bill, that it is going to be meaningful or what the IPA is intended to achieve by way of support and signposting for victims of major incidents, if it is not in place and ready to go. That is the concern, particularly when under clause 25 there have to be terms of appointments and then agreement, which is inevitably going to have delays. To what extent, then, is it really discharging what was intended to be its signposting and supportive role, if it is not there at the get-go of a major incident?
Maria Eagle
Q
Sophie Cartwright: Yes, that certainly seems to me to be a measurable and proportionate role for an IPA. It should be something that exists so that, when incidents happen, families know that the body exists and know where to go, rather than thinking, “Who is the IPA? Who has been appointed, and who will it be?” and the experience being dependent on who that IPA is.
If it is a body that exists, where families know that they can go as part of that search for the truth or to seek advice, I absolutely see that as more what was intended when the IPA was initially proposed. Certainly, the genesis of the IPA was very much the experience of Hillsborough. There has been a lot of discussion around it having a role holding core public authorities to account. I do not necessarily know how practically that would work when there is an inquest and a coroner is discharging their investigatory duty or—if there were to be an inquiry—how a chairman would discharge their role as the chairman. There has to be some thought around that to ensure that it does not trespass within the investigatory roles and the statutory functions of other investigators post major incidents.
The original concern was that public authorities had not shown candour in their approach to investigations, so that may be a function of the IPA. Certainly, when the IPA role was first announced in March by Mr Raab, a lot of the support seemed to be around saying, “This should be a role for the IPA around Hillsborough’s duty of candour.” I really cannot comment more broadly on that, but that was what was intended originally when the IPA was first proposed, which would fit with the evidence that you heard this morning. I apologise that I have not had access to that evidence in advance of speaking to you today.
Maria Eagle
Q
Sophie Cartwright: If the IPA had existed then as a place where the families could go for help, then certainly. The IPA could have a function to assist with that immediate intrusion that can occur to families. A lot of the families and witnesses that gave evidence to the inquiry talked about the massive intrusion on them by the press after the major incidents. If the IPA had a role to hear families’ concerns around press intrusion, and it liaised with editors and the like to stop that form of intrusion before lawyers were in place, I can definitely see that being an avenue to go down.
There was also a lot of concern from a number of family members about the blue light-type agencies, which immediately afterwards were putting out their own media and documentaries about events. I know that for a lot of the families the content of that material caused real concern. Again, the IPA could be somewhere they could go to speak about that and raise concerns, and the IPA could then be enabled to speak to the relevant representatives of those public authorities to ventilate the families’ concerns about that material, as well as to help explain the process to them.
After the Manchester Arena bombing, a lot of good work was done by the coroners and family liaison officers involved. I think having another place where victims could go to seek support in the immediate aftermath would be good. Anything that allows victims an avenue to try and understand what is happening is definitely for the good.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: If it remains as intended at the moment, that is not really clear, because obviously the terms of appointment will depend on the agreement with the Secretary of State. If there is to be a report-writing function that captures the victim’s views, it is going to be a longer-term thing. It certainly seems to be a role that is envisaged as running alongside an inquest and inquiry process, which is why it is quite difficult if it is a number of appointments of different IPAs rather than a full-time position of the office of the independent public advocate, with a head IPA that can appoint individuals as and when necessary.
Again, if it is envisaged as a role in the immediate aftermath for signposting and support until victims have their own lawyers, who then can very much discharge the roles and functions of an IPA, it might just be a shorter-term thing. But if it is intended to also capture the victim experience and have a report-writing role, that is a much longer-term thing. We need to consider the functions of the IPA and whether it is intended to be a full-time appointment. As it is currently drafted, it is intended to be multiple IPAs that apply for the role of the IPA and are then appointed with terms of reference. That is a very different thing, and it potentially has a longer shelf life.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: It envisages significant numbers by reference to death or serious injury. It seems that the function of the IPA is around those incidents where there is death, but as drafted the Bill also covers a major incident where there is not death—where you would envisage an inquest or inquiry process—but serious injury. If it is intended just to cover major incidents, there is no definition of “significant”, but I know the guidance gives a comparable definition by reference to the Manchester Arena incident, Grenfell and Hillsborough. I think there is vagueness around significant numbers of deaths or serious injuries, but as drafted it would also capture major incidents where there is just injury.
The other thing I want to flag is that at the moment it is intended to cover only major incidents that occur in England and Wales. Again, there might potentially be a disconnect if you are excluding the IPA from having a role. One can well imagine the Tunisia inquest that occurred, which was to assist victims of a daunting, confusing and overwhelming process. As it is currently drafted, it seems almost to exclude major incident types where large numbers of British nationals get caught up in incidents overseas. I cannot see, on the face of it, why it would exclude major incidents where a large number of British nationals are caught up overseas. I wanted to flag that as a potential area where there may be a real role for the IPA: if there are large numbers of victims caught up in major incidents overseas.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Q
You alluded earlier to the interaction between an IPA, as envisaged in the Bill, and other judicial or investigatory processes, whether they were inquests or other public bodies performing their work in the aftermath of a major incident. There have been a number of calls for the IPA to be a data controller, so that it can access data. We heard this morning from another lawyer, Tim Suter, who argued that that would not be the best approach and that individual public bodies should remain the data controllers, but with the IPA being able to view or access the data in that way. Do you have any reflections on that point? Once a statutory public inquiry is set up, how would the interaction between the IPA and the inquiry work best? On the data controller point, I can see arguments from various perspectives, and I am interested in your reflections.
Sophie Cartwright: Clause 30 deals with some data aspects. It goes back to having clarity as to the intended purpose of the IPA. If it is to discharge the role as per the evidence you heard this morning from the original proponent of the IPA role, it is for the IPA to have a data controller-type role in terms of seeking material and records. That could, though, be fraught with complete complexities that will then bog down the IPA role.
If it is envisaged at the moment that it will just be that supportive role, and interacting, it can become quite complicated, particularly if the IPA is not intended to have a role that involves legal activity. To that extent, anything around data controlling and making requests for records and properly retaining and looking after them is definitely more in the water of legal activity.
As the Bill is currently drafted, I think it would become an absolute nightmare if you were requesting the IPA to have the data controller function and require documents and records. Anything that involves requests for documents and controlling, retaining and storing them definitely has to have a legal activity-type oversight, so I can well understand why Mr Suter gave evidence today to the effect that the public authorities should remain the data controller.
It goes back to having a clear clarity of purpose as to what the IPA is. If it is intended that the IPA will have a candour role and make requests for documentation, it is inevitable that data protection and GDPR issues will have to be properly looked at and considered, because that is a very complex landscape. At the moment, that would not in any way come near what is intended in clause 30 on the data-control aspect of the IPA’s role.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank you very much for your testimony. We are very grateful.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Fay Jones.)
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
Backbench Business
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
Mariana Dam Disaster
(1 year, 4 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
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to open the debate, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been informed that there is a group action in the High Court relating to the Mariana dam incident, so I remind hon. Members that they must not refer to any specific cases currently before the courts and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts in order not to prejudice these proceedings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Mariana dam disaster.
I spoke to the Clerks beforehand and I understand the issue very well. I will not refer to specific cases and I am sure that others will not either.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate and say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Latham. I am grateful to have the opportunity to lead this debate and to raise my concerns about the ongoing situation in the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais. It is deeply concerning and requires urgent attention by the United Kingdom Government and the wider international community.
The debate is about how British companies conduct themselves around the world and whether they should implement the high environmental and safety standards overseas that we expect of them at home. It is also about how we hold companies headquartered in London to account when they do not live up to the standards that they claim to uphold, as well as accountability and the process in relation to a disaster that happened many years ago, and how we can help the people who are still seeking justice.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. I understand that today’s matter is not in his portfolio and that he is filling in because the relevant Minister is overseas, but it is always a pleasure to see him. I know that he, his Department and the officials who are here will carry back the questions that we ask. I am sure that all those who participate will have their questions answered directly by the relevant Minister on his return. Even though this issue is not in this Minister’s portfolio, I know that he shares my passion for doing the right thing by our neighbours and using resources in the best way.
I want to bring to the House’s attention the 2015 collapse of the Fundão tailings dam at the Samarco Mariana mine complex in the state of Minas Gerais, which killed 19 people and released 40 million cubic metres of tailings that polluted waterways, spanning an area the length of Portugal—more than 600 km. That puts it into perspective when we think of the distance of the impact and the people affected. It is more than the distance between where we are sitting in Westminster Hall and my Strangford constituency, and my journey from Belfast City airport to Heathrow on Monday and returning tonight. I travel on that plane at massive speed and the flight takes an hour, from Northern Ireland across the south-east of England.
The Mariana dam disaster was the biggest environmental disaster ever inflicted on the people of Brazil. One company, BHP, was headquartered in London at the time and played a key role in the dam disaster.
I thank the Library for its information—I realise that it is not always easy to prepare for these debates—and I wish to quantify the serious ecological damage that the disaster produced. There were mass die-offs among fish: once the mud reached the open ocean, a total of some 29,000 fish carcases were collected and recorded by the federal police. The death of the fish also resulted in hundreds of birds dying from starvation, and probably also from eating infected fish. A Wilson Centre article explains that, in addition to the loss of native fauna,
“80 percent of the native vegetation located near the tributaries and main channel of the Doce River was destroyed, leaving the river with only 13 percent of the Atlantic forest’s original vegetation.”
Reuters reported in November 2021 that a study undertaken by a company contacted by the Brazilian prosecutor to measure the cost of the disaster estimated the “socio-environmental” damage to be between US$6.73 billion—or 37.6 billion reais—and US$10.85 billion. That gives some idea of the impact and shows that it affected not only people’s lives and jobs, but the environment.
The disaster severely affected the indigenous communities, including the Krenak, by irreparably damaging their river source—the communities’ lifeblood—the Rio Doce. Like others, I had the privilege of meeting victims from the Krenak indigenous community earlier this year in Parliament. With the help of global law firm Pogust Goodhead, they are bringing a case against BHP in London, alongside more than 700,000 victims affected by the Mariana dam disaster. The claimants include individuals, Brazilian municipalities and local churches, all of whom suffered loss as a result. Those human beings lost all they own, their schools, their education, where they worship and their normal lives. The disaster has changed their lives forever.
Right hon. and hon. Members may ask why this disaster should be debated in this House. It is for a simple reason: this is an important step in bringing real justice for the victims of the Mariana dam disaster, and it will create a precedent for victims abroad to initiate claims against UK-based parent companies for environmental damage and human rights abuses before English courts. That would make the companies accountable and responsible, and that is the way it should be.
The tailings dam that collapsed was owned and operated by Samarco, a Brazilian company jointly owned by Vale and the Anglo-Australian mining company, BHP. At the time of the accident, BHP was dual-listed in London and Sydney—a fact that allowed the victims the necessary legal standing to begin proceedings here in London. After all those years, it is only right that the matter should be spoken about.
Moreover, as representatives of the Krenak community told me, this case is not just about BHP and the disaster; it is a more general story. For too long, some multinational corporations based in the UK, the EU and the US have damaged the environment and communities in other parts of the world without providing full compensation. I cannot help but feel that if British or Australian communities had been impacted by such a disaster, they would not have been treated in the same way. Indeed, it would have been sorted a long time ago.
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
Order. We have to be very careful about taking about specific cases. They are going to the courts, or are in the courts, and therefore we must not talk about them.
Jim Shannon
I believe it is important not just to highlight the legal case but to fully recognise the victims. Nineteen people lost their lives, and as I said to the officials before the debate, I want to read out their names to honour the victims of the Mariana dam disaster. You will have to forgive me, Mrs Latham, because my Ulster Scots accent means that the pronunciation may be a challenge for me, but it is only right to do this. I will just mention their first and last names; the names in between are a challenge, and I want to be respectful. I hope hon. Members see past my stumbling and hear what is meant to be heard. These are people whose families are grieving at this very moment in Brazil.
The names are: Cláudio Fiúza, 40 years old; Sileno de Lima, 47 years old; Waldemir Leandro, 48 years old; Emanuely Vitória, five years old; Thiago Santos, seven years old; Marcos Xavier, 32 years old; Marcos Moura, 34 years old; Samuel Albino, 34 years old; Mateus Fernandes, 29 years old; Edinaldo de Assis; Daniel Carvalho, 53 years old; Maria Lucas, 60 years old; Maria Celestino, 64 years old; Claudemir Santos, 40 years old; Pedro Lopes, 56 years old; Antônio de Souza, 73 years old; Vando dos Santos, 37 years old; Ailton dos Santos, 55 years old; and Edmirson Pessoa, 48 years old.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and for speaking to those who petitioned us earlier this year. I thank Members for listening and recognising those names for the record. For the people of Brazil and around the world, such disasters must never be forgotten, lest we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The people of Brazil believe that the disaster could have been avoided. The London Mining Network’s 2017 report, “The River is Dead”, states:
“Since the beginning of the operation, in 2008, the Fundão Dam had presented several anomalies related to drainage defects, upwelling, mud and water management errors and saturation of sandy material. In some cases, emergency measures had been required.”
But the project continued and production levels were kept high until the disaster.
This lawsuit is one of the largest of its kind in terms of the damages to the victims in Brazil, but so far, only £2.8 billion has been ringfenced to cover the liability for the disaster. In the past three years, there have been a further 12 incidents at mining sites around the world involving the collapse of tailings or waste facilities. Progress has been made in setting a global industry standard for tailings management, but only a third of companies with tailings dams have committed to implementing it. This is while the industry continues to make ambitious sustainability commitments and claims over environmental, social and governance credentials.
A report by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, after some of its members visited Brazil, registered concern about appropriate levels of “accountability and responsibility” and “affected communities” and how the companies deal with local people, including those affected by tailings dams. The report also said:
“Nearly seven years after the dam collapse, the end of these reparations and compensation is nowhere in sight.”
I know the Minister cannot answer this directly, but I am hopeful that he will be able to help the victims and ensure that, after seven years, the issue of cost, reparations and compensation can be addressed. I am also pleased to see both shadow Ministers—the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton)—here and I look forward to their contributions.
Companies running large operations worldwide need to be accountable, including through subsidiaries. My first question to the Minister is this: does he agree that the handling of the Mariana dam disaster is a model for company crisis management? If the Minister cannot answer that, I am happy for him to write to me. Many of the companies refer to social value as bringing people and resources together to build a better world. The continued reluctance of some companies to provide compensation for this disaster and for other disasters across the world must be rectified. We are asking for that through this debate. This has a clear impact on the lives of those people and on the environment of the country. As I said, the impacts of the disaster travelled an area equivalent to the length of Portugal.
I believe that the UK has an important role here. It can lead the way by including stronger accountability mechanisms for UK corporations operating both domestically and internationally to help protect against human rights abuses and protect our fragile environment. We all love our environment and wish to see it retained. It is also imperative that, as the host country to large companies, investors and markets relevant to mining and metals, the United Kingdom enshrines in law the global industry standard for tailings management.
It is vital that changes are enforced to prevent such terrible disasters from happening again and causing such devastation to the world’s natural environment. The after-effects will remain for a long time; indeed, some are changed forever. Will the Government recognise that the UK has a vital role in stopping such disasters ever happening again? Will my Government and my Minister take action to crack down on British companies that fail to live up to their social and environmental credentials at home and abroad?
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee, right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who have been involved, and my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for securing this emotive and hard-hitting debate. It is about how British companies conduct themselves around the world and whether they implement the highest safety standards, which we rightly expect of them. It is also about how we hold companies headquartered in London or elsewhere in the UK to account when they do not live up to the standards that they claim to uphold.
The House’s sub judice rule—as you rightly pointed out, Mrs Latham—prevents me from commenting on any ongoing court action relating to the hundreds of thousands of claimants seeking compensation for damage caused by this horrific incident. However, as the hon. Member stated, the Mariana dam disaster has been called
“the worst environmental disaster in Brazil’s history.”
The disaster severely impacted indigenous communities including the Krenak people by irreparably damaging the river source and the community’s lifeblood, the Rio Doce. It is important that we recognise the victims and their grieving families, with 19 lives lost because of the disaster. For the people of Brazil and other fair-minded, good people around the world, such disasters must not be forgotten, or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The people of Brazil believe that the disaster could and should have been avoided. Indeed, the 2017 report “The River is Dead” by the London Mining Network states:
“Since the beginning of the operation, in 2008, the Fundão Dam had presented several anomalies related to drainage defects, upwelling, mud and water management errors and saturation of sandy material. In some cases, emergency measures had been required.”
However, the project continued, and production was kept at high levels until the disaster.
A recent report published by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, after some of its members visited Brazil, found:
“Nearly seven years after the dam collapse, the end of these reparations and compensation is nowhere in sight. Consequently, affected community members have suffered for over seven years, and the companies and investors continue to accrue costs associated with the delayed provision of reparations and compensation”.
Companies running large operations worldwide cannot be allowed to hide behind their subsidiaries when things go wrong or when there is an ecological and environmental disaster. The UK has an important global role. It can and should lead the way by exploring ways to introduce stronger accountability mechanisms for UK corporations operationally, both domestically and internationally, to help to protect against human rights abuses and protect our fragile environment.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise to my hon. Friend and to you, Mrs Latham. It is one of those days when there is a lot going on in the other Chamber that we take an interest in, so I will need to go, but I want to raise one point first.
I completely understand why the Chair is twitchy about sub judice issues, but the whole point of having this debate is so that maybe some good can arise from this tragedy. There is potential for our Government to lead on legislative reforms, which can then be developed internationally to ensure the accountability of companies, prevention of human rights abuses and environmental protections. It is about directors’ responsibilities as well. There is an agenda that the Government could seize to turn this tragedy into something beneficial globally.
Mr Dhesi
My right hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of authority. He has eloquently explained the importance of today’s debate and why many of us are hoping that the Minister and the Government will take corrective action to ensure that we learn from the mistakes of the past and put legislation in place so that there cannot be future environmental disasters without the necessary repercussions.
In conclusion, the only question is: will the Government now recognise that the UK has an important role in preventing similar disasters from ever happening again?
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this hugely important debate. Not only is it timely because of the ongoing challenges facing those affected by the disaster, but it relates to the wider topic of how we ensure that UK-based companies uphold the social and environmental standards that we expect of them at home and abroad.
As we have heard, the Mariana dam disaster was a devastating event, killing 19 people and destroying homes, towns and countless livelihoods. The collapse has affected around 700,000 people. I am particularly concerned to hear about the impact on indigenous communities such as the Krenak people, and about the long-standing pollution of the River Doce. For many, including the Krenak people, the river was a source of fishing and livelihoods, as well as a sacred resource. Reading the testimonies of the victims of the disaster, I was astounded by the sheer scale of the devastation it has caused. For example, Cristiane Fachetti, a farmer from Colatina, wrote:
“There are days when you sit down in the afternoon and you don’t have one Real, knowing that you have water, electricity, energy, everything to pay and you couldn’t pay it...Today when someone says, ‘it’s raining up there’ everyone says ‘there’s more mud coming’.”
What is perhaps even more distressing than the disaster itself, as other Members have mentioned, is the lack of accountability, the lack of justice and the lack of adequate compensation for victims from the mining giant BHP. It is clear in the aftermath of the disaster that these huge companies are simply shrinking from their responsibilities and passing on the blame to one another. Not only is the lack of responsibility morally wrong and reprehensible, but it undermines the trust that society places in these companies to act in the best interests of the communities in which they operate. An impartial observer would say that they simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing.
As others have said, the recent study by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum detailed ongoing concerns about
“the slow pace and inadequate nature of reparations”.
It noted that
“only a fraction of the houses had been built in the resettlements and the communities were awaiting a range of other compensatory and reparations measures so that they can start to rebuild their lives.”
The report also said that there is
“a general concern that Anglo American, BHP, Vale, Samarco, and Renova Foundation have not accepted an appropriate level of accountability and responsibility for the impacts of their business practices on a range of stakeholders, including affected communities.”
As other Members have said, the reparations and compensation are nowhere in sight.
British-listed companies should not be able to hide behind their subsidiaries when things go wrong. It is shocking that almost eight years after the disaster we still need to have this conversation. While we learn about the truly terrible conditions that many in Mariana still face to this day, BHP continues to wax lyrical about its social value targets and stewardship of the environment, local cultures and economic development. It appears to me that they are hooded crows masquerading as peacocks.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, what assessment have the Government made of the recent Local Authority Pension Fund Forum report on BHP’s failure to help victims of the disaster? Secondly, what assessment has the Minister made of BHP’s strong environmental and social value claims in the light of that report? Thirdly, will the Government take steps to ensure that all British listed companies operating at home and abroad are bound to the high standards that we expect of them?
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Latham. I want to start by thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he has raised an issue that I have been grappling with since I took on the brief for Latin America in our shadow Foreign Office team. I have found it distressing, fascinating, shocking and appalling. I was privileged to host the Krenak people when they came to London, but I will say a little more about that in a minute.
The scale of the disaster that the hon. Member for Strangford rightly points out is shocking and appalling: 600 km of pollution. He mentioned the birds and fish affected by the pollution in the Doce river, which literally means sweet river. It is not a sweet river any more, sadly. It is in south-east Brazil and stretches over 530 miles, which in the UK would be a huge distance, but is minuscule in the massive country of Brazil, which is 33 times bigger than the United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said something very important: he said that this is a debate about how British companies live up to the high standards that we expect of them. That is at the heart of our debate this afternoon, so I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for securing it.
The Mariana dam disaster occurred on 5 November 2015. As hon. Members have said, it was the worst environmental disaster in Brazilian history. We need to be clear that the situation and the ongoing legal case must not be allowed to set a precedent for the future that pits multinational corporations against the will and needs of indigenous populations and environmental activists. I was shocked to learn that 60 million cubic metres of iron waste poured into the Doce river when the Mariana tailings dam collapsed. It is in nobody’s interest for something like that ever to happen again. We must highlight the shocking injustices wherever and whenever they occur, as we have done in this debate.
At the beginning of this year, I met victims of the disaster from the indigenous Krenak community when they came to London to have their testimonies heard at the Court of Appeal. I hosted them in Parliament to give Members the opportunity to hear their harrowing experiences of how over 60 million cubic metres of toxic mining waste had wrecked their homes, livelihoods and communities, and about those who lost their lives, as the hon. Member for Strangford has said, as a result of the disaster. One thing that struck me was how humanity is so diverse that there are people in the House of Commons with whom we have very little in common apart from our shared humanity.
The Krenak people looked so extraordinarily different, yet they had wonderful names such as Maria and Umberto and they spoke beautiful Portuguese—a language I am not privileged to speak, unfortunately, but they had a very good interpreter. They told their human stories of a land far away, a lifestyle we have no real familiarity with, and yet they touched our hearts. Everybody there was moved by the testimonies that were given of their first-hand experience. I will not reiterate here today the experiences and first-hand testimonies that we heard—obviously I cannot, anyway—but it is important to recognise that this disaster did not affect just Brazilians. There was even a Yorkshireman in that area. He lived a modest life, which he adored, but he was forced to leave his home after the disaster. The truly global impact, which is the point that has been made this afternoon, of this appalling event can never be fully understood, or overstated. It has ruined the lives of many Brazilians as well as those from abroad wanting to make a life for themselves in that beautiful, stunning country and landscape.
I believe that the company in question, Anglo-Australian mining firm BHP, has behaved appallingly since the disaster struck. It has failed properly to engage and work with the victims. As was mentioned by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), the Renova Foundation—
Mrs Pauline Latham (in the Chair)
Order. Could we not stray into giving too many names and being too specific, because of the impending court case?
Fabian Hamilton
Of course, Mrs Latham. I sourced this information from publicly available sources, which are on the websites, but if you would rather I did not mention any specific names, I will not.
Fabian Hamilton
Okay. That is fine.
The organisation set up to remediate and compensate for the damage caused by the failure of the dam has come under increasing criticism for its lack of transparency in the way it was spending financial resources, as well as the way it excluded affected community representatives from decision making related to the resettlement. Again, we must not let that behaviour set a precedent whereby companies are able to treat indigenous populations like cattle. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he believes that that kind of behaviour points to a worrying and wider targeting of indigenous populations, and environmental activists, by multinational companies. It is the same attitude that led to the murder of Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira in Brazil a year ago; and farmers from the El Bajío community in Mexico had their livelihoods destroyed through illegal mining by a FTSE 100 company.
We must note that there has been a radical change in Government in Brazil since the disaster occurred. I would like the Minister to tell us what discussions he has had with his Brazilian counterpart regarding this case and how he is working with the Brazilian Government under President Lula, as well as Governments across Latin America, to prevent man-made disasters like this from destroying communities. I recognise that the Minister here today is not the Minister generally responsible for the region, but perhaps he has some answers to these questions on behalf of his colleague.
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister has referred to environmental activists and the damage being done environmentally in Brazil, as well as across the globe. When we look at the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, and given that we have just passed the one-year anniversary of the brutal murders of Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira, it is important that while we protect our environment and the people, we also prevent those excellent environmental activists, journalists and indigenous activists who are fighting the good fight— not just on their own behalf, but on behalf of all of us—from coming to harm. It is important that our Government work with the Brazilian Government to ensure that the perpetrators of those brutal murders are brought to justice.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In a way, it is precisely what I wanted to ask the Minister today about how we can work more collaboratively and co-operatively with the Brazilian Government to lend our expertise, to show our support, to do what we can, along with other nations across the world, to preserve the Amazon rainforest and, of course, to protect environmental activists and indigenous people in those countries. It would also be helpful to hear whether the Brazilian Government’s attitude towards these disasters, and the prevention of them in future, has changed since President Lula took office. Obviously, our Government would know that and notice that.
We must of course champion those many excellent British companies that do good work abroad—there are many—but it is also right that we hold them to account for any wrongdoing. Given the tragic stories and experiences we have heard about today, does the Minister agree that British companies should be held to account in British courts for their actions across the world? No company should be able to greenwash its image by painting itself as a net zero leader while at the same time mining the minerals needed for the energy transition in the way that some have done. They simply cannot give with one hand and take away with the other.
I was appalled to learn that this disaster and the actions that followed it disproportionately hurt indigenous peoples and many people of colour. A community in the municipality of Marinara that is closest to the dam and was most affected by the disaster has a population that is 84.3% comprised of black Brazilians.
Will the British Government collaborate on an international law on ecocide to make damage to our ecology, our planet and our environment an internationally recognised criminal offence? The Opposition certainly support that, and it would be good to collaborate with the British Government.
Finally, I pay tribute to Pogust Goodhead, the firm assisting the victims with their case—but mainly to the over 700,000 victims, a few of whom have shown outstanding courage by travelling to the United Kingdom to let English courts know the true extent of the disaster. For the sake of Bento Rodrigues, the town destroyed by the disaster, the Doce river, which was severely polluted, and the 39 municipalities that felt the environmental catastrophe on their doorstep, this injustice must be put right.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. I am grateful for his contribution and for those of the hon. Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) and for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), and I will address their question. I am standing in for the Minister with responsibility for South America, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who is in North America as I speak, but I am pleased to be here on his behalf.
This November marks the eighth anniversary of the worst environmental disaster in Brazilian history, the bursting of the Mariana dam. We have heard a moving evocation of the human impact and the scale of it in the state of Minas Gerais. The dam failure released some 60 million cubic metres of toxic waste, which claimed 19 lives, wrecked towns, villages and livelihoods and deeply affected indigenous communities, as has been discussed at length. The flow of waste travelled 600 km to the Atlantic ocean, destroying water supplies, natural habitats and livestock, with effects that are still being felt today. I add my condolences to those that have been expressed in the Chamber today to all those affected, particularly the families and friends of those who died.
There is, understandably, much interest in the compensation made available to those affected by the catastrophe. As has been mentioned, there is an ongoing legal case against the mining company BHP—it operates in Brazil through a company called Samarco, which managed the dam. It is not appropriate for me to comment on matters pertaining to those legal proceedings, but I can share with the Chamber how the UK has been working to promote the safe management of tailings dams in Brazil since that calamitous disaster.
In 2016, the trade and investment team at the British consulate general in Belo Horizonte, the state capital of Minas Gerais, took responsibility for the mining sector. From day one, it prioritised the promotion of improved technology, governance and safety standards for tailings dams. The consulate has held annual public events to showcase UK innovation and expertise in this field to Brazilian stakeholders, including from private companies, the Government, academia and civil society organisations. Those efforts have raised awareness of the critical need to improve safety standards, and they generated discussion among key players about how best to do so.
A further calamity took place in Minas Gerais state in 2019, when the collapse of the Brumadinho dam killed 270 people. In the aftermath, the Department for International Trade supported an initiative led by the Church of England Pensions Board to publish the world’s first global industry standard on tailings management to improve safety worldwide. The initiative was a collaboration with Sweden, the International Council on Mining and Metals and the United Nations. It included input from communities affected by the Brumadinho disaster, plus leading international experts and Government and mining company representatives. In 2021, the British consulate general in Belo Horizonte held workshops in partnership with the Brazilian Government and the United Nations environment programme to promote this new global standard in Brazil. More than 1,000 participants joined the online workshops, convening leading figures from the Brazilian mining sector, academia and civil society.
Also in 2021, the British embassy in Brasilia signed a memorandum of understanding with the prosecutor’s office in the state of Minas Gerais to collaborate on technology and transparency standards for the management of tailings dams. That led to the launch in May 2022 of the world’s first independent tailings dam monitoring centre in Brazil, in collaboration with the UK Government, using British satellite monitoring systems. That was an important moment with potentially global implications. The centre applies British satellite monitoring systems, in partnership with the UK’s satellite applications catapult, to monitor a growing number of tailing dams in Brazil, thereby improving safety and transparency in their management. The learnings and best practice developed at the centre are playing, we hope, a trailblazing role in raising global safety standards and reducing the risk of similar disasters.
The Mariana dam and Brumadinho catastrophes must not be forgotten. They should serve as stark and tragic reminders of how critical it is that we work together to improve safety standards across the globe. I was interested in the question posed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East, on ecocide law. I will not pre-empt any judgment of my colleague the Minister for the Americas, but I will ask that he write to the hon. Gentleman with an update on his judgments about the utility or otherwise of such ecocide law. We are reassured by the work that has already begun, with the UK at the forefront in collaboration with Brazil and working alongside the Brazilian Government to increase safety in these sorts of environments together with international partners.
Jim Shannon
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have made contributions. If we were to put together all our thoughts, they would be that regulation is needed across the world, not just for companies here in the United Kingdom but globally. Hon. Members referred to the need to speak up for those who have no voice, and it is important to ensure that that happens; the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) outlined that very well. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in an intervention, said that the UK can lead; we could and we should, and we look for that to be the case. The hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) reiterated the important issue of how we can work better together on behalf of people who have been maligned and affected by this. As always, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) encapsulated the issue very simply but directly. We must stand up for the indigenous people. The world must also get together, and we must work in tandem.
I thank the Minister, who was standing in but has understood what we are requesting. I have written down what we are looking for. He reminded us that this was one of the worst disasters in the world, but that others have taken place as well. He told us about the effect on livestock, animals, people, houses and the environment. He referred to how safe management must be the conclusion we wish to have, and said that there must be a new global standard across the world. He referred to a satellite system as well, which is another way of monitoring what is going on and keeping better track of it. He also reminded us, at the end, that it must never be forgotten. The reason we are here today is simply that it will not be forgotten. We have asked our Government and the Minister to take forward the issue where they can to help and assist those people—we met them in January or February this year—who sometimes think that nobody knows about them. Well, today in this House we have ensured that the world knows about them and their quest, and the role that our Government can perhaps play in that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Mariana dam disaster.
Volumetric Concrete Mobile Plants
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered volumetric concrete mobile plants.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us time to debate an important, if hopefully not the most contentious, area of political regulation.
We are doubtless all familiar with the sight of large conventional drum mixers carrying concrete around our streets and roads. Those drum mixers operate at 32 tonnes and carry loads of 8 cubic metres to building sites. They carry concrete that has been prepared in a fixed location and then loaded on to the mixers. Drum mixers are the dominant force in the market, and there are something in the region of 20,000 of them.
Volumetric concrete mixers are a much smaller part of the concrete sector but can operate in circumstances in which the conventional drum mixers do not, most notably in rural areas or where smaller batches are required. They can legally weigh up to 44 tonnes on five axles and 38.4 tonnes on four axles. That is at the heart of the matter that I wish to discuss. They deliver concrete to individuals and smaller businesses and mix concrete on site. They are particularly useful for reaching remote areas and tight urban sites, and compared with larger traditional concrete carriers they have a range of other benefits, notably their lower carbon usage.
There is a large element of time-sensitivity at play here. Once mixed, concrete has a shelf life of only two hours, which means that drum mixers must get to their construction site and pour the concrete within that two-hour period or it goes to waste and to landfill. The need for VCMs in rural areas—where there are fewer plants mixing concrete at scale, if indeed there are any at all, and hence longer road journeys to sites—is obvious, but the place of VCMs in the sector goes beyond that. They are particularly useful for emergency road and rail repairs, where the mixer may have to wait around. For a drum mixer, an expensive batching plant must be set up to avoid concrete becoming unusable at the two-hour mark, but VCMs have no such issues, which shows their benefits in such situations.
There is a very real danger that, if the Government’s regulation of the sector gets the balance wrong, the whole volumetric concrete sector could be placed at risk and a small but very important part of the construction industry could be lost, for little discernible benefit.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for securing today’s debate on volumetric concrete mobile plants and for allowing me to intervene. Having worked in the construction industry for about two decades, and having gained a dumper driver ticket to take ready-mixed concrete on a dumper to various parts of the construction site, I could not resist taking part in today’s debate. More to the point, my constituency is home to Mixamate, which is a ready-mixed concrete business. Mixamate highlights to me not only the impact on livelihoods but the environmental and economic damage that policy could create. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is incumbent on the Government to undertake a full impact assessment of current legislation?
Mr Carmichael
Had I known that the hon. Gentleman had that level of expertise, I would have had him on the all-party parliamentary group for lower carbon construction vehicles a long time ago. I agree with him. I do not want to reheat old debates, but we are where we are today because there was not a proper economic and environmental impact assessment at the time. I hope the Minister will indicate that the Government are willing to revisit the issue. If we go through the process properly, we will find that there is a better way of dealing with the issue, but I will let the Minister speak for himself.
VCMs operate right across the United Kingdom. Their manufacture and use are estimated to contribute £380 million to the economy and employ more than 15,000 skilled workers. They operate the length and breadth of the country, and in communities such as those that I represent they are of prime importance to the local construction sector. Businesses such as Andrew Sinclair Ltd in Orkney and Tulloch Developments in Shetland tell me regularly about the desperately detrimental impact that the proposed changes will have on them.
Companies with VCMs operate in at least 134 constituencies and are a truly integral part of the country’s construction industry. For almost 50 years, they have operated within a proportionate regulatory environment. Until 2018, VCMs on four axles could run at the manufacturer’s design weight, which is often about 41 tonnes. However, in 2018, the Department for Transport decided to impose a 32 tonne limit for all VCMs, enacted through the Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2017. The limit forces VCM operators to phase out their current VCMs by 2028, replacing them with the 32 tonne model, which is equally expensive but less effective. Lighter vehicles mean more journeys on the road and more carbon emissions as a consequence.
That is despite the fact that Highways England’s 2017 report endorsed the operation of VCMs at about 44 tonnes on five axles and 38.4 tonnes on four axles. That proposal had the support of the then Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). To be less than generous, this is a classic example of an obscure regulation changed by civil servants that causes a massive headache for businesses in the real world.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman said that, if the proposal goes through, there will be more journeys by lighter vehicles. Has his APPG looked into how many additional drivers will be needed to drive those additional vehicles? Is there a surplus of such drivers in the construction industry? The advice I am getting is that very few parts of the construction industry have too many workers just now.
Mr Carmichael
Yes, indeed. I think the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question. The truth of the matter is that heavy goods vehicle and lorry drivers are in scarce supply, and that is being felt not just in the construction industry but throughout the supply chain for just about every possible sector. That is another of the operations of the law of unintended consequences.
The frustration that brings us to the debate is that there has been strong opposition to the plans, led by organisations such as the Batched on Site Association, which feel that, until today, they have not been able to get a hearing. I very much hope that, after the Minister’s response, they will feel that they are at last being heard.
The change has no support among the operators, will yield no benefits to the construction industry overall and threatens the very future of VCMs in this country and the benefits that come with them. The most direct consequence of the Government’s plan is that VCMs will be limited in the amount of concrete they can carry. Operators continuing after 2028 will have to carry less weight, which is inefficient for them, their customers and the overall economy.
Traditional drum mixers and VCMs can produce something in the region of 8 cubic metres of concrete. However, because VCMs carry all the extra equipment that turns them into mobile plants, including conveyor belts to mix the sand, mixing equipment, cement, water and aggregates, they weigh notably more. Forcing VCM weights down to 32 tonnes cuts their capacity to between 6.5 cubic metres and 7 cubic metres of any mix of concrete on one trip. That has a significant impact on their efficiency, with knock-on effects on cost-effectiveness and the viability of the industry to continue at its current capacity.
The industry predicts that the changes coming in 2028 will have a dire impact on the sector. The Minister will have heard dire predictions from sectors affected by change before—we all have—and scepticism when such interests bring forward their concerns is healthy and necessary in Government. There is, however, significant and objective evidence that points to the industry’s predictions being well founded, and possibly even understated. After the Department announced the weight limit reduction, sales of VCMs fell from 55 million in 2017 to 9 million in 2020—still some eight years ahead of the deadline. Operators have already started voting with their feet—or, more accurately, their wheels—to the detriment of the sector and the construction industry as a whole. If the industry suffers and shrinks because of the regulations, many of its benefits will be lost.
Furthermore, traditional drum mixers can carry only one strength of concrete at a time, whereas VCMs have the benefit of carrying multiple if required. Take this simple example: if a customer needs only 4 cubic metres of strong concrete and 3 cubic metres of medium-strength concrete, they will have to pay for two concrete mixers if heavier VCMs are banned. VCMs mix concrete on site and can do so at whatever strengths are required and, crucially, all on one lorry. Without VCMs, such situations would be much more difficult to manage. That is why VCMs are such an important, if small and perhaps slightly niche, part of the concrete sector and the construction industry.
I have had representations from right across the country since securing this debate a mere eight days ago. The message from every corner—from those who are charged with representing the sector as a whole, to individual companies—remains the same. Sonny Sangha, founder of iMix Concrete, who operates a 32 tonne VCM as well as his current fleet of four traditional 38.4 tonne VCMs, talked to me about the estimated impact of the Government changes. He said:
“We estimate an annual loss of turnover of around £100,000 per VCM at 32 tonnes. The loss of capacity also means the need for purchasing more vehicles to accommodate the workload now that we have VCMs on both weight limits...We can see a huge difference in output and economic performance between the vehicles. The new 32T vehicle is only able to carry around 6/7m3 of concrete (depending on mix type), whereas with the other vehicles we can carry a comfortable 8m3 of concrete.”
The root cause of the problem is that there has not been an adequate economic or environmental impact assessment. The consultancy group Regeneris was brought in by the Batched on Site Association to calculate the impact of cutting the weight of VCMs to 32 tonnes. It found that a 27% cut on a 44 tonne VCM and a 16.6% cut on a 38.4 tonne VCM is likely to add 14 million more lorry miles to UK roads and 598,000 more lorry journeys each year. There will be 200 more VCMs on the roads to make up for the carrying of smaller loads, pumping 120,000 additional tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There will be a 20% increase in CO2, nitrogen oxide and particulates, generating extra carbon costs in excess of £7 million per annum. That will also require an additional 200 HGV drivers at a time of shortages. On top of that, because drum mixers have a two-hour production life for concrete, much of the concrete going to landfill comes from drum mixers.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is the two-hour issue not absolutely critical? Some communities, particularly in remote constituencies across Scotland and rural parts of England, are simply outwith the two-hour distance, and therefore the concrete will end up hardened and generating more waste in landfill.
Mr Carmichael
It is absolutely critical, and it adds massively to the already significant extra costs for construction projects in those remote communities. Indeed, as the MP for Orkney and Shetland, I probably know that better than most.
I am not going to steal the Minister’s thunder; he has kindly been in touch with me.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, I want to congratulate him on securing this debate. We have a presence of VCM operators in Knowsley, which is important to our local economy. I endorse the powerful he has made, and I hope that when the Minister responds, he acknowledges the force of that case.
Mr Carmichael
I very much hope so, too. The Minister’s office has been in touch with me to very kindly give me notice of some of what he intends to say. This may be a new way of introducing disappointment into my life after 22 years as an MP, but for once I approach this debate with a smidge more confidence and optimism than usual. The Minister has given me notice of some of what he intends to say in his speech, but I suggest that there is substantial evidence out there that would support a different approach if the Department were minded to harvest it in a systematic way.
There is also important context involving other HGV regulation. In February, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) announced the abolition of the 32 tonne limit for electric HGVs, allowing them to run up to 34 tonnes. On 23 April, the Minister announced that the 4 tonne increase in weight for HGVs—taking the limit from 44 tonnes to 48 tonnes—was being trialled to cut lorry numbers and to save carbon. On 10 May, the Minister announced that the Government are allowing haulage lorries an additional 2-plus metres in length, with the aim of cutting the numbers of such HGVs on the road by 8%, and reducing 70,000 tonnes of carbon emissions. All that suggests to me that the thinking of the Department may have been different in 2018, and that there is now a need for the approach to VCMs to catch up with that new thinking and to benefit from the same approach.
As I have said, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me this debate at such short notice. I am grateful also that a good number of colleagues from around the House are present on a Thursday afternoon. I place on record that I have received a lot of apologies and representations from Members right around the country, including the hon. Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), the right hon. Members for Ashford (Damian Green), for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) and for Warley (John Spellar), and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford). They would all have been here had they had a bit more notice, but we all know that when a Member gets an offer of time to debate something like this, they do not quibble; they take it. That is what we have done. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairship, Mr Efford, and it is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), although I hope someone has noticed that the annunciator has been displaying the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) as speaking in this debate for the last 10 minutes. When Hansard is produced, I trust that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will get the credit for his contribution and that it will not be inadvertently attributed to a Member who is not present.
I will speak very briefly because the case has been made so powerfully, and I cannot wait to hear the Minister, given the spoiler alert in the previous speech. I will speak on behalf of Mixamate, which operates in my constituency in south Leeds. I have looked at all the documentation that it has produced, and it seems to me that it has made a really powerful case. This is an innovative product. Anyone who, for their sins, has tried to mix extremely small amounts of concrete with a spade and shovel will know what a boon it is to have machinery that can do that. It has the flexibility to deliver for longer than the two hours to which drum mixers are confined. It has different strengths and can produce different quantities for different places. It is a great innovation, so I say well done on that.
A factory in Sheffield has been responsible for production, but, as we have heard, orders have decreased. I am perplexed as to why we are in this situation. Like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I have looked at the Department for Transport news release that announced the weight increases, including, interestingly, for the longer semi-trailers—known in the trade as LSTs—which will be subject to a 44 tonne weight limit. At the same time, the Government are saying that the weight limit for VCMs has to come down. All of the arguments in the briefing material that the VCM sector, including Mixamate, has given to assist us in today’s debate are also made in the Department for Transport’s press release. That includes arguments about fewer journeys and carbon reductions if the vehicle weighs more. Let us not forget, either, that if a VCM does multiple drop-offs, its weight will go down once it has delivered the first part of concrete. I note with interest that Denmark had proposed to do the same, but it has now reversed its approach.
Is this about weight? As I understand it, National Highways said that 44 tonnes on five axles, and 38.4 tonnes on four axles was not a problem. If the issue is weight and the impact on road surfaces, bridges and so on, why on earth has the Department for Transport made three recent announcements on increasing the weight limits, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in his powerful speech? I can only echo everything he said, and, like others, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I apologise for being late, Mr Efford; I was in the debate on contaminated blood. I speak on behalf of Ve-Tech Concrete Ltd, a company in my constituency that operate VCMs. As has already been covered by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), there are lots of different reasons why there are advantages to VCMs. He highlighted the fact that they can deliver concrete over distances in rural areas that are more than two hours away from a concrete mixing plant. That is an absolute; if someone is further away, a drum concrete mixer cannot serve them. VCMs can cover parts of the UK that others cannot.
VCMs can also wait until the concrete is required. When utilities need to make repairs, even in the middle of the night, or when a repair takes longer, the VCM can wait until the concrete is required. They can deliver multiple small loads of different strengths of concrete to different consumers. Those often include farmers who need a small amount of concrete to make an adjustment around the farm. In rural communities such as mine—farming covers most of my constituency—VCMs are vital.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that it is hard to understand what the 2018 decision was about. If it was about damage to roads, there are other, heavier vehicles allowed on the road. If it is about what VCMs carry, and the suggestion that they should not carry more goods than a goods vehicle, then there is a failure to understand that they are actually plant. They mix the concrete, and therefore have all the equipment required in mixing the concrete. They also have pumping equipment, so that a separate lorry is not needed to turn up and work with a drum mixer to pump the concrete where it is required. I read in the briefing that, because of access issues, it is a VCM that Westminster is using for some of the repairs to the estate. It is about time that we heard a slightly updated approach to VCMs.
Why was the decision made? It is hard to understand if it was on the basis of road damage when there are heavier vehicles. It is certainly hard to understand if it is about climate, when it is clear that VCMs reduce journeys, increase flexibility and keep other trucks off the road. I too hope that maybe there is a change of mind in the Department for Transport, and that the Minister will give hope to the companies in our constituencies, or serving our constituencies, across the UK.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Before I start my summing up, Mr Efford, with your permission I will briefly mention the passing of Winnie Ewing—probably the greatest politician that we have ever sent down here. I hope that in due course the House will have the opportunity to pay a fitting tribute to a giant on whose shoulders many of us are proud to stand.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has set out the arguments very powerfully indeed. If there were powerful arguments against his case, he is the kind of person who would have introduced them to his speech. The reason that he has not given us those arguments and explained why they do not carry any weight is that there does not seem to be any argument now. There might have been an argument in 2017-18—I do not know what it was, but there might have been. I cannot see what the argument is now, and I do not think the Government can, which is why they are going in the opposite direction in relation to the weight limits on a lot of other kinds of HGVs.
I can understand that there will sometimes be an assumption in the eyes of the public that anything that reduces the weight of a lorry on our roads is a good thing, but the public often forgets, as do politicians, that reducing the maximum weight of a vehicle does not necessarily reduce the total amount of stuff that it can carry on our roads. As has been pointed out in this case, if we reduce the maximum weight of a cement-mixing lorry that is allowed on the roads, only two things can happen: either there are many more journeys or far fewer things getting built and repaired.
The construction industry in Scotland generates about £17 billion for the Scottish economy and, in 2021, employed 158,000 people. It is also one of the biggest producers of carbon emissions in Scotland, as I have no doubt it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, so there is clearly a huge necessity for Governments and industry to work together. We will not get to net zero unless we work with the construction industry towards a net zero future for that industry. But I do not think that a change in the weight that we are talking about here is a part of that. As we have heard, if anything, it might make the problem even worse.
It would be reasonable to ask the Government to not necessarily announce immediately that they are going to drop the decision, but to ask them to at the very least come up with a more up-to-date and more relevant impact assessment on the economic and environmental impact, based on how the world is today, not how it was in 2017 or 2018, because the world has changed in a lot of ways since then.
As I indicated in my question to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland earlier, it is all very well saying that businesses will just have to buy more slightly less heavy vehicles, operate them in a different way and lose more money, but who will drive these things? We do not have enough HGV drivers in the United Kingdom as it is—thank you very much, Brexit. That is one of the benefits we were not told about before 2016. Where do we think all these other drivers will come from? What impact will that have on the construction industry’s costs if it gets caught up in a wage war with other users of heavy-goods vehicles?
What account are we taking of today’s interest rates increase—the highest we have had since the end of the banking crash in 2008? That makes investment in new homes, for example, a lot less attractive than it was. We need the impact of that to be built in to any further assessment.
We will need the construction industry for the changes in our infrastructure. Not all infrastructure development is good by any stretch of the imagination. There is a need, for example, for a massive hospital and school rebuilding programme. That is already happening apace, but there is still a lot more to be done. We still need to build more homes for people to live in. We have far too many homes for people to use as holiday homes once in a while, but not enough homes that are suitable for people to live in in the places they want to live—for example, close to their work.
There will be a significant amount of new-build construction as well as rebuild, repair and maintenance construction needed for as long as any of us will be here, and probably for several lifetimes after. We need to help the industry to address the issues that it has just now with its impact on the environment. I think the industry is ready for that discussion and is willing to change.
But I think the change that is being discussed here is one that the industry is resisting, not just because industry tends to resist anything that it does not like, but because it can see that that will significantly threaten the viability of a lot of small businesses across the United Kingdom, and because it can see that the problem that the change is supposed to address is likely to make it even worse. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Efford. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for securing this debate and for explaining quite a complicated subject in a way that most of us, including me, could understand—almost.
Volumetric concrete mixers have been in operation in this country for nearly 50 years. At the time of their arrival, they were a groundbreaking concept: they allowed all the ingredients for concrete to be stored separately, with operators then mixing the concrete on-site. It must have seemed quite magical, back in those times, to have that scientific breakthrough. It enabled manufacturers to circumnavigate the shelf-life issue faced by drum mixers, which need to deliver and pour their concrete in two hours—as we have heard from many speakers today—or the entire batch is wasted, and deposited in landfill.
Over the years, there have been major innovations in the VCM industry, culminating in the invention of the combined VCM plus pump, which eliminates the need for two lorries, helping to reduce congestion and emissions. VCMs may also provide benefits to the consumer. For example, if a customer underestimates or overestimates the amount of concrete needed, a VCM can adapt and increase the quantities, without relying on a second delivery, or produce a smaller batch, preventing the dumping of wasted concrete in landfill.
The ability to batch on site may also be beneficial to those who live in rural communities. We have already heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) talk about that, particularly in the context of her own constituency. We all know how many rural areas have difficulties in all sorts of ways whenever there are delivery issues. This seems to be something that it is quite important to take on board.
However, I am aware that by 2028 the VCM industry will be subject to the same weight limits as drum mixers and other heavy goods vehicles. I have met operators of these vehicles multiple times to discuss their concerns about what they see as an existential threat to their industry. Due to the extra equipment that VCMs carry in order to batch the concrete on site, being subject to that weight limit could cut their capacity and impact on their business models. That may result in operators having to send out multiple VCMs for a job, whereas before it could be managed by one vehicle. I am concerned about the impact that it could have on British VCM operators, as well as on air pollution and congestion.
There are already weight exemptions and allowances for certain vehicle types. Indeed, VCMs currently have such an allowance, albeit on a temporary basis. Surely the simplest thing to do is to extend the exemption and make it permanent. I really sympathise with the points raised by all right hon. and hon. Members today that VCM operators require certainty if they are to continue to operate.
I encourage the Minister to engage meaningfully with the concerns of the VCM industry and consider the points raised in this debate. There seem to be many issues there that the Government have pledged to sort out—for instance, climate change, the carbon footprint, and support for small and medium-sized enterprises, which we know are the backbone of this country. That would seem only right. I know that the Minister has already spoken to the operators about their concerns. I hope that those discussions, and the contributions that he has heard today, will lead to a long-term solution that will protect jobs and encourage British innovation.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a delight to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I apologise to the Chamber that the roads Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), is unavoidably detained, but I was involved with this issue when I was roads Minister, so I hope that I can bring some degree of understanding.
I very much associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) in relation to the just announced death of Winnie Ewing, who was by any standards a great politician and a great spokesman for her party and her views.
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for this motion and for the work he has done on this issue. Let me start by making a fundamental point. In 2017 and 2018, legal changes were made in relation to volumetric concrete mixers in two areas, as he highlighted. One change was to include volumetric concrete mixers in the operator licensing system, which ensures that VCMs are in the same regulatory regime as most large goods vehicles. As far as I understand it, there is no request to revisit that change. The second change concerned the inclusion of volumetric concrete mixers in the annual heavy vehicle roadworthiness testing regime. They were previously exempted, in part because of the difficulty of accommodating large vehicles in testing stations. However, as VCMs are based on a standard HGV chassis, it became clear over time that they could be accommodated on that basis.
It is important to say, however, that no changes were made to the maximum permitted weights for volumetric concrete mixers by regulation. It is also important to see that in context. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked whether some of these recent announcements really should be ignored because, as he read it, they were about higher weights. The answer is that no increase to axle weights was announced, and we are principally concerned with axle weights.
Inclusion in the annual heavy vehicle test requires a plate displaying the maximum on-road weight of the vehicle. This displays beyond doubt what is the legally accepted maximum weight on roads of a heavy goods vehicle. That is often different from the maximum weight a vehicle is permitted off-road, or on private land, and which the vehicle chassis can bear.
The Department recognised that there had been a significant period previously of operations on public roads by some volumetric concrete mixers at higher weights than these unchanged maximum on-road weights, a situation that it and others regard as illegal. Therefore, the Department sought views and checked the feasibility of a limited temporary period of operation at higher maximum permitted weights for volumetric concrete mixers. Of course, this is not an uncontested issue. There are other parties—whether they be local authorities, mayoralties, or other players in the relevant market—who have views that may not directly accord with all the views held and discussed in this debate.
Following engagement with parts of the industry and a written consultation, Ministers decided to allow an exceptional temporary weight allowance for volumetric concrete mixers for up to 10 years. Other possibilities were considered, and discussions were held at that time with parts of the industry, but no other exceptions were ever approved by Ministers.
The exceptional temporary weight allowance is a significant adaptation for VCMs, which comes despite the extra wear and tear that they impose on road surfaces. Load modelling done by the Department in collaboration with National Highways—which, at that time, was Highways England—highlighted a particular risk to bridge structures, which affects the durability of this exceptional arrangement. It is therefore not true, as I think was implied in one contribution to the debate, that in some sense National Highways has signed off higher weights. On the contrary, it found in its report that those weights sit outside the bridge load model and therefore are likely to increase wear on bridges.
Peter Grant
The Minister mentions the particular issue of bridges that might not be able to sustain a higher weight. Why is a weight limit not placed on individual bridges, so that the heavier vehicles can be allowed on the parts of the road network that can sustain such loads?
Jesse Norman
That is a separate question, and, of course, local authorities may or may not choose to do such things. This is about what the view of National Highways was, and as I have said, its view was that there was a particular risk to bridge structures and that that was one of the constraints on the durability and longevity of this arrangement.
An initial assessment into road wear by the Department suggested that increasing the weight limit for four-axle volumetric concrete mixers from 32 tonnes to 38.4 tonnes could increase average road wear by between 110% and 220% per vehicle. The exact impact is heavily dependent on the vehicle’s loading.
The Department recently announced the introduction of longer semi-trailers into general use because many operators run out of trailer space before reaching the permitted maximum gross vehicle weight. These longer semi-trailers are up to 2.05 metres longer than a standard trailer, but are designed to carry the same weight as standard trailers. Therefore, there is no increase in the normal maximum weight or axle weights for vehicles using the longer semi-trailers.
The Department recently announced regulations to implement an increase in weight limits for certain alternatively fuelled or zero-emission vehicles. The weight limit increase is up to a maximum of 1 tonne for an alternatively fuelled vehicle and a flat 2 tonnes for a zero-emission vehicle. In all cases, the maximum weight limit for individual axles—again, the key measure—remains unchanged. The vehicle types that are having their weight limits changed by this regulation include articulated lorries and road train combinations with five or six axles normally limited to 40 tonnes and four-axle combinations normally limited to 36 or 38 tonnes. No additional weight allowance will apply to the heaviest articulated lorry and road train combinations of 44 tonnes or four-axle rigid motor vehicles of 32 tonnes.
Mr Carmichael
I am genuinely grateful to the Minister because a number of people in the debate have said, “We do not understand how the decision was reached”, and he has given us an insightful account of how that happened. Those of us who have served in Government know how it often works: the focus is on the process rather than the outcome. That is exactly what has happened here. If he were to compare the outcome—the consequences of the changes that were made—with the consequences of the previous regulations, on any cost-benefit analysis, would it not look like a slightly unusual move to make?
Jesse Norman
It is not true to say there has been a focus on process rather than outcome. On the contrary, it is specifically the concern that there may be an adverse outcome on road wear and tear and safety that sits behind the concern to maintain the position as it is, or has been, on vehicle axle loadings.
Let me come to the wider point that the right hon. Member touched on. I note the points about the value of the industry and that the use of VCMs has important commercial advantages over alternatives, such as allowing an exact quantity of concrete to be produced. That has influenced the implementation of the temporary weight arrangement. However, the 32-tonne maximum weight for four or more axle goods vehicles used in normal service is important in the context of maintaining the roads. It is not possible to allow the general circulation of large numbers of overweight rigid goods vehicles freely on the roads. That would risk substantial structural damage and failure.
For heavy loads, some other construction-related vehicles, such as tippers, are available as six-axle articulated combinations. They can carry higher loads legally. For VCMs, there has been some design development. Part of the earlier reason for the exemption was to allow a period in which there could be design development, but I appreciate that the unladen weight cannot be reduced by the difference between the temporary arrangement and the standard weight limit.
The Department recognises the high level of concern expressed in the debate about the businesses of those operating VCMs. I do not think it is true to say that those businesses have not received a good hearing. They have been extremely effective in making their case over the years, in my experience. The number of colleagues referenced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland testifies to the effectiveness of the APPG and the sector in mobilising political opinion. Those concerns rightly include the viability of what are, in many cases, small businesses, and we understand that. It is important to recognise, as many Members have today, the contribution made by the industry more widely in the construction sector.
The Department proposes—the right hon. Member alerted us to this key point—to seek evidence about whether the current temporary arrangements for special maximum weights for VCMs should be amended. That comes just over halfway through a temporary 10-year period. The intention is to review the temporary weights and the criteria for them, including how long they will last. The volumetric concrete mixer arrangement is, after all, unique.
In conducting that call for evidence, it will be important to consider whether there are other situations that are in any way similar to the one we have discussed today. National Highways will be commissioned to properly re-examine the bridge load assessments, which have been raised in the discussion, as they relate to VCMs. It is important that all potentially interested parties are able to comment and are reached. We therefore intend that a public call for evidence should be launched during the autumn, and I expect a wide range of parties to be interested and potentially to make submissions.
Dr Whitford
Will the Minister reassure us that the call for evidence will be wide-ranging and not just focused on weight on roads? We have highlighted that ending up sending two lorries—a pumping lorry and a concrete lorry—doubles the weight carried by roads, but we have also highlighted the issues of environmental pollution, congestion and reducing carbon, which are even more important these days.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that those are important issues, and it is very important that a call for evidence does not become a general trawl through the literature but retains its focus, and its focus will be on whether the current temporary arrangements for maximum weights should be amended. I suspect, although I cannot predict—we will leave this for the Minister and officials who are doing the final work to decide—that any proper consideration or evidence that bears on that question will be potentially submissible.
It is important to say that running at higher than usual weight is not without risk. It increases road wear, and some of that road wear increases very rapidly—indeed, up to the power of four—with axle load. Of course, there are also risks associated with braking and tyre wear. Volumetric concrete mixers are used heavily in some urban areas, including central London, alongside cyclists. As I have said, before 2018, and despite the law, some had operated at higher weights for many years. There is a concern that overloaded or heavy volumetric concrete mixers may be liable to have a higher centre of gravity, which could create safety risks. In some recent examples, VCMs have been stopped and found to have severe defects, including being loaded to a weight exceeding that of even the higher temporary arrangements.
All those issues and evidence will have to be taken into account as part of this proper process of consideration, but I hope that hon. Members present will regard it a useful step forward that the Department has decided to hold a call for evidence. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these issues today.
Mr Carmichael
First, I very much echo the comments of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) about the sad passing of Winnie Ewing. Winnie Ewing was the first elected parliamentarian I ever saw in the flesh, probably in 1981. She turned up—I was never quite clear whether it was at her invitation or the invitation of the school; either was possible with Winnie—and addressed the assembled school. Even as a 12, 13 or 14-year-old—however old I was—her passion and commitment for standing up for the communities across the highlands and islands that she represented was obvious, almost palpable. Her passing is a sad loss to all of us in Scottish politics and, indeed, politics across the whole of the United Kingdom.
All those who have contributed to the debate have made powerful and compelling cases. I am grateful that the Front-Bench spokespeople acknowledged that and for the call for evidence that the Minister announced. That is the way that Government should work, and I am delighted that we now have the opportunity to make this case. I have no doubt that the companies whose effective lobbying has led to the setting up of the APPG—Nigel Griffiths is spearheading that in his professional capacity—will continue to do their work. I see this as an opportunity and not as a conclusion, and I hope that what we have taken here is the first step along the road. If it is, we have done something that will benefit all our constituencies and the wider construction industry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered volumetric concrete mobile plants.
Written Statements
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Legislation Day: Finance Bill
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
In line with the approach to tax policy making set out in the Government’s documents, “Tax policy making: a new approach”, published in 2010, and, “The new Budget timetable and the tax policy making process”, published in 2017, the Government are committed, where possible, to publishing most tax legislation in draft for technical consultation before the legislation is laid before Parliament.
The Government will publish draft clauses for the next Finance Bill, which will largely cover pre-announced policy changes, on 18 July along with accompanying explanatory notes, tax information and impact notes, responses to consultations and other supporting documents. All publications will be available on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS876]
Marine Biodiversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Agreement
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
My noble Friend the Minister of State (Overseas Territories, Commonwealth, Energy, Climate and Environment), Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, has made the following written ministerial statement:
On 19 June 2023, an agreement that will mean much greater protection for the two-thirds of the global ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction was adopted by consensus at the United Nations.
The agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) is known in short as the BBNJ Agreement. It will be opened for signature on 20 September 2023. Sixty countries need to become parties to the Agreement for it to enter into force.
This is a historic agreement for biodiversity and will play a key role supporting the delivery of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including helping to achieve the target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030. For ABNJ, it will establish a mechanism to designate Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and other Area Based Management Tools (ABMTs), establish new obligations to share the benefits of research into and utilisation of Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs), build upon provisions in UNCLOS on Environmental Impact Assessments for new activities and strengthen capacity building for developing states, along with broader technology transfer.
The agreement is important not only for ocean protection but is also a demonstration that UN multilateral diplomacy can still succeed in reaching an ambitious agreement on issues of shared interest and concern. It helps to reinforce the role of the UNCLOS as the cornerstone of international ocean governance.
As set out in the 2021 Integrated Review of UK Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy and its refresh in March 2023, the UK’s vision is that by 2030 the ocean will be effectively governed, clean, healthy, safe, productive and be biologically diverse, linking resilient and prosperous coastal communities around the world, and supporting sustainable economic growth for the UK, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies. To deliver this vision, we will combine our work on maritime security, the environment and trade. Fundamental to this will be an absolute commitment to upholding UNCLOS in all its dimensions, as an essential enabler of global prosperity, security and a healthy planet.
The UK played a significant and proactive role in achieving the success of the BBNJ Agreement in over 10 years of negotiations. Under the leadership of the FCDO, we plan to take the necessary steps to ratify the agreement as soon as possible, working closely with Defra and other UK Government departments and the devolved Administrations to consider legislative measures necessary to comply with new obligations under the agreement.
The UK will continue to be at the forefront of international efforts to deliver effective ocean governance and will work with others to support ratification and implementation of the agreement, particularly by developing countries. This will include preparatory work to develop a new institutional framework and Secretariat for BBNJ, ensuring close co-ordination with existing regional and sectoral bodies such as the International Maritime Organisation, securing funding for early capacity building and arrangements for the first meeting of the conference of the parties once the agreement enters into force. We will work to ensure that the best available science and evidence underpins proposals to establish ABMTs, which include MPAs, under the Agreement and that UK researchers and innovators can contribute fully to new provisions on MGRs.
[HCWS875]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Mott
Introduction: Baroness Swinburne
Oaths and Affirmations
Teacher Training: Dyslexia and Autism
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask His Majesty’s Government what level of support is required for a teacher trained under the existing initial teacher training regime to support and educate any person attending a mainstream school with a diagnosis of dyslexia or autism.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I remind the House of my declared interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, initial teacher training is designed to ensure that all qualified teachers can teach pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. High-quality teaching is central to ensuring that pupils with SEND, including those with autism and dyslexia, are given the best possible opportunity to achieve at school. All new teachers now also benefit from a two-year induction, underpinned by the early career framework, which includes specific focus on teaching pupils with SEND.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply, but most such children are still identified on the initiative of their parents, not the school. Does that suggest that there is a lack of knowledge of these conditions and of other special educational needs in the teaching profession, particularly as we are losing qualified teachers at an alarming rate? Will the Minister consider making it a mandatory requirement that all educational establishments have level 5-qualified teachers who are able to give the necessary support to a front-line teacher, particularly an inexperienced one?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Our most recent guidance on initial teacher training, published just a few weeks ago, recommends two work placements during that period, stressing that one could be in a special school and the other could involve mentoring by someone with specialist skills. In addition, we have updated the SENCO qualifications so that every teacher has a specialist to whom they can turn for advice.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. Fewer than 40 in every 100 teachers have received autism training. In secondary schools, that falls to 14 in every 100. As a result, schools are struggling to support children with learning difficulties, particularly autism. There are a great many exclusions; an autistic child is twice as likely to be excluded from school as a non-autistic child. The National Autistic Society has produced a report proposing that all teachers be given specialist training to make sure that children with autism receive the best education possible. Will the Minister look at that report, go through it thoroughly and then agree with it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Yes, yes and it depends on what is in the report. The noble Lord brings enormous expertise in this area. Under our universal services contract, there is the opportunity for additional training in autism. We are very focused on this area. I will of course look at the report and consider it very carefully.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend had an opportunity to see the Synergy report, which shows that exclusions from school of young people with autism, ADHD and dyslexia have been dramatically reduced due to the impact of additional teacher training in the system? Will she arrange a meeting with the department to discuss this to see whether we can further enhance outcomes for young people?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be delighted to arrange a meeting with my noble friend to discuss the Synergy programme. She is right that children with special educational needs might have specific academic challenges, but, inevitably, behavioural challenges can be linked to those. We are working very closely with schools to make sure that, in respect of behaviour and attendance, those children feel as supported and included as possible.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that young people with a diagnosis of autism or ADHD often also exhibit signs of quite significant mental health issues. The two are not the same. In creating an education, health and care plan for such young people, a number of different kinds of input are necessary, from not just the school but mental health professionals and others. Does she accept that the problem identified by this Question is partly if not wholly one of capacity? Even if they have people trained to do this kind of work, schools are under enormous pressure and find it very difficult to meet the proper demands of an EHCP. Will she look into how that capacity issue could be alleviated?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness raises two issues: the importance of multi-agency input and co-ordination, and capacity. Our Special Educational Needs and Disabilities and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan aims to address exactly those, giving clarity and confidence to parents as to what they can expect from the system, and support for teachers, including a number of practice guides, the initial ones looking at mental health and wellbeing, autism, and speech and communication needs. So I think we are addressing all of the points raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I meant to declare my interest: a member of my family has an EHCP.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I was a secondary school SENCO, back in the bad old days of very little specialist training and much ignorance of dyslexia and other learning difficulties. I was privileged to do part of my postgraduate training with the late Violet Brand, who was a renowned pioneer in dyslexia; it was very rare and ground-breaking. In the Minister’s initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, she referred to the role of SENCO. My understanding is that the Government have recently lowered the national SENCO qualification standard. I was going to ask the Minister why the Government are dumbing down this critical role, but I should probably revert to asking her to clarify the position, because both the British Dyslexia Association and I seem to have a different take—the standard has not gone up, it is actually being lowered.
Baroness Barran (Con)
There is no question of the Government lowering the standard. What the Government are seeking to do with the introduction of the national professional qualification for SENCOs is to ensure real consistency in SENCO training and qualification, and that it is practically focused and based on the best evidence possible.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, last March Matt Hancock told the Times Educational Supplement that the lack of neurodiversity training in initial teacher training is “striking” and needs to change. Can the Minister tell us if anything has changed in this policy area since that statement was made over 15 months ago by a former Tory Health Secretary?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness is a former teacher, so she brings professional insight to this. We had very serious expert panels, including educational experts, on special educational needs and disabilities, both for the core content framework and the reform of initial teacher training. All of them were clear that trainees need to be able to teach everyone, and one of the great skills of a teacher is being adaptive. There also needs to be a pathway to experts in a school, and that is where the SENCO comes in.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have a family member who is affected by autism and dyslexia. Does my noble friend agree that one of the problems is that before people can get support in the schools, they need a diagnosis, and getting a diagnosis is extremely difficult and takes a very long time? What are we going to do about that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that early, accurate and effective identification is critical, but schools and colleges are permitted to put in place support for children where they have identified a need, without needing to wait for a formal diagnosis.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on the issue of the SENCO qualification? Do I understand correctly that, prior to this change, it was a master’s-level qualification and now it is a level 7 NVQ? Given the complexities that many of these youngsters face, can the Minister explain why that dramatic change in the level of expertise and training embedded in the qualification is government policy?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only repeat what I said in response to the earlier question. As the noble Baroness knows, the existing qualification also includes a significant research element, which is important, and SENCOs can choose, if they wish, to continue to take that. However, our emphasis is on making sure that SENCOs are equipped for the practical challenges they face day to day supporting colleagues in schools, and that this is based on the best evidence available.
Colombia: National Liberation Army
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Browne of Ladyton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking with international partners to facilitate the present round of peace talks between the Government of Colombia and the National Liberation Army.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the ceasefire agreed between the Colombian Government and the National Liberation Army is a welcome step. We share the hope that it will contribute to improving security and alleviate the suffering of conflict-affected communities. As penholder on the Colombia peace process at the UN Security Council, the UK plays a key role in co-ordinating support for Colombia with international partners. Since 2015, the UK has committed £80 million through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund to support the peace process and improve stability and security in Colombia.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the recent visit of the Foreign Secretary to Colombia to discuss ongoing support for the implementation of the 2016 peace agreement, and the commitment of a further £3.6 million for that purpose, is to be welcomed and commended. The Minister will be aware of the importance of the Colombian Office of the High Commissioner for Peace to the implementation of President Petro’s policy of total peace. However, this department lacks sufficient resources to carry out the necessary work to promote negotiations with the wide range of armed groups that are still functioning in Colombia. Is it possible to hypothecate any of our ongoing financial support for the Office of the High Commissioner for Peace, and will His Majesty’s Government consider so doing?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for raising the broader issue, and I will certainly take his suggestion back to the appropriate Minister. Although we are not directly supporting the Colombian Office of the High Commissioner for Peace, which he mentioned, we are supporting it indirectly through the trust funds that I mentioned earlier, to which we are, I believe, still the second-largest UN donor. This is a priority for us in our relationship with Colombia. Of course we want the process to succeed; it matters to the whole world that it does.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the peace accord with the FARC included a no-amnesty policy for conflict-related sexual violence. What can the UK, as penholder at the UN, do to ensure that a similar commitment forms part of the talks and any final agreement with the National Liberation Army?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The UK continues to provide support to help Colombia tackle the legacy of sexual violence and impunity for perpetrators from this long conflict. During his most recent visit to Colombia, Minister Rutley discussed the UK PSVI—preventing sexual violence initiative—with the Foreign Minister and met countless victims of sexual violence, many of whom receive direct support from UK-funded projects. This is very high on the radar in our bilateral relationship.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I recall that, when negotiations were under way with the FARC, the practical and technical advice given by the UK Government to indigenous groups and to women was extremely helpful in enabling them to participate effectively in the talks. Can my noble friend say whether that assistance is being given currently to these groups in the talks involved with the ELN?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is. We continue to work closely with the Government and with communities to bolster protection for human rights defenders who, as the noble Baroness will know, have faced particular problems and casualties in recent years in Colombia, more so than in many other countries. Through this work, but also through our international climate finance, we are ramping up support for indigenous communities both in Colombia and the wider region, having secured a pledge from other donors of nearly $1.5 billion for the same. Securing land rights, for example, is a major part of what we are trying to do with indigenous people, as well as bolstering support for human rights defenders and supporting the transition of justice mechanisms that are being trialled and rolled out across Colombia.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, to go back to the noble Baroness’s question, in November, with an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation, I met for the first time indigenous community representatives in the Colombian Senate in Parliament, and her point is well made. Can the Minister reassure me that transitional justice support is a key element of the work that the UK is doing and co-ordinating and facilitating with Norway and Mexico. Those indigenous community MPs were optimistic but the next stage for transitional justice is going to be critical for community buy-in, especially on land rights issues. The Bar Human Rights Committee supported this work. Are we continuing to support it?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The answer is yes. The UK has contributed over £26 million towards transitional justice mechanisms and for victims of the conflict in Colombia since 2016. That included supporting the Truth Commission’s work to gather testimony from Colombians, both in Colombia and abroad, as well as enhancing the investigatory capacity of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, Colombia’s post-conflict special court. This issue was raised by the UK’s global ambassador for human rights, Rita French, who met the Special Jurisdiction for Peace recently to discuss our ongoing support.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, we celebrate the progress being made in the peace talks but there is concern, not least in the United Nations, that the attorney-general, Francisco Barbosa, is obstructing those talks. He is also obstructing the release of young people unfairly detained following demonstrations in 2021. What more can the Government do to ensure that full due process and legal rights are respected in such cases?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, Colombia is a human rights priority country for the UK. That means that we will continue to monitor any and all impacts that limit our ability to support civil society organisations. As penholder of the UN Security Council, we consistently raise the importance of participation of civil society and young people to realise the full benefits of the 2016 peace agreement in Colombia. We are fully utilising our position as penholder but maintaining Colombia as a high priority for human rights.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Hay Festival. We have been going to Colombia for two decades now and have seen a great deal of changes. It always astonishes me that conversations such as this happen without mentioning the word “cocaine”. Cocaine is the largest growth factor in Colombia. Every year, despite gazillions of dollars being spent by other countries, particularly the USA, the amount of cocaine that is grown increases. They may have got rid of some of the Colombian cartels but now there are the Mexican cartels. To talk about the peace process without confronting the issue of cocaine, which is illegal across the world and which a lot of people in this city help fund, is lunacy. I am not asking the Minister to say whether he approves of legalisation, which the previous president, Santos, did, who was outspoken that you could not stop crime without it, but could he at least tell me what conversations he has had?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Baroness is right to point to the role of drugs. Colombia is still one of the largest producers of coca and cocaine in the world. The trade obviously fuels violence in many areas of the country, as illegal armed groups fight for control of territory and trading routes. That violence disproportionately affects local communities, in particular indigenous communities. Social leaders and former FARC combatants get caught up in it, and so the noble Baroness is right that this issue is inseparably linked to the peace process. Therefore, it is a feature of our discussions with Colombia. We are committed to working bilaterally with international partners, including Colombia, to disrupt, wherever we can, the supply chains that feed the domestic market here that she points to. My own opinion on legalisation is not strictly relevant, but it is interesting that many former presidents of Colombia take the position that President Santos took on this issue.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, on 8 May, the UN Committee Against Torture raised concerns over the lack of progress in investigations into the police abuses against protesters during Colombia’s national strike mobilisations of 2019 and 2021 under the previous Government of Iván Duque. Can the Minister tell us what representations we have made to ensure that those investigations are properly pursued? One of the things about the past is holding people to account, and we desperately need to ensure that in Colombia.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, through the same programme, the CSSF, which has been the main vehicle for delivering much of the support that we have provided Colombia with in this area, we have supported Colombia’s peace and stabilisation programme and launched a £2.1 million project on police innovations for stabilisation in Colombia three years ago. That is supporting the transformation of the Colombian National Police, and the work is ongoing. The embassy regularly reviews the overseas security and justice assistance assessments, including what steps can be taken both to mitigate the risks and to hold wrongdoers to account.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the president, His Excellency Gustavo Petro, recently pointed out that many of the key activists in the ELN are actually Catholic priests who are exponents of so-called liberation theology. I do not want to get the Minister into trouble with the Vatican and incur its wrath, but would he agree with me that the Catholic Church should be more proactive in these negotiations?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I hope I am permitted just to agree with my noble friend. It would be great to see the Vatican using the influence that it clearly has in the region to support the peace process.
Holocaust Memorial
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reconsider the decision to site the Holocaust Memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I will take a minute to send my thoughts to the family of Sir Ben Helfgott. Sir Ben was a Holocaust survivor and an Olympic weightlifting champion. He was also a tireless campaigner for Holocaust education and a huge supporter of the Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I send my thoughts to his family; may he rest in peace.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government remain determined to build a Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens so that the memory and lessons of the Holocaust remain prominent in British life. The Holocaust Memorial Bill currently before Parliament is intended to remove a statutory obstacle and enable progress towards construction. Victoria Tower Gardens is a site that is uniquely capable of meeting the Government’s aspirations for a national Holocaust memorial.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, it is very sad that a memorial to such an appalling crime against humanity should controversially be rammed through against the views of the Royal Parks, Westminster City Council, local residents and so many others. Apart from all the original and obvious objections to the Victoria Tower Gardens site, there are two new factors. First, we now face a major restoration project to the Victoria Tower itself. The scaffolding alone is going to take a year to erect. Imagine the scale of a chaotic construction site with that project, the proposed memorial and, of course, R&R to come.
Secondly, the unfortunate closure of the Jewish Museum London in Camden provides a great opportunity for a new combined museum and Holocaust memorial—a concept supported by Simon Schama, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rabbi Jonathan Romain and many others—on a much more appropriate site. So I implore the Government—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
Would the noble Lord please proceed to a question? I know that Peers feel strongly about this issue, but it is Question Time.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
I implore the Government to think again and preserve and protect our very precious green space.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the memorial is a manifesto commitment which has cross-party support and has been endorsed by all living Prime Ministers. The Chief Rabbi, who sits on the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation comittee, is fully behind the Government’s proposals, as are leading representatives of the Jewish community, other faith and community leaders, survivors, refugees and the wider public. Their voices were heard at the planning inquiry, emphasising the importance of the memorial and learning centre as a way of providing Holocaust victims and the remaining survivors the prominence in this city that they deserve.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, could we hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and then the noble Lord, Lord Pickles?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary president of the National Jewish Assembly. I support the noble Lord, Lord Lee, in drawing attention to the almost total lack of consultation on the memorial. All efforts to open dialogue and to have discussions and round tables have been met with silence, and sometimes abuse. Victoria Tower Gardens is a green enclave, and the dangers of digging down two storeys with piledrivers, which could cause unimaginable damage, have not been taken on board when there are decent alternative sites with as much dignity and more space. I speak for a number of Holocaust survivors in this.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I know how strongly the noble Baroness feels about this issue, and I respect everything she has to say. We have had meetings and we are willing to have more; she only has to get in touch with me. However, the planning inquiry in October 2022 enabled all interested parties to express their views on the proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre, and a full list of witnesses is available in the planning inspector’s report on GOV.UK. Officials regularly meet organisations representing survivors of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution and those representing the survivors of subsequent genocides to discuss the latest developments, and we will continue to do so.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my register of interests, particularly those relating to Holocaust remembrance. I join my noble friend in her tribute to Sir Ben Helfgott. He was, beside other things, a leading light in Holocaust remembrance and a strong advocate of the site in Victoria Tower Gardens. In fact, the last conversation I had with Ben was about his concerns that the Government and Opposition might not fulfil their promise. Does my noble friend agree with me that the announcement made by the Leader of the House in another place that there will be a Second Reading next Wednesday is very welcome? The time for talking is over; it is time for action.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. I look forward to the Second Reading and the Bill beginning to go through Parliament and, subsequently, to the building of this important monument.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
These Benches share the sentiments and the tribute made by the Minister to Sir Ben. If it is built in Victoria Tower Gardens, the memorial will clearly bring many new visitors to Westminster and to Parliament, which I think is a good thing. However, local residents will want to have a park that they can still be proud of and use for their own recreation. How will the Government ensure that the park is still available for local people to enjoy?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The design is sensitive to the heritage and the existing uses of Victoria Tower Gardens; I think it has been misunderstood. The design uses approximately 7.5% of the area of Victoria Tower Gardens, and this project will allow enhancements to be made to the remaining 92.5% of the park. In my opinion, that will help visitors to enjoy the park better, even if they are not attending the memorial.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I very much share the views of my noble friend Lord Lee and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on this out-of-scale proposal, especially in relation to the Buxton anti-slavery memorial. Throughout the process, the Government have refused to publish their assessment of any alternative sites, including some which appear to be eminently suitable, such as the Imperial War Museum—why? Will they do so during the consideration of the Bill?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, all that work was done many years ago, in the early days of this project. We believe that the development will not in any way compromise the Buxton memorial. The design of the Holocaust memorial means that the Buxton memorial will be kept in its current position, with its views preserved. In addition, new landscaping and seating will actually improve the setting of that memorial and the viewing experience from it. The Holocaust memorial will be no higher than the top of the Buxton memorial, and the memorial’s bronze fins will step down progressively to the east in visual deference to the Buxton memorial.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there is no more appropriate location for a memorial that shows what can go wrong when politics is infected by extremism, racism and hatred than here in Westminster, at the centre of our politics. That is the whole point. We have heard all sorts of red herrings about this memorial. It will take up less than 10% of the area of the park, and it is at the opposite end of the park to the Palace of Westminster so will have no impact on the work that is to be done here. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to do everything she possibly can to speed up progress so that Holocaust survivors like Sir Ben, who tragically will not get to see it completed, can be guests of honour at the opening.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his support of this important project. As he said, Victoria Tower Gardens is the most fitting site in terms of the historical, emotional and political significance and its ability to offer the greatest potential impact and visibility for the project. The view of Parliament from the memorial will serve as a permanent reminder that political decisions have far-reaching consequences.
China: High-level Talks
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the high-level talks between the Governments of China and the United States on 18 and 19 June at which both sides agreed to “effectively manage differences and advance dialogue, exchanges and co-operation”, whether they propose to undertake a similar process.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, as set out in the Integrated Review Refresh, China represents an epoch-defining challenge for the UK. China is becoming more authoritarian at home and more aggressive overseas. China is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council, is the world’s second-largest economy, and has an impact on many global issues of importance to the UK. The IRR makes it clear that we will engage with China where it is in our interest to do so, ensuring that we always put our national security first.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. What is the current state of play in relation to bilateral dialogue between China and the UK?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Dialogue is ongoing. The Foreign Secretary is looking right now at options for a potential visit to Beijing in the coming months—details and dates are not yet confirmed. He spoke to his counterpart, Qin Gang, on 20 February, and met him at the G20 in March. He met the Chinese director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs, Wang Yi, at the Munich Security Conference in February, and met the vice-president, Han Zheng, on 5 May. The nature of our relationship with China is very much set out in the integrated review and involves practical and pragmatic discussions.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
But, my Lords, in the list that the Minister just gave the House, he did not refer to the meeting that took place on Tuesday of this week between the Minister of State in his own department, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, and Liu Jianchao, who is notorious for his human rights record in the People’s Republic of China, where he is an active member of the CCP, for his involvement in “Fox Hunt” and Skynet—two particularly awful experiences for people who are persecuted. Given that genocide is under way in Xinjiang, there are daily threats to Taiwan, and 1,200 political prisoners are still in Hong Kong, would we not do better to build up British national resilience rather than continuing dependency on a country which threatens our interests and the rest of the world?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Lord in relation to the need to build that resilience, and I acknowledge that I did not mention that meeting. However, there were many other meetings which I did not mention either. Liu Jianchao is here at the moment to co-host the Great Britain-China Centre’s senior leadership forum, which took place on 20 June. As the noble Lord said, he is a senior figure in the Chinese Communist Party. We support the forum itself; it is probably the most effective forum that allows parliamentarians here to raise concerns—including those around Xinjiang and other issues as well—directly with Chinese officials, and, yes, the Minister of State for the Indo-Pacific attended to give the opening remarks.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Integrated Review Refresh. Instead of flip-flopping between tough talk and muddled actions, we need to develop a strategy in which we challenge, compete and, where we can, co-operate. Does the Minister accept that, to do that, we first need a complete and comprehensive audit of the UK-China relationship—not restricting ourselves to government, by the way, but including the private sector and local government? Can he give us that reassurance that, instead of hiding behind a refresh, he will actually get on and do a proper audit?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the relationship is permanently evolving, which is necessary as times change and things change. The Integrated Review Refresh sets out our approach to China. It is about protecting our national security, aligning with our allies and partners and engaging with China where it is in our interests to do so. We have not committed to publishing a stand-alone China strategy; I note the comments of the noble Lord, and I will certainly convey them to the Minister. However, we will continue to maintain as much transparency as possible and will keep Parliament informed of our approach towards China, both now and as it evolves.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord who asked the Question clearly has close ties and knowledge of China. However, should we not bear in mind that our interests should always be reflected in our relations with any country, and that the way in which China abrogated a treaty over Hong Kong, which had been entered into solemnly, is not exactly encouraging?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right; the UK has been and remains clear that China today is in an ongoing state of non-compliance with the Sino-British joint declaration. We have been clear that the imposition of the national security law and the overhaul of Hong Kong’s electoral system have undermined the civil and political rights that were promised to Hong Kongers under the joint declaration, and we continue to work with our allies to try to hold China to its international obligations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, when Xi Jinping visited this Parliament in 2015, the Conservative Prime Minister hailed the UK as the “best partner” in the West for China. Four Conservative Prime Ministers later, it has been quite hard to find out what that consistent position is, and, as the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has identified, we now have a strategic void with regard to our position on China. Is it still the case, as David Cameron called for in 2015, that
“we should increase our financial and economic co-operation, with the UK as the partner of choice for China in the West”?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I refer back to the suggestion that was put to me earlier, that our policy should be one of building resilience. That means in our supply chains and in terms of inward investment into the UK. It never makes sense for the UK to be overly dependent on any one country, especially if it is as large, powerful and increasingly assertive as China is.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, are the Government not worried about China reaching out to Saudi Arabian companies which have been blacklisted in America, with regard to AI?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am sure that we absolutely should be worried about that. I am afraid that I do not have huge knowledge about this area, or indeed any knowledge, so I will have to defer to the Minister and get back to the noble Baroness.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Secretary of State for the United States recently visited China. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the success or otherwise of that visit?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Secretary Blinken briefed the Foreign Secretary about his visit to Beijing when they met on 20 June. Blinken was in Beijing from 18 to 19 June and met Foreign Minister Qin Gang, top CCP diplomat Wang Yi, as well as President Xi Jinping. Public messaging on the visit has been positive from both sides. The Foreign Secretary was clear in his Mansion House speech that nothing is inevitable about conflict between the US and China, and the IRR, which I mentioned earlier, sets out how we will engage with China where consistent with our interests.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Following the meeting between Secretary Blinken and the Chinese President, the US President Joe Biden described the Chinese President as a dictator. Do His Majesty’s Government agree with that assessment?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The UK’s position on the current Administration in China has been articulated many times by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We believe that, internationally, China has become more assertive, and, as I said at the beginning, domestically, China has become more authoritarian. The language used by the President is of course for the President.
NHS Procurement: Palantir Contract
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Brinton
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the contract awarded to Palantir, what plans it has to ensure that NHS contracts are procured through a public and transparent tender system as outlined in the Procurement Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
All NHS contracts are procured using correct procedures. This is a new transition contract with Palantir, with new and improved contract terms, including robust exit and transition schedules to support transition from Palantir to the new federated data platform supplier. This contract includes additional terms, such as termination for convenience and a six-month break clause. The contract was procured by a compliant and transparent direct award tender process, using a Crown Commercial Service framework agreement.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is not the first closed contract used that way, particularly for Palantir, since 2020. Ministers deliberately excluded the NHS from the new rules in the Procurement Bill, giving the Secretary of State for Health the powers to create regulations, resulting in untransparent closed contracts such as the £24 million Palantir contract just granted. Unlike every other public body and government department, senior NHS leaders are excluded from any restrictions when they move to providers, as happened last year when two senior staff moved to Palantir. These NHS practices are the exact opposite of what the Government hope to achieve in the Procurement Bill. Will Ministers please reconsider bringing the NHS under the Procurement Bill?
Lord Markham (Con)
This was a very sensible move to ensure that the tender process we are going through at the moment allows us to transition to whoever wins the federated data platform. That is a sensible way to do it. It was done according to the Crown Office pre-tendering framework agreement, which is very transparent and well set out. It is normal in these situations that, when you need transition arrangements, you do not want hospitals left in the lurch. You need a transition so that, whoever wins the new bid, hospitals are safe in the meantime.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it is quite easy to invent rules to get away from competitive tender and do direct awards. It goes back to the Horizon Post Office scandal, which is still there 30 years on. Why is this contract exempt from competitive tendering? What is the benefit? Given that the Procurement Bill requires it, why are the Government not doing it?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I said, there is a very clear benefit. We are going through the process of a very large £500 million contract for a data platform that will be key to the NHS. Everyone agrees on the importance of data in health work, but we want to make sure that we have an open process so that suppliers have a chance to win the contract. In any circumstance, you need to make sure that transition arrangements are in place; otherwise, the current supplier is the one most likely to win—if there is a concern about ongoing procedures. By having a transition arrangement in place—clearly, transition can work only with the current supplier—you are making sure that there is an open process for new bidders to come in.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the reason the Minster is able to call this contract “sensible” is that it follows on from a contract given to Palantir that was already granted without tender. This is compounding one after another. To return to my noble friend’s original point, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House why all other public services will be subject to a Procurement Bill that hopes to deliver transparency, fairness and ethical purchasing, yet his department is exempting itself from the Bill?
Lord Markham (Con)
This went through the long-term plan in 2019, and the idea behind it all—it was debated a lot as the Health and Care Act went through—was to provide an approach which allows the flexibility in place here. What we are doing here is very good: I do not think anyone would want to see hospitals left in the lurch and the impact that would have on waiting lists. This makes sure that we have a robust situation in place so that we have an open tender, which we are going through the process of right now to get the best solution for the NHS—something which I think we all want.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will recall that the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, and followed up by Professor Briggs with the Getting it Right First Time programme, has made significant improvements in how the NHS procures its services. During the debates on the Procurement Bill—I hope my noble friend will say that this will indeed be taken up in the NHS—we talked about the promotion of innovation through public procurement. I wonder whether the Getting it Right First Time programme could be a mechanism for that, by bringing evidence-based innovation to the attention of procurement managers across the NHS.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. This is absolutely about enabling innovation: the data platform is there so that providers can use it to innovate. We all hear about AI, and AI depends on data. This puts in place a data platform that AI can use. It can also be used for scheduling appointments—currently done in 32 hospitals—and for the dynamic discharge of waiting lists. All those applications can work in place only if we have an open tender process, which is exactly what we are doing here, while making sure that transitions are in place so that no hospital is left in the lurch in the meantime.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, one of the issues raised during the passage of the Procurement Bill and, certainly, in the context of transparency, efficiency and getting value for money, was the keeping of some 118 million items of PPE in storage in the People’s Republic of China, at a cost of millions of pounds to British taxpayers. I have also raised this directly with the Minister. Can he give us an update as to what has happened to those items? Will they stay in storage? Are we continuing to pay and, if so, at what cost, or are we going to dispose of them? What lessons have we learned from that?
Lord Markham (Con)
As I said in a previous Answer, we are in the process of disposing of those contracts. On many occasions, it is easy to look with hindsight. Noble Lords may remember that, at the time, there was a massive rush and countries were gazumping each other to get hold of PPE. It was very much the feeling of this House, and all the people in the UK, that we had to desperately contract suppliers to do it. Did we make mistakes? Yes. Were we right on more than 90% of occasions? Absolutely. To keep the front line going, we needed to order more than 9 billion essential items, and we did so using the very system that we are talking about here in respect of Palantir. There are circumstances—Covid is a prime example—where it is appropriate to do those sorts of direct awards. That notwithstanding, I think we all fundamentally agree that an open, transparent and competitive tendering process will always be preferable.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, the £25 million contract awarded this week is a drop in the ocean compared with the £480 million that is on its way. The scope of the federated data platform is vague, but there is no doubt that the data it stores will be both vast and sensitive, so it is vital that any procurement process is fair and transparent and enables the public to engage with it so that the system works as intended. However, 48% of adults, when asked, said that they were likely to opt out if it was introduced and run by a private company. This would have a catastrophic impact on the quality of NHS data, which is an extremely valuable resource. Do the Government recognise this as a risk? How will they ensure that we have public faith in the process?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct: public confidence is vital, particularly in the case of data, where we are concerned about privacy. We are arranging a briefing of noble Lords so that everyone can have the opportunity to understand what we are talking about here, which is almost like the plumbing of the system. The NHS maintains primacy of use—it is the only organisation allowed to use it—and privacy will be maintained at all times. It is much better to think of whoever wins this contract—we do not know who they are—as just the technology provider, like Microsoft, for instance. We use private sector companies for technology all the time. The key thing is that the provider is protected. That is the NHS, and no one else can get access.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the plumbing, but is it not the case that, with this further contract, which has had no tendering, Palantir’s Foundry system is further embedded in the federated data platform of the NHS, and what we are effectively seeing is what the Doctors’ Association UK calls a “monopoly lock-in” that is therefore a shoe-in for the award of the next contract?
Lord Markham (Con)
Actually, it is the opposite. It absolutely lets bidders know that, when we are assessing who the best bidder is, we are looking only at who is the best provider. We do not need to have any concerns at all about continuity or risks because we are giving them plenty of time to get their new contract and systems in place. We do not need to worry about any services being lost in the meantime.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, Palantir is a data analytical company. It wants our data. In cases where it has been in business with other people, it has used that data and sold it under the surveillance capital model. Is the Minister absolutely confident that we are safe in entrusting all of the NHS’s data to an American company? It seems to me that that is not in the best interests of a not-for-profit organisation such as the NHS.
Lord Markham (Con)
Yes. I really appreciate having this opportunity to state categorically that the NHS will remain the data user here. The data controller will remain in place for each individual institution; sometimes it is the GP and sometimes it is the hospital. Fundamentally, everyone’s data will be allowed to be used only by the NHS in these circumstances. There are no circumstances in which Palantir—or any other supplier should it win—will have access to see individuals’ data.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, health service data is incredibly valuable. The Minister should, and probably does, understand the sensitivity of Palantir in this context. The Minister said that the quality of the contract was the only criterion. Where does price come into it? How can we build in protections against predatory pricing by the sitting tenants of contracts, who create an effective monopoly?
Lord Markham (Con)
I think I said that we wanted the best supplier to win; I will check and correct the record if I mentioned quality only. Quality is very important because the contract has to be good, of course, but the price has to be right as well. There are a number of criteria. Again, we will hold a session so will be able to take noble Lords through the whole process. I am confident that, at the end of that process, people will feel confident that we have reached a decision on the best supplier across all the criteria.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, press coverage of this contract has indicated that an alternative British consortium was prepared for this contract. Can the Government confirm whether they examined alternative bidders, in particular British ones, given that the issue of trust in the use of data is an important one? As the noble Baroness remarked, trust in Palantir as a supplier is absent from substantial chunks of the NHS.
Lord Markham (Con)
Again, it is important to say that the whole point of this transition arrangement was to allow us to have an open bidding process across loads of suppliers, knowing that, when they were able to put their solution in place, their transition arrangements were in place. That opened up the field to British suppliers and suppliers from around the world. We have had an open process, which has been going on for a number of months now and continues. We expect a contract award around autumn time and I can assure the noble Lord that we have looked at a whole range of suppliers to make sure that we get the best outcome.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm something that he said in a previous answer: namely, that whoever wins the federated data platform contract will not have the right to use any NHS data outside the terms of that contract? Secondly, assuming that the current provider, Palantir, does not get the contract, will the NHS put in place by the end of this transition period procedures to ensure that all the data and access that Palantir had is removed safely so that there is no ongoing situation?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to clarify that absolutely. The answer is yes on both counts. If Palantir is not successful in winning the contract, no data will remain on its systems; it will be transferred over completely and, as the noble Lord says, whoever ends up winning the contract will be allowed to use that data only in an NHS context—that is, in no other context at all.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify when he expects the large contract of nearly £500 million to be awarded?
Lord Markham (Con)
Round about autumn time. Currently, we think that the contract will be awarded in September and then finalised. The new database should in place by April. Having this transition arrangement until June gives us a safety net to make sure that everything is in place.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity of a meeting to discuss data security. Can the Minister say whether it is anticipated that that security will go beyond what is currently being established in legislation going through Parliament? If it will be stronger, why are the other protections not stronger?
Lord Markham (Con)
I am sorry; I am not sure that I completely followed the question. It is fundamental here that everyone’s data is strongly protected in the best possible terms. As I say, we will arrange in the next few weeks a meeting where we can answer all the questions that noble Lords have and have the experts in the room as well.
Online Safety Bill
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(1 year, 4 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)-X Tenth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2023)
Baroness Kidron
“(o) the purpose of obtaining information relevant to the death of a child (as defined in section (Duties of OFCOM in certain cases where a child has died)(3)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Baroness Kidron’s amendment after Clause 117 which would add a new Clause imposing express duties on OFCOM in certain cases where a child has died.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, first, I want to recognise the bravery of the families of Olly, Breck, Molly, Frankie and Sophie in campaigning for the amendments we are about to discuss. I also pay tribute to Mia, Archie, Isaac, Maia and Aime, whose families I met this morning on their way to the House. It is a great privilege to stand alongside them and witness their courage and dignity in the face of unimaginable grief. On behalf of myself, my co-signatories—the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan—and the huge number of Peers and MPs who have supported these amendments, I thank them for their work and the selflessness they have shown in their determination to ensure that other families do not suffer as they have.
This group includes Amendments 198, 199, 215 and 216, which, together, would create a pathway for coroners and, by extension, families to get access to information relevant to the death of a child from technology services. The amendments would put an end to the inhumane situation whereby coroners and families in crisis are forced to battle faceless corporations to determine whether a child’s engagement with a digital service contributed to their death. Bereaved families have a right to know what happened to their children, and coroners have a duty to ensure that lessons are learned and that those who have failed in their responsibilities are held accountable.
Since the Minister is going to be the bearer of good news this afternoon, I will take the time to make arguments for the amendments as they stand. I simply say that, while parents have been fighting for access to information, those same companies have continued to suggest friends, material and behaviours that drive children into places and spaces in which they are undermined, radicalised into despair and come to harm. In no other circumstance would it be acceptable to withhold relevant information from a court procedure. It is both immoral and a failure of justice if coroners cannot access and review all relevant evidence. For the families, it adds pain to heartbreak as they are unable to come to terms with what has happened because there is still so much that they do not know.
I am grateful to the Government for agreeing to bring forward on Report amendments that will go a very long way towards closing the loopholes that allow companies to refuse coroners’ demands and ignore parents’ entreaties. The Government’s approach is somewhat different from that in front of us, but it covers the same ground. These amendments are the result of the considerable efforts of Ministers and officials from DSIT and the Ministry of Justice, with the invaluable support of the right honourable Sajid Javid MP. I wish to note on the record the leadership of the Secretary of State, who is currently on leave, and the Minister here, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson.
The Government’s amendments will create an express power for Ofcom to require information from services about a deceased child user’s online activity following the receipt of a Schedule 5 request from a coroner. This will vastly increase the reach and power of that coroner. Information that Ofcom can request from regulated companies under the Online Safety Bill is extremely wide and includes detailed data on what is recommended; the amount of time the child spent on the service when they accessed it; their user journey; what content they liked, shared, rewatched, paused and reported; and whether other users raised red flags about the child’s safety or well-being before their death.
Information notices prompted by a Schedule 5 request from a coroner will be backed by Ofcom’s full enforcement powers and will apply to all regulated companies. If a service fails to comply, it may be subject to enforcement action, including senior management liability and fines of up to £18 million or 10% of global turnover—vastly different from the maximum fine of £1,000 under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Moreover, these amendments will give coroners access to Ofcom’s expertise and understanding of how online services work and of online services’ safety duties to children. Also, there will be provisions empowering Ofcom to share information freely to assist coroners in their inquiries. Companies must provide a dedicated means of communication to manage requests for information from bereaved parents and provide written responses to those requests. I look forward to the Minister setting out that these will be operated by a team of experts and backed up by Ofcom in ensuring that the communication is adequate, timely and not obstructive. Importantly, if the communication is not adequate, bereaved families will be able to notify Ofcom.
There are a small number of outstanding questions. We remain concerned that only larger companies will be required to set out their policies on disclosure. Sadly, children are often coerced and nudged into smaller sites that have less robust safety mechanisms. Small is not safe. A further issue is to ensure that a coroner is able, via a Schedule 5 notice given to Ofcom, to compel senior management to appear at an inquest. This is a crucial ask of the legal community, who battled and failed to get companies to attend inquests, notably Wattpad at the Frankie Thomas inquest and Snap Inc at Molly Russell’s inquest. Can the Minister undertake to close these gaps before Report?
A number of matters sit outside the scope of the Online Safety Bill. I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State for committing in writing to further work beyond the Bill to ensure that the UK’s approach is comprehensive and watertight. The Government will be exploring ways in which the Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill can support and complement these provisions, including the potential for a code that requires data preservation if a parent or enforcement officer contacts a helpline or if there is constructive knowledge, such as when a death has been widely reported, even before a Schedule 5 notice has been delivered.
The Government are engaging with the Chief Coroner to provide training in order to ensure that coroners have the knowledge they need to carry out inquests where children’s engagement with online services is a possible factor in their death. I am concerned about the funding of this element of the Government’s plans and urge the Minister to indicate whether this could be part of Ofcom’s literacy duties and therefore benefit from the levy. Possibly most importantly, the Secretary of State has undertaken to approach the US Government to ensure that coroners can review private messages that fall outside the scope of this Bill in cases where a child’s death is being investigated. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, for his support in articulating the issue, and accept the invitation to work alongside the department to achieve this.
There are only two further things to say. First, delivery is in the drafting, and I hope that when he responds, the Minister will assure the House that we will see the proposed amendments well before Report so that we can ensure that this works as we have all agreed. Secondly, the Government are now looking very carefully at other amendments which deal with prevention of harm in one way or another. I share the gratitude of Bereaved Parents for Online Safety for the work that has gone into this set of amendments. However, we want to see safety by design; a comprehensive list of harms to children in the Bill, including harms caused or amplified by the design of service; principles for age assurance which ensure that the systems put in place by regulated services are measurable, secure and fit for purpose; and a proper complaints service, so that children have somewhere to turn when things go wrong. What we have been promised is a radical change of status for the coroner and for the bereaved families. What we want is fewer dead children. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, some of the issues that we have been dealing with in this Bill are more abstract or generic harms, but here we are responding to a specific need of families in the UK who are facing the most awful of circumstances.
I want to recognise the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her direct support for many of those families, and for her persistent efforts to use policy and the tools we have available to us here to improve the situation for families who, sadly, will face similar tragedies in future. I appreciate the time that she has spent with me in the spirit of finding workable solutions. It is an alliance that might seem improbable, given our respective responsibilities, which have sometimes placed us in publicly adversarial roles. However, one of the strengths of this Committee process is that it has allowed us to focus on what is important and to find that we have more in common than separates us. Nothing could be more important than the issue we are dealing with now.
I am pleased that it looks like we will be able to use this Bill to make some significant improvements in this area to address the challenges faced by those families, some of whom are here today, challenges which add to their already heart-wrenching distress. The first challenge these families face is to find someone at an online service who is willing and able to answer their questions about their loved one’s use of that platform. This question about contacts at online platforms is not limited to these cases but comes up in other areas.
As noble Lords will know, I used to work for Facebook, where I was often contacted by all sorts of Governments asking me to find people in companies, often smaller companies, concerning very serious issues such as terrorism. Even when they were dealing with the distribution of terrorist content, they would find it very challenging. There is a generic problem around getting hold of people at platforms. A real strength of the Online Safety Bill is that it will necessarily require Ofcom to develop contacts at all online services that offer user-to-user and search services to people in the UK. The Government estimate that 25,000 entities are involved. We are talking about Ofcom building a comprehensive database of pretty much any service that matters to people in the UK.
Primarily, these contacts will be safety focused, as their main responsibility will be to provide Ofcom with evidence that the service is meeting its duties of care under the Bill, so again, they will have the right people in the right companies on their database in future. Importantly, Ofcom will have a team of several hundred people, paid for by a levy on these regulated services, to manage the contacts at the right level. We can expect that, certainly for the larger services, there may be a team of several people at Ofcom dedicated to working with them, whereas for the smaller services it may be a pooled arrangement whereby one Ofcom staff member deals with a group. However, in all cases there will be someone at the regulator with a responsibility for liaising with those companies. We do not expect Ofcom to use those contacts to resolve questions raised by individuals in the UK as a matter of course, but it makes sense to make this channel available where there is a relatively small number of highly impactful cases such as we are dealing with here.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, with these amendments. I also welcome the fact that we have, I hope, reached the final day of this stage of the Bill, which means that it is getting closer to becoming an Act of Parliament. The amendments to these clauses are a very good example of why the Bill needs to become an Act sooner rather than later.
As we heard during our earlier debates, social media platforms have for far too long avoided taking responsibility for the countless harms that children face on their services. We have, of course, heard about Molly Russell’s tragic death and heard from the coroner’s inquest report that it was on Instagram that Molly viewed some of the most disturbing posts. Despite this, at the inquest Meta’s head of health and well-being policy shied away from taking blame and claimed that the posts which the coroner said contributed to Molly’s death
“in a more than minimal way”
were, in Meta’s words, “safe”. Molly’s family and others have to go through the unthinkable when they lose their child in such a manner. Their lives can be made so much harder when they attempt to access their child’s social media accounts and activities only to be denied by the platforms.
The noble Baroness’s various amendments are not only sensible but absolutely the right thing to do. In many ways, it is a great tragedy that we have had to wait for this piece of primary legislation for these companies to start being compelled and told. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Allan, very rationally said—companies should very much welcome these amendments—but it is a great shame that often they have not behaved better in these circumstances previously.
There is perhaps no point going into the details, because we want to hear from the Minister about what the Government will propose. I welcome the fact that the Government have engaged early-ish on these amendments and on these matters.
The amendments would force platforms to comply with coroners in investigations into the death of a child, have a named senior manager in relation to inquests and allow easier access to a child’s social media account for bereaved families. We will have to see what the Government’s amendments do to reflect that. One of the areas that the noble Baroness said had perhaps not been buttoned down is the responsibility for a named senior manager in relation to an inquest. This is requiring that:
“If Ofcom has issued a notice to a service provider they must name a senior manager responsible for providing material on behalf of the service and to inform that individual of the consequences for not complying”.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, set out very clearly why having a named contact in these companies is important. Bereaved families find it difficult, if not impossible, to make contact with tech companies: they get lost in the automated systems and, if they are able to access a human being, they are told that the company cannot or will not give that information. We know that different coroners have had widely differing experiences getting information from the social media platforms, some refusing altogether and others obfuscating. Only a couple of companies have co-operated fully, and in only one or two instances. Creating a single point of contact, who understands the law—which, as we have just heard, is not necessarily always straightforward, particularly if it involves different jurisdictions—understands what is technically feasible and has the authority and powers afforded to the regulator will ensure a swifter, more equitable and less distressing process.
I have really set this out because we will obviously hear what the Minister will set out, but if it does not reflect having a named senior manager, then I hope very much that we are able to discuss that between this and the next stage.
Social media platforms have a responsibility to keep their users safe. When they fail, they should be obligated to co-operate with families and investigations, rather than seeking to evade them. Seeing what their child was viewing online before their death will not bring that child back, but it will help families on their journey towards understanding what their young person was going through, and towards seeking justice. Likewise, ensuring that platforms comply with inquests will help to ease the considerable strain on bereaved families. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments or to listen to what the Government say. Hopefully, we can come up with a combined effort to put an end to the agony that these families have been through.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and other noble Lords. I, too, acknowledge the campaign group Bereaved Families for Online Safety, which has worked so closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, 5Rights and the NSPCC to bring these essential changes forward.
Where a child has died, sadly, and social media is thought to have played a part, families and coroners have faced years of stonewalling, often never managing to access data or information relevant to that death; this adds greatly to their grief and delays the finding of some kind of closure. We must never again see a family treated as Molly Russell’s family was treated, when it took five years of campaigning to get partial sight of material that the coroner found so distressing that he concluded that it contributed to her death in a more than minimal way; nor can it be acceptable for a company to refuse to co-operate, as in the case of Frankie Thomas, where Wattpad failed to provide the material requested by the coroner on the grounds that it is not based within the UK’s jurisdiction. With the threat of a fine of only £1,000 to face, companies feel little need to comply. These amendments would mean that tech companies now had to comply with Ofcom’s information notices or face a fine of up to 10% of their global revenue.
Coroners’ powers must be strengthened by giving Ofcom the duty and power to require relevant information from companies in cases where there is reason to suspect that a regulated service provider may hold information relevant to a child’s death. Companies may not want to face up to the role they have played in the death of a child by their irresponsible recommending and pushing of violent, sexual, depressive and pro-suicide material through algorithmic design, but they need to be made to answer when requested by a coroner on behalf of a bereaved family.
Amendment 215 requires a named senior manager, a concept that I am thankful is already enshrined in the Bill, to receive and respond to an information notice from Ofcom to ensure that a child’s information, including their interactions and behaviour and the actions of the regulated service provider, is preserved and made available. This could make a profound difference to how families will be treated by these platforms in future. Too often in the past, they have been evasive and unco-operative, adding greatly to the inconsolable grief of such bereaved parents. As Molly Russell's father Ian said:
“Having lived through Molly’s extended inquest, we think it is important that in future, after the death of a child, authorities’ access to data becomes … a matter of course”
and
“A more compassionate, efficient and speedy process”.
I was going to ask the Government to accept these amendments but, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I am looking forward to their proposals. We must ensure that a more humane route for families and coroners to access data relating to the death of a child is at last available in law.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and other noble Lords. I have listened to noble Lords, so I am not going to repeat what has been said. I pay my respects to the family because as someone who is still going through the criminal justice system, I absolutely feel the anguish of these families.
While we are talking about a digital platform, we are also talking about human lives, and that is what we have to remain focused on. I am not a techno, and all these words in the digital world sound like a lot of Japanese to me. I am not ignorant about what noble Lords are saying, but it has made me realise that, while we have gone forward, for a lot of people and families it still feels like wading through jelly.
I want to speak about how the families will feel and how they will connect through all of these gateways to get what they should quite rightly have about their loved ones’ lives and about what has been said about them online. Surely the platforms should have a duty of care, then perhaps we would not be here discussing these amendments. Noble Lords have spoken about the technical aspects of these amendments. By that, we mean data and the role of the coroner. As a former victims’ commissioner, I had many discussions with the Chief Coroner about other victims who have suffered loss as well. I think that people do not understand how victims’ families feel in the courtroom because you feel alone, and I imagine there are more legal aspects from these mega companies than these families can afford.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, following on from the excellent points that the noble Baroness has made, I want to pursue the same direction. In this group of amendments we are essentially trying to reduce the incidence of tragedies such as those that the families there in the Gallery have experienced and trying to ensure that no one—that is probably unrealistic, but at least far fewer people—will have the same experience.
I particularly want to focus the Minister and the Bill team on trying to think through how to ensure that, as and when something tragic happens, what happens to the families faced with that—the experience that they have and the help that I hope in future they will be able to receive—will make it a less traumatic, lonely and baffling experience than it clearly has been to date.
At the heart of this, we are talking about communication; about the relationship between Ofcom and the platforms; probably about the relationships between platforms and other platforms, in sharing knowledge; about the relationship between Ofcom and government; about the relationship between Ofcom and regulators in other jurisdictions; and about the relationship between our Government and other Governments, including, most importantly, the Government in the US, where so many of these platforms are based. There is a network of communication that has to work. By its very nature, trying to capture something as all-encompassing as that in primary legislation will in some ways be out of date before it even hits the statute book. It is therefore incredibly important that there is a dynamic information-sharing and analytics process to understand what is going on in the online world, and what the experience is of individuals who are interacting with that world.
That brings me neatly back to an amendment that we have previously discussed, which I suspect the noble Viscount sitting on the Front Bench will remember in painful detail. When we were talking about the possibility of having an independent ombudsman to go to, what we heard from all around the House was, “Where do we go? If we have gone to the platforms and through the normal channels but are getting nowhere, where do we go? Are we on our own?”. The answer that we felt we were getting a few weeks ago was, “That’s it, you’ve got to lump it”. That is simply not acceptable.
I ask the Minister and the Bill team to ensure that there is recognition of the dynamic nature of what we are dealing with. We cannot capture it in primary legislation. I hope we cannot capture it in secondary instruments either; speaking as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we have quite enough of them as it is so we do not want any more, thank you very much. However, it is incredibly important that the Government think about a dynamic form of having up-to-date information so that they and all the other parties in this area know what is going on.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I pay tribute to the families who I see are watching us as we debate this important group. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Newlove, who has just given one of the most powerful speeches in the full 10 days of Committee.
The real sadness is that we are debating what happens when things go horribly wrong. I thank my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State, who is currently on leave, for the very collaborative way in which I know they have approached trying to find the right package—we are all waiting for him to stand up and speak to show us this. Very often, Governments do not want to give concessions early in the process of a Bill going through because they worry that those of us campaigning for concessions will then ask for more. In this case, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has just pointed to, all we are asking for in this Bill is to remember that a concession granted here helps only when things have gone horribly wrong.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, what we really want is a safer internet, where fewer children die. I reiterate the comments that she made at the end of her speech: as we have gone through Committee, we have all learned how interconnected the Bill is. It is fantastic that we will be able to put changes into it that will enable bereaved families not to have to follow the path that the Russells and all the other bereaved families campaigning for this had to follow—but that will not be enough. We also need to ensure that we put in place the safety-by-design amendments that we have been discussing. I argue that one of the most important is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has just referenced: when you already know that your child is in trouble but you cannot get help, unfortunately no one wants then to be able to say, “It’s okay. Bereaved families have what they need”. We need to do more than that.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very moving debate for a very important cause. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for introducing it in the way that she did, along with those who have spoken in the debate.
The good news is that this is very much a cross-party and cross-Bench debate. It clearly appears to be a concern that the Government share, and I appreciate that. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that it is not a weakness for the Government to concede here but very much the logic of where we have now got to. Compared with what is in the Joint Committee report on the draft Bill, what seems to be proposed—and I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say—goes further than what we were proposing, so it may be that we have reached another milestone. However, we wait to hear the detail.
Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the bereaved parents. We heard from parents during our consideration of the draft Online Safety Bill and we have heard further since then, particularly as a result of the two notable inquests into the deaths of Frankie Thomas and Molly Russell, which highlighted the difficulties that families and coroners face. Both families talked about the additional toll on their mental health as they battle for information, and the impossibility of finding closure in the absence of answers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said in her very moving speech that a humane process must be established for bereaved families and coroners to access data pertinent to the death of a child. That is what we have been seeking, and I pay tribute to the relentless way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has pursued this issue on behalf of us all, supported by 5Rights and the NSPCC. We must have a transparent process in which bereaved families and coroners can access information from regulated services in cases where social media may have played a part in the death of a child.
My noble friend Lord Allan—who I am delighted is so plugged in to what could be the practical way of solving some of these issues—expertly described how Ofcom’s powers could and should be used and harnessed for this purpose. That very much goes with the grain of the Bill.
I shall repeat a phrase that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, used: the current situation is immoral and a failure of justice. We absolutely need to keep that in mind as we keep ourselves motivated to find the solution as soon as we possibly can. I look forward to good news from the Minister about the use of information notices for the purpose that has been heralded by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, but of course the devil is in the detail. We will obviously want to see the detail of the amendment well before Report.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am all that is left between us and hearing from the Minister with his good news, so I will constrain my comments accordingly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, begin by paying tribute to the parents of Olly, Breck, Molly, Frankie and Sophie. I very much join her in doing that; to continually have to come to this place and share their trauma and experience comes at a great emotional cost. We are all very grateful to them for doing it and for continuing to inform and motivate us in trying to do the right thing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Healy and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for amplifying that voice and talking about the lost opportunity, to an extent, of our failure to find a way of imposing a general duty of care on the platforms, as was the original intention when the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was the Secretary of State.
I also pay a big tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. She has done the whole House, the country and the world a huge service in her campaigning around this and in her influence on Governments—not just this one—on these issues. We would not be here without her tireless efforts, and it is important that we acknowledge that.
We need to ensure that coroners can access the information they need to do their job, and to have proper sanctions available to them when they are frustrated in being able to do it. This issue is not without complication, and I very much welcome the Government’s engagement in trying to find a way through it. I too look forward to the good news that has been trailed; I hope that the Minister will be able to live up to his billing. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I would love to see him embrace, at the appropriate time, the “safety by design” amendments and some others that could complete this picture. I also look forward to his answers on issues such as data preservation, which the noble Lord, Lord Allan, covered among the many other things in his typically fine speech.
I very much agree that we should have a helpline and do more about that. Some years ago, when my brother-in-law sadly died in his 30s, it fell to me to try to sort out his social media accounts. I was perplexed that the only way I could do it was by fax to these technology companies in California. That was very odd, so to have proper support for bereaved families going through their own grief at that moment seems highly appropriate.
As we have discussed in the debates on the Bill, a digital footprint is an asset that is exploited by these companies. But it is an asset that should be regarded as part of one’s estate that can be bequeathed to one’s family; then some of these issues would perhaps be lessened. On that basis, and in welcoming a really strong and moving debate, I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a strong and moving debate, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for bringing forward these amendments and for the way she began it. I also echo the thanks that the noble Baroness and others have given to the families of Breck Bednar, Sophie Parkinson, Molly Russell, Olly Stephens, Frankie Thomas and all the young people whose names she rightly held in remembrance at the beginning of this debate. There are too many others who find themselves in the same position. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, is right to pay tribute to their tirelessness in campaigning, given the emotional toll that we know it has on them. I know that they have followed the sometimes arcane processes of legislation and, as my noble friend Lady Morgan said, we all look forward to the Bill becoming an Act of Parliament so that it can make a difference to families who we wish to spare from the heartache they have had.
Every death is sorrowful, but the death of a child is especially heartbreaking. The Government take the issues of access to information relating to a deceased child very seriously. We have undertaken extensive work across government and beyond to understand the problems that parents, and coroners who are required to investigate such deaths, have faced in the past in order to bring forward appropriate solutions. I am pleased to say that, as a result of that work, and thanks to the tireless campaigning of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and our discussions with those who, very sadly, have first-hand experience of these problems, we will bring forward a package of measures on Report to address the issues that parents and coroners have faced. Our amendments have been devised in close consultation with the noble Baroness and bereaved families. I hope the measures will rise to the expectations they rightly have and that they will receive their support.
The package of amendments will ensure that coroners have access to the expertise and information they need to conduct their investigations, including information held by technology companies, regardless of size, and overseas services such as Wattpad, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Healy of Primrose Hill, in her contribution. This includes information about how a child interacted with specific content online as well as the role of wider systems and processes, such as algorithms, in promoting it. The amendments we bring forward will also help to ensure that the process for accessing data is more straightforward and humane. The largest companies must ensure that they are transparent with parents about their options for accessing data and respond swiftly to their requests. We must ensure that companies cannot stonewall parents who have lost a child and that those parents are treated with the humanity and compassion they deserve.
I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly makes: small does not mean safe. All platforms will be required to comply with Ofcom’s requests for information about a deceased child’s online activity. That will be backed by Ofcom’s existing enforcement powers, so that where a company refuses to provide information without a valid excuse it may be subject to enforcement action, including sanctions on senior managers. Ofcom will also be able to produce reports for coroners following a Schedule 5 request on matters relevant to an investigation or inquest. This could include information about a company’s systems and processes, including how algorithms have promoted specific content to a child. This too applies to platforms of any size and will ensure that coroners are provided with information and expertise to assist them in understanding social media.
Where this Bill cannot solve an issue, we are exploring alternative avenues for improving outcomes as well. For example, the Chief Coroner has committed to consider issuing non-legislative guidance and training for coroners about social media, with the offer of consultation with experts.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. On the coroners’ training and national guidelines, the Chief Coroner has no powers across the nation over all the coroners. How is he or she going to check that the coroners are keeping up with their training and are absolutely on the ball? The Chief Coroner has no powers across the country and everything happens in London; we are talking about outside London. How can we know that no other family has to suffer, considering that we have this legislation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend rightly pulled me up for not responding to her letter as speedily as we have been dealing with the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We have had some useful meetings with Ministers at the Ministry of Justice, which the noble Baroness has attended. I would be very happy to provide some detail on this to my noble friend—I am conscious of her experience as Victims’ Commissioner—either in writing or to organise a briefing if she would welcome that.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, rightly raised data protection. Where Ofcom and companies are required to respond to coroners’ requests for information, they are already required to comply with personal data protection legislation, which protects the privacy of other users. This may include the redaction of information that would identify other users. We are also exploring whether guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office could support technology companies to understand how data protection law applies in such cases.
The noble Lord mentioned the challenges of potential conflicts of law around the world. Where there is a conflict of laws—for example, due to data protection laws in other jurisdictions—Ofcom will need to consider the best way forward on a case-by-case basis. For example, it may request alternative information which could be disclosed, and which would provide insight into a particular issue. We will seek to engage our American counterparts to understand any potential and unintended barriers created by the US Stored Communications Act. I can reassure the noble Lord that these matters are in our mind.
We are also aware of the importance of data preservation to both coroners and bereaved parents. The Government agree with the principle of ensuring that these are preserved. We will be working towards solving this in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. In addition, we will explore whether there are further options to improve outcomes for parents in that Bill as well. I want to assure noble Lords and the families watching this debate closely that we will do all we can to deliver the necessary changes to give coroners and parents the information that they seek and to ensure a more straightforward and humane process in the future.
I turn in detail to the amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, brought forward. First, Amendments 215 and 216 include new requirements on Ofcom, seeking to ensure that coroners and parents can obtain data from social media companies after the death of a child. Amendment 215 would give Ofcom the ability to impose senior management liability on an individual in cases where a coroner has issued a notice requiring evidence to be provided in an inquest into the death of a child. Amendment 216 would put Ofcom’s powers at the disposal of a coroner or close relatives of a deceased child so that Ofcom would be obliged to require information from platforms or other persons about the social media activity of a deceased child. It also requires service providers to provide a point of contact. Amendments 198 and 199 are consequential to this.
As I said, we agree with the intent of the noble Baroness’s amendments and we will deal with it in the package that we will bring forward before Report. Our changes to the Bill will seek to ensure that Ofcom has the powers it needs to support coroners and their equivalents in Scotland, so that they have access to the information they need to conduct investigations into a child’s death where social media may have played a part.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I do indeed welcome it. I do not feel I can do justice to all the speakers; I think I will cry, as I did when the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, was speaking. I shall not do that, but I will thank all noble Lords from the bottom of my heart and will speak to just a couple of technical matters.
First, I accept the help of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, on the progress of the data protection negotiations with the US Government. That will be very helpful. I want to put on the record that there has been a lot of discussion about the privacy of other users and ensuring that it is central, particularly because other young people are in these interactions and we have to protect them, too. That is very much in our mind.
I welcome and thank the Minister. He said a couple of things, including that he hoped that what he will bring forward will rise to the expectation—so do I. The expectation is set high, and I hope that the Government rise to it. In relation to that, I note that a number of noble Lords carefully planted their expectations in Hansard. I will be giving the noble Lord a highlighter so that he can find them. I note that it was a particular skill of the ex-Secretary of State for DCMS, for laying down the things she expected to see.
I understood “exploring” and “in our mind”; the Government have certain things in their mind. I understand the context of that because we are talking about other Bills and things that are yet to come. I want to make a statement—I do not know whether it is a promise or a threat; I rather suspect it is both. I will not rest until this entire ecosystem is sorted. This is not about winning an amendment or a concession. This is about putting it right for families and, indeed, for coroners, who are not doing a good job under the current regime.
Finally, I echo those who have pointed out the other amendments that we are seeking on safety by design, age assurance and having the harms in the Bill. I believe I speak for Bereaved Parents for Online Safety; that is what they wish to see come from their pain. It has been the privilege of my life to deal with these parents and these families and I thank the Committee for its support. With my conditions set out, I wish to withdraw my amendment.
“Amendment of Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001
(1) The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 is amended as follows.(2) In section 57(1) (retention of seized items), after paragraph (t) insert—“(u) paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the Online Safety Act 2023.”(3) In section 65 (meaning of “legal privilege”)—(a) after subsection (8B) insert—“(8C) An item which is, or is comprised in, property which has been seized in exercise or purported exercise of the power of seizure conferred by paragraph 7(f), (j) or (k) of Schedule 12 to the Online Safety Act 2023 is to be taken for the purposes of this Part to be an item subject to legal privilege if, and only if, the seizure of that item was in contravention of paragraph 17(3) of that Schedule (privileged information or documents).”;(b) in subsection (9)—(i) at the end of paragraph (d) omit “or”;(ii) at the end of paragraph (e) insert “or”;(iii) before the closing words insert—“(g) paragraph 7(f), (j) or (k) of Schedule 12 to the Online Safety Act 2023.”(4) In Part 1 of Schedule 1 (powers of seizure to which section 50 of the Act applies), after paragraph 73U insert—“Online Safety Act 202373V Each of the powers of seizure conferred by paragraph 7(f), (j) and (k) of Schedule 12 to the Online Safety Act 2023.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect of providing that section 50 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (additional powers of seizure from premises) applies to the powers of seizure under paragraph 7(f), (j) and (k) of Schedule 12 to the Bill; and makes related amendments to that Act.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that the requirement in clause 110(7) regarding which content is communicated publicly is relevant to user-to-user services and may apply in both the cases mentioned in clause 110(2)(a)(i) and (ii).
Lord Bethell
“Notice by OFCOM to payment-services providers and ancillary services
(1) Where OFCOM have issued a provisional notice of contravention to a regulated service, which specifies the person has failed, or is failing, to comply with a duty or requirement in section 72 (duties about regulated provider pornographic content), it must give notice of that fact to any payment-services provider or ancillary service.(2) A notice under subsection (1) must—(a) identify the regulated service in such manner as OFCOM considers appropriate,(b) state whether the provisional notice of contravention relates to a duty under subsection (2) or (3) of section 72, or duties under both,(c) give OFCOM’s reasons for their opinion that the regulated service has failed, or is failing, to comply with it, and(d) provide such further particulars as OFCOM consider appropriate.(3) When OFCOM give notice under this section, OFCOM must inform the regulated service, by notice, that they have done so.(4) In this section—“ancillary service” has the same meaning as in section 131(11);“payment-services provider” means a person who appears to OFCOM to provide services, in the course of a business, which enable funds to be transferred in connection with the payment by any person for access to pornographic content made available on the internet by the regulated service;“pornographic content” has the meaning given by section 70(2);“provisional notice of contravention” has the same meaning as in section 118(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires OFCOM to notify payment-service providers and ancillary services of a regulated service which is found to have breached duties relating to pornographic content.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 217 in my name. I express my deep gratitude to the noble Baronesses, Lady Benjamin and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, for adding their names in support. I will also address other amendments in this group that bring about business-disruption measures that enforce compliance with the important measures on pornography and harm that we have scrutinised already and will debate—briefly, I expect—at the end of today.
Amendment 217 is modest, but I believe it could make a big difference. It seeks to use the commercial interests of the pornography sites to change their behaviours by ensuring that their important supply chains are informed of breaches in regulations when they have happened. We know that this works because we have seen it work already. It has been widely reported that, at the start of December 2020, Pornhub, the famous porn site, said in its search bar that it was hosting 13.5 million clips. Then, on 14 December, that figure was dramatically reduced overnight to 5 million. What had happened was that Pornhub had removed two-thirds of the videos because of a decision by its payment companies, Visa and Mastercard, on 10 December, that they would withdraw payment services from Pornhub’s parent company, MindGeek.
That very important decision followed high-profile press reports, including in the New York Times, that Pornhub hosted vile videos of child abuse, rape and revenge pornography, and videos of people who had not consented to being recorded. These were illegal recordings—Mastercard said that its own investigation confirmed that the site was hosting illegal content. So, quite simply, the scrutiny of the nature of much of Pornhub’s content became too much for those payment companies. To protect themselves and to avoid being tarred by association, Visa and Mastercard had to act, which in turn meant that Pornhub had to act. This is the commercial reality of how the internet will be policed, whether we like it or not. It may well be that commercial interests can drive changes in behaviour much more quickly than blunt regulatory action. At the end of the day, I am interested just in measures that protect children, however they work—and this amendment facilitates effective action.
Payment and ancillary service providers can act in ways that Governments cannot easily do. The Bill could not require such actions as its duties extend only to the platforms themselves and the regulator, not ancillary services essential to the business model; but it can facilitate such interventions by making breaches of regulation transparent to the world. To enable this, the amendment would require Ofcom to notify financial and ancillary services of any breaches of regulations—no ifs or buts, no exemptions and no hiding the bad results. This notification is part and parcel of the process of issuing a provisional notice of contravention in any case, much like when Ofcom gives a notice under Section 110(1). The regulations say that
“OFCOM must carry out a review of the provider’s compliance with the notice”.
This discretion is at the point of choosing to give the notice. All that the process then entails is directed.
There is a significant limitation to this version of the amendment: it applies only to pornography providers covered by Part 5. That is deliberate. Of course, I would like to see it apply to all services with any pornographic content, which I hope will be included in changes that we will see in primary priority content. I will take a moment to flag to the Minister that amendments to this amendment may be needed if there are perhaps—I speak hopefully here—government amendments to the Bill that tweak the Part 3 and Part 5 distinctions before Report. Amendment 217 places no duties on providers of payment or ancillary services themselves; it simply gives them a right to be informed. It is about transparency and awareness, which are fundamental tenets of the Bill. For that reason, I very much hope that the Minister will commit to embracing this simple and proportionate measure.
This transparency measure becomes more pertinent and relevant when we look at other measures in this group, particularly those that introduce service-restriction measures. As other noble Lords will explain in more detail, I hope, these will allow Ofcom to require the supply chain of companies that support the internet industry—they are often reputable players that can be reached by our UK courts—to cut off essential support services to those who make transgressions. These might include services like hosting and search and, as I mentioned, payment companies like Mastercard and Visa. Without revenue from UK customers, there is little point in any service trying to find ways around access blocks.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendment 218JA in this group, in my name, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, has added her name. This is really trying to understand what the Government’s intentions are in respect of access restriction orders.
Just to take a step back, in the Online Safety Bill regime we are creating, in effect, a licensing regime for in-scope services and saying that, if you want to operate in the United Kingdom and you are covered by the Bill—whether that is the pornography services that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to or a user-to-user or search service—here are the conditions to which you must adhere. That includes paying a fee to Ofcom for your supervision, and then following the many thousands of pages of guidance that I suspect we will end up producing and issuing to those companies. So what we are exploring here is what happens if a particular organisation does not decide to take up the offer of a licence.
Again, to go back to the previous debate, success for the Bill would be that it has a sufficient deterrent effect that the problems that we are seeking to fix are addressed. I do not think we are looking to block services or for them to fail—we are looking for them to succeed, so stage one is that Ofcom asks them nicely. It says, “You want to operate in the UK, here is what you need to do—it’s a reasonable set of requests we are making”, and the services say, “Fine”. If not, they choose to self-limit—and it is quite trivial for any online service to say, “I’m going to check incoming traffic, and if this person looks like they are coming from the UK, I’m not going to serve them”. That is self-limiting, which is an option that would be preferable if a service chose not to accept the licence condition. But let us assume that it has accepted the licence condition, and Ofcom is going to be monitoring it on a routine basis—and if Ofcom thinks it is not meeting its requirements, whether that is to produce a risk assessment or to fulfil its duty of care, Ofcom will then instruct it to do something. If it fails to follow that instruction, we are in the territory of the amendments that we are considering here: either it has refused to accept the licence conditions and to self-limit, or it has accepted them but has failed to do what we expect it to do. It has signed up and thought that it is not serious, and it is not doing the things that we expect it to do.
At that point, Ofcom has to consider what it can do. The first stage is quite right, in the group of clauses that we are looking at—Ofcom can bring in these business disruption measures. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, rightly pointed out, in many instances that will be effective. Any commercial service—not just pornography services, but an online service that depends on advertising—that is told that it can no longer take credit card payments from UK businesses to advertise on the service, will, one hopes, come into line and say, “That’s the end of my business in the UK—I may as well cut myself off”. But if it wants to operate, it will come into line, because that way it gets its payment services restored. But there will be others for which that is insufficient—perhaps that is not their business model—and they will carry on regardless. At that point, we may want to consider the access restrictions.
In a free society, none of us should take pleasure in the idea that we are going to instruct the internet services or block them. That is not our first instinct, but something that is rather potentially a necessary evil. At some point, there may be services that are so harmful and so oblivious to the regime that we put in place that we need to block them. Here we are trying to explore what would happen in those circumstances. The first kind of block is one that we are used to doing, and we do it today for copyright-infringing sites and a small number of other sites that break the law. We instruct service providers such as BT and TalkTalk to implement a network-level block. There are ways you can do that—various technical ways that we do not need to go into in this debate—whereby we can seek to make it so that an ordinary UK user, when they type in www.whatever, will not get to the website. But increasingly people are using technology that will work around that. Browsers, for example, may create traffic between your web browser and the online service such that TalkTalk or BT or the access provider has no visibility as to where you are going and no capability of blocking it. BT has rightly raised that. There will be different views about where we should go with this, but the question is absolutely legitimate as to what the Government’s intentions are, which is what we want to try to tease out with this amendment.
Again, we should be really candid. Somebody who is determined to bypass all the access controls will do so. There is no world in which we can say that we can guarantee that somebody with a UK internet connection can never get to a particular website. What we are seeking to do is to make violating services unavailable for most of the people most of the time. We would be unhappy if it was only some of the people some of the time, but it is not going to be all of the people all of the time. So the question is: what constitutes a sufficient access restriction to either bring them to heel or to ensure that, over the longer term, the harm is not propagated, because these services are generally not made available? It would be really helpful if the Minister was able to tease that out.
Certainly, in my view, there are services such as TOR—the Onion Router—where there is no entity that you can ask to block stuff, so if someone was using that, there is nothing that you can reasonably do. At the other end of the spectrum, there are services such as BT and TalkTalk, where it is relatively straightforward to say to them that they should block. Then there are people in between, such as browser owners that are putting in place these encrypted tunnels for very good reasons, for privacy, but which can also add value-added stuff—helping to manage bandwidth better, and so on. Is it the Government’s intention that they are going to be served with access restriction orders? That is a valid question. We might have different views about what is the right solution, but it is really important for the sector that it understands and is able to prepare if that is the Government’s intention. So we need to tease that out; that is the area in which we are looking for answers from the Government.
The second piece is to think about the long term. If our prediction—or our hope and expectation—is that most companies will come into line, that is fine; the internet will carry on as it does today but in a safer way. However, if we have misjudged the mood, and a significant numbers of services just stick their thumb up at Ofcom and say, “We are not going to play—block us if you dare”, that potentially has significant consequences for the internet as it will operate in the United Kingdom. It would be helpful to understand from the Minister whether the Government have any projections or predictions as to which way we are going to go. Are we talking about the vast majority of the internet continuing as it is today within the new regime, with the odd player that will be outside that, or is it the Government’s expectation that there may need to be blocking of significant numbers of services, essentially for the foreseeable future?
Other countries such as France and Germany have been dealing with this recently, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is probably aware of. They have sought to restrict access to pornography services, and there have been all sorts of consequent knock-on effects and challenges at a technical level. It would be helpful to understand whether our expectation is that we will see the same in the United Kingdom or that something else is going to happen. If the Government do not have that information today, or if they have not made those projections, it would be helpful to know their thinking on where that might happen. Who will be able to inform us as to what that the future landscape is likely to look like as it evolves, and as Ofcom gains these powers and starts to instruct companies that they must obtain licences, and then seeks to take enforcement action against those that choose not to play the game?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 217 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and very much support the comments that he has made. I will speak to Amendments 218C, 218E, 218H and 218K in my name within this group. I also support the intent of the other amendments in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell.
I appreciate the process helpfully outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. However, when looking at Ofcom’s implementation of existing provisions on video-sharing platforms, the overwhelming impression is of a very drawn-out process, with Ofcom failing to hold providers to account. Despite being told by Ofcom that a simple tick-box declaration by the user confirming that they are over 18 is not sufficient age verification, some providers are still using only that system. Concerningly, Ofcom has not taken decisive action.
When children are at severe risk, it is not appropriate to wait. Why, for example, should we allow porn sites to continue to host 10 million child sexual abuse videos while Ofcom simply reports that it is continuing to partner with these platforms to get a road map of action together? As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, Visa and Mastercard did not think it was appropriate to wait in such circumstances—they just acted.
Similarly, when systems are not in place to protect children from accessing pornography, we cannot just sit by and allow all the egregious associated harms to continue. Just as in Formula 1, when a red flag is raised and the cars must stop and go into the pits until the dangerous debris is cleared, sometimes it is too dangerous to allow platforms to operate until the problems are fixed. It seems to me that platforms would act very swiftly to put effective systems and processes in place if they could not operate in the interim.
The Bill already contains this emergency handbrake; the question is when it should be used. My answer is that it should be used when the evidence of severe harm presents itself, and not only when the regulator has a moment of self-doubt that its “road maps”, which it is normally so optimistic about, will eventually fix the problem. Ofcom should not be allowed to sit on the evidence hoping, with a wing and a prayer, that things will fix themselves in the end.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 218JA, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Allan. My name is attached to it online but has not made it on to the printed version. He introduced it so ably and comprehensively that I will not say much more, but I will be more direct with my noble friend the Minister.
This amendment would remove Clause 133(11). The noble Lord, Lord Allan, mentioned that BT has raised with us—I am sure that others have too—that the subsection gives examples of access facilities, such as ISPs and application stores. However, as the noble Lord said, there are other ways that services could use operating systems, browsers and VPNs to evade these access restriction orders. While it is convention for me to say that I would support this amendment should it be moved at a later stage, this is one of those issues that my noble friend the Minister could take off the table this afternoon—he has had letters about it to which there have not necessarily been replies—just by saying that subsection (11) does not give the whole picture, that there are other services and that it is misleading to give just these examples. Will he clarify at the Dispatch Box and on the record, for the benefit of everyone using the Bill now and in future, what broader services are caught? We could then take the issue off the table on this 10th day of Committee.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will be even more direct than the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and seek some confirmation. I understood from our various briefings in Committee that, where content is illegal, it is illegal anywhere in the digital world—it is not restricted simply to user to user, search and Part 5. Can the Minister say whether I have understood that correctly? If I have, will he confirm that Ofcom will be able to use its disruption powers on a service out of scope, as it were, such as a blog or a game with no user-to-user aspect, if it were found to be persistently hosting illegal content?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, though one of two halves, if not three.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, introduced his amendment in a very measured way. My noble friend Lady Benjamin really regrets that she cannot be here, but she strongly supports it. I will quote her without taking her speech entirely on board, as we have been admonished for that previously. She would have said that
“credit card companies have claimed ignorance using the excuse of how could they be expected to know they are supporting porn if they were not responsible for maintaining porn websites … This is simply not acceptable”.
Noble Lords must forgive me—I could not possibly have delivered that in the way that my noble friend would have done. However, I very much took on board what the noble Lord said about how this makes breaches transparent to the credit card companies. It is a right to be informed, not an enforcement power. The noble Lord described it as a simple and proportionate measure, which I think is fair. I would very much like to hear from the Minister why, given the importance of credit card companies in the provision of pornographic content, this is not acceptable to the Government.
The second part of this group is all about effective enforcement, which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, spoke to as well. This is quite technical; it is really important that these issues have been raised, in particular by the noble Lord. The question is whether Ofcom has the appropriate enforcement powers. I was very taken by the phrase
“pre-empt a possible legal challenge”,
as it is quite helpful to get your retaliation in first. Underlying all this is that we need to know what advice the Minister and Ofcom are getting about the enforcement powers and so on.
I am slightly more sceptical about the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I am all in favour of the need for speed in enforcement, particularly having argued for it in competition cases, where getting ex-ante powers is always a good idea—the faster one can move, the better. However, restricting the discretion of Ofcom in those circumstances seems to me a bit over the top. Many of us have expressed our confidence in Ofcom as we have gone through the Bill. We may come back to this in future; none of us thinks the Bill will necessarily be the perfect instrument, and it may prove that we do not have a sufficiently muscular regulator. I entirely respect the noble Lord’s track record and experience in regulation, but Ofcom has so far given us confidence that it will be a muscular regulator.
I turn now to the third part of the group. I was interested in the context in which my noble friend placed enforcement; it is really important and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. It is interesting what questions have been asked about the full extent of the Government’s ambitions in this respect: are VPNs going to be subject to these kinds of notices? I would hope so; if VPNs are really the gateway to some of the unacceptable harms that we are trying to prevent, we should know about that. We should be very cognisant of the kind of possible culture being adopted by some of the social media and regulated services, and we should tailor our response accordingly. I will be interested to hear what the Government have to say on that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bethell, Lord Curry and Lord Allan for introducing their amendments, to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her direct question, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her equally direct question. I am sure they will be of great assistance to the Minister when he replies. I will highlight the words of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who said “We are looking for services to succeed”. I think that is right, but what is success? It includes compliance and enforcement, and that is what this group refers to.
The amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, seek to strengthen what is already in the Bill about Ofcom’s Chapter 6 powers of enforcement, otherwise known as business disruption powers, and they focus on what happens in the event of a breach; they seek to be more prescriptive than what we already have. I am sure the Minister will remember that the same issue came up in the Digital Economy Bill, around the suggestion that the Government should take specific powers. There, the Government argued they had assurances from credit card companies that, if and when action was required, they would co-operate. In light of that previous discussion, it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.
In respect of the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, on the need to toughen up requirements on Ofcom to act, I am sure the Minister will say that these powers are not required and that the Bill already makes provision for Ofcom blocking services which are failing in their duties. I echo the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about being overly prescriptive and not allowing Ofcom to do its job. The truth is that Ofcom may need discretion but it also needs teeth, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about whether he feels, in the light of the debate today and other conversations, that there is sufficient toughness in the Bill and that Ofcom will be able to do the job it is required to do. There is an issue of the balance of discretion versus requirement, and I know he will refer to this. I will also be interested to hear from the Minister about the view of Ofcom with respect to what is in the Bill, and whether it feels that it has sufficient powers.
I will raise a final point about the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I think they ask a valid question about the level of discretion that Ofcom will have. I ask the Minister this: if, a few years down the line, we find that Ofcom has not used the powers suitably, despite clear failures, what would the Government seek to do? With that, I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, where necessary, the regulator will be able to apply to the courts for business disruption measures. These are court orders which will require third-party ancillary services and access facilities to withdraw their services from, or impede users’ access to, non-compliant regulated services. These are strong, flexible powers which will ensure that Ofcom can take robust action to protect users. At the same time, we have ensured that due process is followed. An application for a court order will have to specify the non-compliant provider, the grounds and evidence on which the application is based and the steps that third parties must take to withdraw services or block users’ access. Courts will consider whether business disruption measures are an appropriate way of preventing harm to users and, if an order is granted, ensure it is proportionate to the risk of harm. The court will also consider the interests of all relevant parties, which may include factors such as contractual terms, technical feasibility and the costs of the measures. These powers will ensure that services can be held to account for failure to comply with their duties under the Bill, while ensuring that Ofcom’s approach to enforcement is proportionate and upholds due process.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I am reminded by my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath, particularly relating to the gambling sector, that some of these issues may run across various regulators that are all seeking business disruption. He reminded me that if you type into a search engine, which would be regulated and subject to business disruption measures here, “Casinos not regulated by GAMSTOP”, you will get a bunch of people who are evading GAMSTOP’s regulation. Noble Lords can imagine similar for financial services—something that I know the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, is also very interested in. It may not be for answer now, but I would be interested to understand what thinking the Government have on how all the different business disruption regimes—financial, gambling, Ofcom-regulated search services, et cetera—will all mesh together. They could all come before the courts under slightly different legal regimes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
When I saw the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, in their places, I wondered whether they were intending to raise these points. I will certainly take on board what the noble Lord says and, if there is further information I can furnish your Lordships with, I certainly will.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether the powers can be used on out-of-scope services. “No” is the direct answer to her direct question. The powers can be used only in relation to regulated services, but if sites not regulated by the Bill are publishing illegal content, existing law enforcement powers—such as those frequently deployed in cases of copyright infringement—can be used. I could set out a bit more in writing if that would be helpful.
My noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendments seek to set out in the Bill that Ofcom will be able to make a single application to the courts for an order enabling business disruption measures that apply against multiple platforms and operators. I must repeat, as he anticipated, the point made by my right honourable friend Chris Philp that the civil procedure rules allow for a multi-party claim to be made. These rules permit any number of claimants or defendants and any number of claims to be covered by one claim form. The overriding objective of the civil procedure rules is that cases are dealt with justly and proportionately. I want to reassure my noble friend that the Government are confident that the civil procedure rules will provide the necessary flexibility to ensure that services can be blocked or restricted.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, seeks to clarify what services might be subject to access restriction orders by removing the two examples provided in the Bill: internet access services and application stores. I would like to reassure him that these are simply indicative examples, highlighting two kinds of service on which access restriction requirements may be imposed. It is not an exhaustive list. Orders could be imposed on any services that meet the definition—that is, a person who provides a facility that is able to withdraw, adapt or manipulate it in such a way as to impede access to the regulated service in question. This provides Ofcom with the flexibility to identify where business disruption measures should be targeted, and it future-proofs the Bill by ensuring that the power remains functional and effective as technologies develop.
As the noble Lord highlighted, these are significant powers that can require that services be blocked in the UK. Clearly, limiting access to services in this way substantially affects the business interests of the service in question and the interests of the relevant third-party service, and it could affect users’ freedom of expression. It is therefore essential that appropriate safeguards are included and that due process is followed. That is why Ofcom will be required to seek a court order to be able to use these powers, ensuring that the courts have proper oversight.
To ensure that due process is upheld, an application by the regulator for a court order will have to specify the non-compliant provider, the grounds of the order and the steps that Ofcom considers should be imposed on the third parties in order to withdraw services and block users’ access. These requirements will ensure that the need to act quickly to tackle harm is appropriately balanced against upholding fundamental rights.
It might be useful to say a little about how blocking works—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Before the Minister does that, can he say whether he envisages that operating against VPNs as well?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
If I may, I will take advice on that and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes; he made a helpful point, and I will come back on it.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
We share a common interest in understanding whether it would be used against VPNs, but we may not necessarily have the same view about whether it should be. Do not take that as an encouragement—take it as a request for information.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord.
The term “blocking” is used to describe measures that will significantly impede or restrict access to non-compliant services—for example, internet service providers blocking websites or app stores blocking certain applications. These measures will be used only in exceptional circumstances, where the service has committed serious failures in meeting its duties and where no other action would reasonably prevent online harm to users in the UK.
My noble friend Lord Bethell’s Amendments 218F and 218L seek to ensure that Ofcom can request that an interim service or access restriction order endures for a period of six months in cases where a service hosts pornographic content. I reassure him that the court will already be able to make an order which can last up to six months. Indeed, the court’s interim order can have effect until either the date on which the court makes a service or access restriction order, or an expiry date specified by the court in the order. It is important that sanctions be determined on a case-by-case basis, which is why no limitations are set for these measures in the Bill.
As my noble friend knows, in the Bill there are clear duties on providers to ensure that children are not able to access pornography, which Ofcom will have a robust set of powers to enforce. It is important, however, that Ofcom’s powers and its approach to enforcement apply equally and consistently across the range of harms in scope of the Bill, rather than singling out one form of content in particular.
I hope that that is useful to noble Lords, along with the commitment to write on the further points which were raised. With that, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, to be honest, this debate has been an incredible relief to me. Here we have been taking a step away from some of the high-level conversations we had about what we mean by the internet and safety, looking at the far horizon, and instead looking at the moment when the Bill has real traction to try to change behaviours and improve the environment of the internet. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his fulsome reply on a number of the issues.
The reason why it is so important is the two big areas where enforcement and compliance are going to be really tricky. First, there is Ofcom’s new relationship with the really big behemoths of the internet. It has a long tradition of partnership with big companies such as ITV, the radio sector—with the licensed authorities. However, of course it has licences, and it can pull them. I have worked for some of those companies, and it is quite a thing to go to see your regulator when you know that it can pull your licence. Obviously, that is within legal reason, but at the end of the day it owns your licence, and that is different to having a conversation where it does not.
The second class is the Wild West: the people living in open breach of regular societal norms who care not for the intentions of either the regulator, the Government or even mainstream society. Bringing those people back into reasonable behaviour will be a hell of a thing. My noble friend Lord Grade spoke, reasonably but with a degree of trepidation, about the challenge faced by Ofcom there. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for addressing those points.
Ofcom will step up to having a place next to the FCA and the MHRA. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, spoke about some of the qualities needed of one of the big three regulators. Having had some ministerial oversight of the MHRA, I can tell your Lordships that it has absolutely no hesitation about tackling big pharmaceutical companies and is very quick, decisive and clear. It wields a big stick—or, to use the phrase of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, big teeth—in order to conduct that. That is why I ask the Minister just to keep in mind some of the recommendations embedded in these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, mentioned illegal content, and I appreciate the candour of the Minister’s reply. However, business disruption measures offer an opportunity to address the challenge of illegal content, which is something that I know the Secretary of State has spoken about very interestingly, in terms of perhaps commissioning some kind of review. If such a thing were to happen, I ask that business disruption measures and some way of employing them might be brought into that.
We should look again at enforcement and compliance. I appreciate the Minister saying that it is important to let the regulator make some of these decisions, but the noble Lord, Lord Allan, was right: the regulator needs to know what the Government’s intentions are. I feel that we have opened the book on this, but there is still a lot more to be said about where the Government see the impact of regulation and compliance ending up. In all the battles in other jurisdictions—France, Germany, the EU, Canada, Louisiana and Utah—it all comes down to enforcement and compliance. We need to know more of what the Government hope to achieve in that area. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Confirmation decisions: offence
(1) A person to whom a confirmation decision is given commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person fails to comply with a requirement imposed by the decision which—(a) is of a kind described in section 121(1), and(b) relates (whether or not exclusively) to a children’s online safety duty.(2) A “children’s online safety duty” means a duty set out in—(a) section 11(3)(a),(b) section 11(3)(b),(c) section 72(2), or(d) section 72(3).(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new offence of failure to comply with requirements of a confirmation decision that relate to specified duties to protect children’s online safety.
Cost of Living Support
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I read the Written Ministerial Statement on cost of living support with interest. It runs to well over 1,000 words. I regret that most of them are devoted to repeating things that have been announced and implemented in previous months and, in some cases, years. Just 157 words describe anything new, or rather the implementation of something that was announced last autumn, namely that from this week payments of an additional £150 to disabled people to help with the rising cost of living will start to be made.
While any help is welcome for those who are struggling, we must be clear-sighted about the scale and source of the problem that people are facing. This leads us to two questions. How bad is the cost of living problem? Are the Government doing the right things to help people in it? The Government know that the cost of living is a problem. In the Statement, they acknowledge that inflation and interest rates are very high but say that it is a global problem caused by Covid and the war in Ukraine—which is interesting. CPI inflation in the UK is now 8.7%. In Germany, inflation is 6.3%. In France, it is 6%. In the USA, it is 2.7%. Yet all those countries had Covid, and all are affected by the war in Ukraine. In brackets, we should note that this is the week when UK Government debt rose above 100% of GDP for the first time since 1961.
The UK now has stubbornly high inflation, which is not associated with economic growth. Its effect is that the cost of essentials is skyrocketing. Food price inflation was still at 18.4% in the year to May. That is an eye-watering pressure on family budgets, and there is no sign that it will fall sharply any time soon. This is a challenge for most families. How much harder is it for disabled households, who must spend more on almost every aspect of everyday life—food, medicines, clothing, energy and travel? We have all heard reports of disabled people cutting back on spending on food and other basics, simply so that they can afford transport or to run essential equipment. Has the Minister seen the analysis done by Scope? It estimates that, on average, disabled households—households with at least one disabled adult or child—now need an additional £1,122 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. Do the Government agree with that analysis? If not, what assessment has the Minister’s department done of the extra amount that disabled people need, and what was the basis for choosing that figure of £150 as a one-off payment?
We are now seeing the effects of this inflation crisis firmly working their way into interest rates. IFS analysis said that just the latest shifts in mortgage markets will push up mortgage payments by an average of £280 a month. That is over 8% of disposable income. It said for almost 1.5 million people, half of them under the age of 40, will find their mortgage payments jumping by at least 20% of their disposable income. How are people supposed to manage this? They are simply too squeezed already.
Disabled people and their families will be facing a housing crisis as well as a cost of living crisis in general. Labour has set out a plan to tackle mortgagers’ problems and stop people losing their homes. It includes ensuring that all borrowers can lengthen their mortgage term or switch to interest-only mortgage payments for a period. It also requires lenders to wait for at least six months before initiating repossession proceedings. Labour would also bring in additional protections for renters What plans do the Government have to help people manage this crisis?
The cost of living crisis has not gone away. Work by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that the high levels of hardship have barely moved over the last 12 months. They are in danger of being baked in and becoming a new normal. What else can the Minister tell us—and crucially, the people of this country—to put our minds at rest? I look forward to his reply.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the Statement and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for covering so much ground that I too would like to cover to some degree.
The Statement is the Government patting themselves on the back, but what is the reality? I too will concentrate to some degree on people with disabilities. Research has found that people with disabilities had an available amount to spend that was 44% lower than that of other working-age adults, exposing them hugely to the rising cost of essentials. The research said that there was a chasm between the underlying disposable incomes of people with a disability, which it fixed at £19,397 per annum, and the non-disabled population’s disposable income per annum, which it fixed at £27,792. This was according to the analysis of official figures and a YouGov survey of just under 8,000 working-age adults, more than 2,000 of whom reported a long-term illness or disability.
The announcement of the £150 cost-of-living payment for people on disability benefits, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, referred to, is, quite honestly, a slap in the face for many. The payment is conspicuously lower than those made for pensioners or people on the lowest incomes. Can the Minister explain why disabled people deserve less help than other disadvantaged groups, especially as they will feel the effects of this crisis particularly acutely?
The noble Baroness spoke about Scope’s Disability Price Tag report, which states:
“On average, disabled households … need an additional £975 a month to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households.”
The extra payment of £150 does not cover even a week of additional costs. Does the Minister recognise these figures, and what will he do to narrow the gap?
With the increase in energy prices, almost half of people with disabilities cannot afford to keep their homes warm. But do not think that non-disabled people are managing: they, too, are not. Support is listed in the Statement—we of course welcome support, whatever it is—for those on universal credit and the like: they have received £301 and will get £300 and £299, to be paid in the autumn and the spring. How do the Government see these beneficences being spent? Are there details of what people will not be able to afford out of this £301, £300 and £299?
The basic fault with the Statement is that it says that the package will support the most vulnerable during 2023-24. Sadly, “the most vulnerable” now applies, in some situations, to individuals and families in work. Has the Minister any light at the end of the tunnel for those with rate increases who were not able to repay their mortgages, and those renting who are facing massive rent increases? Do the Government have any figures on the increased use of food banks, and on the demographic of the current users of these facilities? Do they have current statistics on the number of families with less than £100 in savings? Many people in this House do not realise how many people in this country have less than £100 in savings and are thus vulnerable in the present climate.
It is hard to think of any solutions at this stage, but the noble Baroness gave some indications of Labour proposals. The Liberal Democrats call for an emergency mortgage protection fund to protect families falling into arrears or facing repossession as a result of soaring interest rates, paid for by reversing the Government’s tax cuts for banks. The top fund will be targeted at homeowners on the lowest incomes and those seeing the sharpest rise in mortgage rates. It would be a temporary scheme to tackle the current problem of soaring mortgage rates. It could be introduced for one year to begin with, and the Government would have to review the need for it the following year. There is an absolute need: people are struggling with their mortgage payments and will be thrown out of their homes, whether they own or rent them.
In its simplicity, this Statement is welcome, but it does not go anywhere near far enough.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for their comments and questions. I will start by addressing a point the noble Baroness made. We wanted to use this opportunity to explain the help we have already given and are continuing to give to those who are definitely suffering as a result of the problems in the economy at the moment; “problems” is an understatement, and I am the first to say that. We wanted to make it clear that it is not just about the £150, which was the gist of the Statement; the Government are providing total support of more than £94 billion during 2022-23 and 2023-24 to help households and individuals with the rising cost of living.
Cost-of-living payments are only one part of the overall support. We want to get that message across if we have not done so already. It includes support for energy costs, which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the extension of the household support fund in England, which helps with rents, which again were raised by the noble Lord. In 2023-24 we increased benefits, state pensions and the benefit cap by 10.1% and made further increases to the national living wage.
I want to say quite a bit more because one of the issues to raise, which is obviously very topical at the moment, is mortgages and inflation. I reassure the House that tomorrow, the Chancellor will meet with principal mortgage lenders to ensure that they are living up to their responsibilities to their customers, and to ask what help they can give to people who are struggling—I do realise that they are struggling—to pay more expensive mortgages and what flexibilities may be possible for families in arrears. Of course, I am aware of the announcement today.
We have a clear target to halve inflation this year and to support the Bank of England as it returns it to the 2% target. I remind the House that the IMF forecasts that inflation will reduce substantially to around 5% by the end of the year, which would be a large fall from the highs we saw last year. I remind the House that in March, the OBR forecast that inflation would be 2.9% by the end of the year, and that the last Bank of England forecast, which was in May, was for inflation to go down to 5.1% by the end of the year. However, we are not complacent. This is a serious time, as everyone has been saying. We remain focused on our very important ambition, which is to drive inflation down while providing a cost-of-living package worth about £3,300 per household on average over this year and last. The IMF has already noted the “decisive and responsible steps” that we have taken, and we will continue to take such steps to deliver on this priority.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about other countries. I have already made the point that we are on track to halve inflation and continue to support the Bank in delivering the 2% target. We believe that inflation is on a downward trajectory, although I understand that it is stubborn. Even though the reduction is quite small, it is in part thanks to our action to hold down energy bills and freeze alcohol and fuel duty, which is having a direct impact on driving down inflation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked about Scope. I am very aware of the report. They have been many studies estimating the cost of disability, including this latest Scope report and previous ones from Scope and other organisations. The common feature of these reports is that their findings vary due to the definitions of disability and methodology being used. Our view is that there is no objective way of deciding what an adequate level of benefits should be, as everyone has different requirements. Beneficiaries are free to spend their benefits as they see fit, and in the light of their individual commitments, needs and preferences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, focused on the disabled and support for them, and she made some very important points. I hope she knows that we will be spending around £78.6 billion in 2023-24 on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, which is around 3.1% of GDP. The Government are providing a further disability cost-of-living payment of £150, which is part of the gist of the Statement. The majority of these payments will be made to eligible claimants this week. Indeed, many have been made already.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, focused on fuel poverty. I make the point, which he would expect me to make, that advanced economies around the world share the challenge of high inflation arising from the energy shock, and the UK has been affected by those global factors. The energy price guarantee, as he will know, was extended at the same level for an additional three months, to the end of June 2023, and it will remain in place as a safety net until the end of March 2024. There are some signs that energy costs are reducing, but again, we are not complacent.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked a focused question about the use of food banks. He will know that we have some recent data from the latest Family Resources Survey. The Government are using that data to better inform them about the use of food banks. We are well aware that food banks are being used as never before—we are very aware of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, makes a very good point about repossessions. At the moment, although we are not complacent, repossessions remain at a lower rate than before the pandemic. We are not complacent because of course we see the pressures around.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, unlike others, I find much to welcome in the Statement, not least the increase in the maximum payments of 50% to those on universal credit for childcare, which will help them find work. However, is my noble friend confident that the childcare market will be able to respond to the increased demand that is likely to result from this increased beneficence from the department?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a good point about childcare, and the House will be aware of the announcements that were made recently. We are determined to support as many families as possible with access to high-quality affordable childcare, which is why the Spring Budget announced these significant new investments to expand free early education entitlements from 2024-25, together with uplifts in 2023-24 and 2024-25 for the existing entitlement offers.
On his specific question about demand versus supply, that is a very good point. We are confident that supply will meet demand, but we are also aware—certainly I am aware of some anecdotal evidence—that demand is going up, and we want to be sure that demand meets supply. Although I do not have any figures, I reassure my noble friend that we are aware of this particular matter.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, we recognise the value of the immediate and urgent provision that is being suggested and those points being argued for. However, in the light of our experience of the deepening crisis, I wonder whether, because of the interlocking nature of so many factors, now is the time to be looking at a comprehensive anti-poverty strategy.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We have already taken a number of initiatives, which the right reverend Prelate will be aware of, to look at poverty. As I say, this is a particularly difficult time. Although I cannot comment on a particular poverty strategy, the important point is that we have a number of initiatives across government to address specific aspects of poverty. That includes families and children, and of course it includes those who are homeless, who we are very aware of, as well as the increasing homelessness issue.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, at the same time as the cost of living crisis, local authorities’ social care budgets are under pressure. I have heard from some disabled people who have a personal budget that they are being asked to make an increased contribution, thus significantly reducing their direct payments. I do not think the proposed new payment will eliminate even those increased contributions, let alone really help with the cost of living situation.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As I said earlier, the £150 should be taken at face value, and I think I made the point that there are a number of other initiatives to help those who are disabled. It is important, as the Minister in the other place said on Tuesday, to look at the total package, including the £150, that we have in place to help those who are disabled.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. However, neither his remarks this morning nor the Statement acknowledge the real size of the problem that we now have. I am almost sorry for him that so many things have happened since the Statement was first made on Tuesday, one of which was yesterday’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation report showing that 5.5 million people in lower-income households did not have food last year—they skipped meals and had poor meals, which of course affects their health—while 4.5 million lower-income households are now in debt, many of them to people who will then demand very high rates of interest and so on. They cannot get credit in the way that he and I could get it, at lower interest rates—although all the interest rates are going up now. These are really scary numbers, and the JRF has shown that this is now embedded across our society.
I talked this morning for an hour and a half with organisations in the north-east that are working with the most vulnerable families. I came off that call really scared about the future, because of the numbers involved. Does the Minister understand that this is far more serious than the way we have paid attention to it so far suggests? We really need a serious, overarching strategy to tackle poverty and improve public services, so that the most at risk get the best and the most help, which they cannot get at the moment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I hope the House will recognise that I am certainly not playing down the seriousness of the position at the moment. I am very aware, as the House is, of the further interest rate rise today. The Government absolutely recognise the pressures that people are facing and have acted, providing total support of over £94 billion, which I mentioned earlier, over 2022-23 and 2023-24. I have already mentioned the uprating, which I will not go over again, and that we will be making further cost of living payments totalling £900.
However, there is more to say, given the noble Baroness’s question. I have already mentioned that the Chancellor is meeting mortgage lenders tomorrow to see what more can be done, but he has already met the Competition and Markets Authority, to be sure that there is fair competition between the supermarkets so that we make sure that food prices come down. As we are all aware, food inflation is still far too high. It was 19% last month; it has now nudged down a bit but it is still far too high. That is really important, particularly for those who are the most vulnerable. I reassure the noble Baroness that we really do take this seriously. I think we all know that it is a defining moment.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I remind the Minister that, in February 2021, when I was president of the CBI, I asked Rishi Sunak, when he was Chancellor, if he was worried about inflation, because I was worried about it then. Today, we have the highest inflation in the G7, while the United States of America is already at 4% inflation—less than half our rate. Today, our interest rate is at 5%, the highest in 15 years, and we have the highest level of tax burden in seven decades. Today, we have a debt to GDP ratio of 100%; the last time it was at that level was over six decades ago. Does the Minister acknowledge that two of the Prime Minister’s five priorities are growth and halving inflation? Given the situation we are in now, where households are struggling to make rental and mortgage payments, which are increasing as a proportion of their income, is a recession likely? What are the Government’s plans to help people deal with their mortgage and rental payments, because there is a crisis looming in front of our eyes?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I hope I can help the noble Lord. As I have already mentioned, inflation really is one of the Prime Minister’s key priorities. He has made it clear, as we have, that reducing inflation is absolutely key. He also speaks about growth, while making it clear that growth comes as a secondary item to inflation. However, it is also important that the economy grows. In previous answers, I have made it clear that we are doing as much as we possibly can to look at what more banks can do to be helpful. One thing which I have not said is that we are working closely with the Bank of England, while making it clear that the Bank is independent in also working as hard as it is in the fight to bring down inflation. It is not just us in the UK; as others have said, there are similar issues in other countries, particularly in Europe. However, I realise that in the UK we still have a lot of work to do.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Minister looks to a negotiation with the banks to provide better terms to mortgage holders who are under pressure. He must surely accept that the banks will offer those terms to those they deem their most attractive customers, not to low-income house owners, who cannot take the required flexibility of interest-only or a long extension to their mortgage’s life. That is the group, surely, which needs to be served by an emergency mortgage fund to rescue this situation. Surely he could find the money to support those who will see their mortgages rise by more than 10% of their disposable income and take the money back from the banks, which are seeing bumper profits off the back of rising interest rates.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I certainly note what the noble Baroness has said. I have mentioned already that the Chancellor is meeting the banks. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions. What is important are the initiatives we have taken already to help people. There is support for people who have mortgages. We have increased the generosity and availability of the support for mortgage interest scheme, meaning that those on universal credit can apply for a loan to help cover interest repayments after three months rather than nine and can now receive support while working.
A new Financial Conduct Authority customer duty, coming into effect next month, will ensure that firms put customers first, delivering fair value and ensuring good outcomes for those in financial difficulty. The noble Baroness raises a very important point and I hope that further measures can be produced. We await the outcome of discussions.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I have a great deal of personal sympathy for the noble Viscount in having to make this Statement to the House on this of all days. I do not doubt his personal commitment to ensuring fairness and help for the people in the most desperate situations in our society, but I would like him to respond to two observations.
First, the main problem we have, which my noble friend Lady Armstrong referred to, is the number of families who can no longer afford the basics of life. In thinking about policy as it goes forward, we have to think harder about the generational distribution of impacts. I am a wealthy pensioner. I got the generous support for energy bills. Is that right, when families are in such desperate need?
Secondly, Conservative Back-Benchers need to stop talking about the urgent need for tax cuts. The fact is that we face desperate pressures on public services and benefits. We have debt at 100% and there are no proposals coming forward from the Government for credible reductions in public spending. The consequence of tax cuts is that there would be a tension between the monetary policy of the Bank, which is trying to deal with inflation through interest rates, and the fiscal policy. We would be at risk of prolonging high interest rates if we went ahead with irresponsible and unfunded tax cuts.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I think the noble Lord made three points altogether. I can only reiterate that I am aware of the impact on households, particularly those at the vulnerable end of society. I have already mentioned a number of initiatives and points that are being made outside government, particularly what the supermarkets are doing. At the end of the day, it is the basics that count. That includes, as the noble Lord alluded to, where the next meal is going to come from.
The noble Lord made a good point about the generational aspect, which ought to be in all of our minds. Whatever is happening now, we need to think about the next generation and generations after that, helping children and looking at the educational side and the health aspects of children. Of course, I understand that the current situation does not particularly help.
Finally, on the noble Lord’s point about tax cuts, we have made it clear that we on this side wish to make tax cuts but are not in a position to do so. It is important to make the point again that tackling inflation is by far the biggest challenge. Although there are some signs that it will come down—we have the predictions and forecasts—there is a lot more work to do. But that is the most important point, and No. 10 made it as well.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned homelessness, and the best model currently available for that predicts 300,000 more homeless people over the next year. The group in that category that I believe is most vulnerable is low-income earners in the private rented sector. Of course, evictions in the private rented sector have more than doubled in the last year. As rents have risen, their benefit, based on the local housing allowance, has been frozen at 2018 levels—we all know that a lot has happened since then. So have the Government given any thought to unfreezing the local housing allowance, even if only temporarily?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We keep it under review, but we are not looking at that at the moment. I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes about the LHA, but she will know that we have the discretionary housing payments, which are currently being delivered through local authorities to the most vulnerable. I reassure the noble Baroness that we keep a close eye on that to be sure, and to get the feedback, that these payments are being given and are helping those at the vulnerable end of society. Echoing the noble Baroness’s point, I am very aware that rents are very high—far too high—in the private rented sector, and seeing what more can be done is certainly very high among the Government’s priorities.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, some of us are sympathetic to the noble Viscount’s predicament. It cannot be easy when the Bank of England has just announced a 0.5% increase in Bank interest rates. He said seven times—I counted—“We are not complacent”, and I know that he is sincere; he is much respected by this House. It would have helped if the Statement from the Government had not been quite so complacent. The reference to “global factors” does not seem to take any account of government responsibility over the last 12 or 13 years. Do the Government take any responsibility whatever for trashing the economy? Did Prime Minister Truss actually exist? If she did not, does that mean that she will not be able to put forward any peerages to this House? It would be interesting to know what precise responsibility the Government take for the current predicament: that our inflation rate is higher than in any other country in the G7, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said.
The Minister himself said that 3.1% of GDP is not that high for helping our most vulnerable. Why will the Government not consider uprating some of these benefits to assist them? Even the 10.1% rate for pensioners scales into insignificance when the rate of inflation is 8.7%. It is probably still going up—the Minister said that it was going down, but that is slightly misleading, if he does not mind me saying so. Inflation is going not down but up. I think he is referring to the rate of increase slowing down, which is a very different matter. In view of the urgent situation, will the Government not think of more emergency uprating for some of these benefits?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
There are a number of points from the noble Baroness, who I respect very much, but I will not be drawn into some of the political points that she started off by making. What I will say—and this was in the Statement—is that a lot of what we are facing is to do with the post-pandemic issues that have arisen. As the House will know full well, the war in Ukraine has certainly been quite a factor in that.
I remind the noble Baroness—I think she said it herself—that the uprating of 10.1% we have made to a number of benefits was, we felt, generous. Others would say that we should have done more, but we felt that it was generous at the time. To go back to the beginning of her remarks about the Statement itself, whatever she made of the Statement, as I have said before, we are continuously looking at what more we can do to help those people at this particular time.
Online Safety Bill
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(1 year, 4 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)-X Tenth marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2023)
Lord Knight of Weymouth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to accelerate the process relating to Ofcom’s report on researchers’ access to information. Instead of simply requiring a report within two years of Clause 146 being brought into force, this amendment would require an interim report within three months, with a final report to follow two years after that.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who tabled this amendment, unfortunately cannot be with us today as he is off somewhere drinking sherry, I hope.
This is an important set of amendments about researchers’ access to data. As I have previously said to the Committee, we need to ensure that Ofcom has the opportunity to be as trusted as possible in doing its job, so that we can give it as much flexibility as we can, and so that it can deal with a rapidly changing environment. As I have also said on more than one occasion, in my mind, that trust is built by the independence of Ofcom from Secretary of State powers; the ongoing and post-legislative scrutiny of Parliament, which is not something that we can deal with in this Bill; and, finally, transparency—and this group of amendments goes to that very important issue.
The lead amendment in this group, Amendment 230 in my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s name, seeks to accelerate the process relating to Ofcom’s report on researchers’ access to information. Instead of simply requiring a report within two years of Clause 146 being brought into force, this amendment would require an interim report within three months with a final report to follow two years later. Although it is the lead amendment in the group, I do not think it is the more significant because, in the end, it does not do much about the fundamental problem that we want to deal with in this group, which is the need to do better than just having a report. We need to ensure that there really is access by independent reporters.
Amendments 233 and 234 are, I think, of more significance. These proposed new clauses would assist independent researchers in accessing information and data from providers of regulated services. Amendment 233 would allow Ofcom itself to appoint researchers to undertake a variety of research. Amendment 234 would require Ofcom to issue a code of practice on researchers’ access to data; again, this is important so that the practical and legal difficulties for both researchers and service providers can be overcome though negotiation and consultation by Ofcom. Amendment 233A from the noble Lord, Lord Allan, which I am sure he will speak to in a moment, is helpful in clarifying that no data protection breach would be incurred by allowing the research access.
In many ways, there is not a huge amount more to say. When Melanie Dawes, the head of Ofcom, appeared before the Joint Committee on 1 November 2021—all that time ago—she said that
“tightening up the requirement to work with external researchers would be a good thing in the Bill”.
It is therefore a disappointment that, when the Bill was finally published after the Joint Committee’s consideration of the draft, there was not something more significant and more weighty than just a report. That is what we are trying to address, particularly now that we see, as an example, that Twitter is charging more than £30,000 a month for researchers’ access. That is quite a substantial rate in order for researchers to be able to do their work in respect of that platform. Others are restricting or obscuring some of the information that people want to be able to see.
This is a vital set of measures if this Bill is to be effective. These amendments go a long way towards where we want to get to on this; for the reasons I have set out around ensuring that there is transparency, they are vital. We know from the work of Frances Haugen that the platforms themselves are doing this research. We need that out in the open, we need Ofcom to be able to see it through independent researchers and we need others to be able to see it so that Parliament and others can continue to hold these platforms to account. Given that the Minister is in such a positive mood, I look forward to his positive response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, I must advise the Committee that if Amendment 230 is agreed to then I cannot call Amendment 231 because of pre-emption.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we are reaching the end of our Committee debates, but I am pleased that we have some time to explore these important questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth.
I have an academic friend who studies the internet. When asked to produce definitive answers about how the internet is impacting on politics, he politely suggests that it may be a little too soon to say, as the community is still trying to understand the full impact of television on politics. We are rightly impatient for more immediate answers to questions around how the services regulated by this Bill affect people. For that to happen, we need research to be carried out.
A significant amount of research is already being done within the companies themselves—both more formal research, often done in partnership with academics, and more quick-fix commercial analyses where the companies do their own studies of the data. These studies sometimes see the light of day through publication or quite often through leaks; as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, has referred to, it is not uncommon for employees to decide to put research into the public domain. However, I suggest that this is a very uneven and suboptimal way for us to get to grips with the impact on services. The public interest lies in there being a much more rigorous and independent body of research work, which, rightly, these amendments collectively seek to promote.
The key issues that we need to address head-on, if we are actively to promote more research, lie within the data protection area. That has motivated my Amendment 233A—I will explain the logic of it shortly—and is the reason why I strongly support Amendment 234.
A certain amount of research can be done without any access to personal data, bringing together aggregated statistics of what is happening on platforms, but the reality is that many of the most interesting research questions inevitably bring us into areas where data protection must be considered. For example, looking at how certain forms of content might radicalise people will involve looking at what individual users are producing and consuming and the relationships between them. There is no way of doing without it for most of the interesting questions around the harms we are looking at. If you want to know whether exposure to content A or content B led to a harm, there is no way to do that research without looking at the individual and the specifics.
There is a broad literature on how anonymisation and pseudonymisation techniques can be used to try to make those datasets a little safer. However, even if the data can be made safe from a technical point of view, that still leaves us with significant ethical questions about carrying out research on people who would not necessarily consent to it and may well disagree with the motivation behind the sorts of questions we may ask. We may want to see how misinformation affects people and steers them in a bad direction; that is our judgment, but the judgment of the people who use those services and consume that information may well be that they are entirely happy and there is no way on earth that they would consent to be studied by us for something that they perceive to be against their interests.
Those are real ethical questions that have to be asked by any researcher looking at this area. That is what we are trying to get to in the amendments—whether we can create an environment with that balance of equity between the individual, who would normally be required to give consent to any use of their data, and the public interest. We may determine that, for example, understanding vaccine misinformation is sufficiently important that we will override that individual’s normal right to choose whether to participate in the research programme.
My Amendment 233A is to Amendment 233, which rightly says that Ofcom may be in a position to say that, for example, vaccine misinformation is in the overriding public interest and we need research into it. If it decides to do that and the platforms transfer data to those independent researchers, because we have said in the amendment that they must, the last thing we want is for the platforms to feel that, if there is any problem further down the track, there will be comeback on them. That would be against the principle of natural justice, given that they have been instructed to hand the data over, and could also act as a barrier.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendments 233 and 234 from the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, were well motivated, so I will be brief. I just have a couple of queries.
First, we need to consider what the criteria are for who is considered worthy of the privileged status of receiving Ofcom approval as a researcher. We are discussing researchers as though they are totally reliable and trustworthy. We might even think that if they are academic researchers, they are bound to be. However, there was an interesting example earlier this week of confirmation bias leading to mistakes when King’s College had to issue a correction to its survey data that was used in the BBC’s “Mariana in Conspiracyland”. King’s College admitted that it had wildly overestimated the numbers of those reading conspiracy newspaper, The Light, and wildly overestimated the numbers of those attending what it dubbed conspiracy demonstrations. By the way, BBC Verify has so far failed to verify the mistake it repeated. I give this example not as a glib point but because we cannot just say that because researchers are accredited elsewhere they should just be allowed in. I also think that the requirement to give the researchers
“all such assistance as they may reasonably require to carry out their research”
sounds like a potentially very time-consuming and expensive effort.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, raised points around “can’t” or “won’t”, and whether this means researchers “must” or “should”, and who decides whether it is ethical that they “should” in all instances. There are ethical questions here that have been raised. Questions of privacy are not trivial. Studying individuals as specimens of “badthink” or “wrongthink” might appear in this Committee to be in the public interest but without the consent of people it can be quite damaging. We have to decide which questions fulfil the public interest so sufficiently that consent could be overridden in that way.
I do not think this is a slam-dunk, though it looks like a sensible point. I do not doubt that all of us want more research, and good research, and data we can use in arguments, whatever side we are on, but it does not mean we should just nod something through without at least pausing.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation at the War Studies department of King’s College London. That is somewhere that conducts research using data of the kind addressed in this group, so I have a particular interest in it.
We know from the kind of debates that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to that it is widely accepted that independent researchers benefit hugely from access to relevant information from service providers to research online safety matters. That is why my Amendment 234, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Knight, aims to introduce an unavoidable mandatory duty for regulated platforms to give access to that data to approved researchers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, there are three ways in which this would be done. First, the timeframe for Ofcom’s report would be accelerated; secondly, proposed new Clause 147 would allow Ofcom to appoint the researchers; and, thirdly, proposed new Clause 148 would require Ofcom to write a code of practice on data access, setting up the fundamental principles for data access—a code which, by the way, should answer some of the concerns quite reasonably voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
The internet is absolutely the most influential environment in our society today, but it is a complete black box, and we have practically no idea what is going on in some of the most important parts of it. That has a terrible impact on our ability to devise sensible policies and mitigate harm. Instead, we have a situation where the internet companies decide who accesses data, how much of it and for what purposes.
In answer to his point, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who they give the data to—they give it to advertisers. I do not know if anyone has bought advertising on the internet, but it is quite a chilling experience. You can find out a hell of a lot about quite small groups of people if you are prepared to pay for the privilege of trying to reach them with one of your adverts: you can find out what they are doing in their bedrooms, what their mode of transport is to get to work, how old they are, how many children they have and so on. There is almost no limit to what you can find out about people if you are an advertiser and you are prepared to pay.
In fact, only the companies themselves can see the full picture of what goes on on the internet. That puts society and government at a massive disadvantage and makes policy-making virtually impossible. Noble Lords should be in no doubt that these companies deliberately withhold valuable information to protect their commercial interests. They obfuscate and confuse policymakers, and they protect their reputations from criticism about the harms they cause by withholding data. One notable outcome of that strategy is that it has taken years for us to be here today debating the Online Safety Bill, precisely because policy-making around the internet has been so difficult and challenging.
A few years ago, we were making some progress on this issue. I used to work with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue using CrowdTangle, a Facebook product. It made a big impact. We were working on a project on extremism, and having access to CrowdTangle revolutionised our understanding of how the networks of extremists that were emerging in British politics were coming together. However, since then, platforms have gone backwards a long way and narrowed their data-sharing. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned that CrowdTangle has essentially been closed down, and Twitter has basically stopped providing its free API for researchers—it charges for some access but even that is quite heavily restricted. These retrograde steps have severely hampered our ability to gather the most basic data from otherwise respectable and generally law-abiding companies. It has left us totally blind to what is happening on the rest of the internet—the bit beyond the nice bit; the Wild West bit.
Civil society plays a critical role in identifying harmful content and bad behaviour. Organisations such as the NSPCC, the CCDH, the ISD—which I mentioned—the Antisemitism Policy Trust and King’s College London, with which I have a connection, prove that their work can make a really big difference.
It is not as though other parts of our economy or society have the same approach. In fact, in most parts of our world there is a mixture of public, regulator and expert access to what is going on. Retailers, for instance, publish what is sold in our shops. Mobile phones, hospitals, banks, financial markets, the broadcast media—they all give access, both to the public and to their regulators, to a huge amount of data about what is going on. Once again, internet companies are claiming exceptional treatment—that has been a theme of debates on the Online Safety Bill—as if what happens online should, for some reason, be different from what happens in the rest of the world. That attitude is damaging the interests of our country, and it needs to be reversed. Does anyone think that the FSA, the Bank of England or the MHRA would accept this state of affairs in their regulated market? They absolutely would not.
Greater access to and availability of data and information about systems and processes would hugely improve our understanding of the online environment and thereby protect the innovation, progress and prosperity of the sector. We should not have to wait for Ofcom to be able to identify new issues and then appoint experts to look at them closely; there should be a broader effort to be in touch with what is going on with the internet. It is the nature of regulation that Ofcom will heavily rely on researchers and civil society to help enforce the Online Safety Bill, but this can be achieved only if researchers have sufficient access to data.
As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, pointed out, legislators elsewhere are making progress. The EU’s Digital Services Act gives a broad range of researchers access to data, including civil society and non-profit organisations dedicated to public interest research. The DSA sets out a framework for vetting and access procedures in detail, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly pointed out, creating an explicit role for new independent supervisory authorities and digital services co-ordinators to manage that process.
Under Clause 146, Ofcom must produce a report exploring such access within two years of that section of the Bill coming into effect. That is too long. There is no obligation on the part of the regulator or service providers to take this further. No arguments have been put forward for this extended timeframe or relative uncertainty. In contrast, the arguments to speed up the process are extremely persuasive, and I invite my noble friend the Minister to address those.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too want to support this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 234, and will make just a couple of brief points.
First, one of the important qualities of the online safety regime is transparency, and this really speaks to that point. It is beyond clear that we are going to need all hands on deck, and again, this speaks to that need. I passionately agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on this issue and ask, when does an independent researcher stop being independent? I have met quite a lot on my journey who suddenly find ways of contributing to the digital world other than their independent research. However, the route described here offers all the opportunities to put those balancing pieces in place.
Secondly, I am very much aware of the fear of the academics in our universities. I know that a number of them wrote to the Secretary of State last week saying that they were concerned that they would be left behind their colleagues in Europe. We do not want to put up barriers for academics in the UK. We want the UK to be at the forefront of governance of the digital world, this amendment speaks to that, and I see no reason for the Government to reject it.
Finally, I want to emphasise the importance of research. Revealing Reality did research for 5Rights called Pathways, in which it built avatars for real children and revealed the recommendation loops in action. We could see how children were being offered self-harm, suicide, extreme diets and livestream porn within moments of them arriving online. Frances Haugen has already been mentioned. She categorically proved what we have been asserting for years, namely that Instagram impacts negatively on teenage girls. As we put this regime in place, it is not adequate to rely on organisations that are willing to work in the grey areas of legality to get their research or on whistleblowers—on individual acts of courage—to make the world aware.
One of the conversations I remember happened nearly five years ago, when the then Secretary of State asked me what the most important thing about the Bill was. I said, “To bring a radical idea of transparency to the sector”. This amendment goes some way to doing just that.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support Amendments 233 and 234, and Amendment 233A, from the noble Lord, Lord Allan. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, it has been made clear in the past 10 days of Committee that there is a role for every part of society to play to make sure that we see the benefits of the digital world but also mitigate the potential harms. The role that researchers and academics can play in helping us understand how the digital world operates is critical—and that is going to get ever more so as we enter a world of large language models and AI. Access to data in order to understand how digital systems and processes work will become even more important—next week, not just in 10 years’ time.
My noble friend Lord Bethell quite rightly pointed out the parallels with other regulators, such as the MHRA and the Bank of England. A number of people are now comparing the way in which the MHRA and other medical regulators regulate the development of drugs with how we ought to think about the emergence of regulation for AI. This is a very good read-across: we need to set the rules of the road for researchers and ensure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said—nailing it, as usual—that we have the most transparent system possible, enabling people to conduct their research in the light, not in the grey zone.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, clearly, transparency is absolutely one of the crucial elements of the Bill. Indeed, it was another important aspect of the Joint Committee’s report. Like the noble Lord, Lord Knight—a fellow traveller on the committee—and many other noble Lords, I much prefer the reach of Amendments 233 and 234, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to Amendment 230, the lead amendment in this group.
We strongly support amendments that aim to introduce a duty for regulated platforms to enable access by approved independent researchers to information and data from regulated services, under certain conditions. Of course, there are arguments for speeding up the process under Clause 146, but this is really important because companies themselves currently decide who accesses data, how much of it and for what purposes. Only the companies can see the full picture, and the effect of this is that it has taken years to build a really solid case for this Online Safety Bill. Without a greater level of insight, enabling quality research and harm analysis, policy-making and regulatory innovation will not move forward.
I was very much taken by what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, had to say about the future in terms of the speeding up of technological developments in AI, which inevitably will make the opening up of data, and research into it, of greater and greater importance. Of course, I also take extremely seriously my noble friend’s points about the need for data protection. We are very cognisant of the lessons of Cambridge Analytica, as he mentioned.
It is always worth reading the columns of the noble Lord, Lord Hague. He highlighted this issue last December, in the Times. He said:
“Social media companies should be required to make anonymised data available to third-party researchers to study the effect of their policies. Crucially, the algorithms that determine what you see—the news you are fed, the videos you are shown, the people you meet on a website—should not only be revealed to regulators but the choices made in crafting them should then be open to public scrutiny and debate”.
Those were very wise words. The status quo leaves transparency in the hands of big tech companies with a vested interest in opacity. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, mentioned Twitter announcing in February that it would cease allowing free research access to its application programming interface. It is on a whim that a billionaire owner can decide to deny access to researchers.
I much prefer Amendment 233, which would enable Ofcom to appoint an approved independent researcher. The Ofcom code of practice proposed in Amendment 234 would be issued for researchers and platforms, setting out the procedures for enabling access to data. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about who should be an independent accredited researcher, but I hope that that is exactly the kind of thing that a code of practice would deal with.
Just as a little contrast, Article 40 of the EU’s Digital Services Act gives access to data to a broad range of researchers—this has been mentioned previously—including civil society and non-profit organisations dedicated to public interest research. The DSA sets out in detail the framework for vetting and access procedures, creating an explicit role for new independent supervisory authorities. This is an example that we could easily follow.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, mentioned the whole question of skilled persons. Like him, I do not believe that this measure is adequate as a substitute for what is contained in Amendments 233 and 234. It will be a useful tool for Ofcom to access external expertise on a case-by-case basis but it will not provide for what might be described as a wider ecosystem of inspection and analysis.
The noble Lord also mentioned the fact that internet companies should not regard themselves as an exception. Independent scrutiny is a cornerstone of the pharmaceutical, car, oil, gas and finance industries. They are open to scrutiny from research; we should expect that for social media as well. Independent researchers are already given access in many other circumstances.
The case for these amendments has been made extremely well. I very much hope to see the Government, with the much more open approach that they are demonstrating today, accept the value of these amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are supportive of improving data sharing and encouraging greater collaboration between companies and researchers, subject to the appropriate safeguards. However, the data that companies hold about users can, of course, be sensitive; as such, mandating access to data that are not publicly available would be a complex matter, as noble Lords noted in their contributions. The issue must be fully thought through to ensure that the risks have been considered appropriately. I am grateful for the consideration that the Committee has given this matter.
It is because of this complexity that we have given Ofcom the task of undertaking a report on researchers’ access to information. Ofcom will conduct an in-depth assessment of how researchers can currently access data. To the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and my noble friend Lord Bethell, let me provide reassurance that Ofcom will assess the impact of platforms’ policies that restrict access to data in this report, including where companies charge for such access. The report will also cover the challenges that constrain access to data and how such challenges might be addressed. These insights will provide an evidence base for any guidance that Ofcom may issue to help improve data access for researchers in a safe and secure way.
Amendments 230 and 231 seek to require Ofcom to publish a report into researchers’ access to data more rapidly than within the currently proposed two years. I share noble Lords’ desire to develop the evidence base on this issue swiftly, but care must be taken to balance Ofcom’s timelines to ensure that it can deliver its key priorities in establishing the core parts of the regulatory framework that the Bill will bring in; for example, the illegal content and child safety duties. Implementing these duties must be the immediate priority for Ofcom to ensure that the Bill meets its objective of protecting people from harm. It is crucial that we do not divert attention away from these areas and that we allow Ofcom to carry out this work as soon as is practicable.
Further to this, considering the complex matter of researchers’ access to data will involve consultation with interested parties, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, UK Research and Innovation, representatives of regulated services and others—including some of those parties mentioned by noble Lords today—as set out in Clause 146(3). This is an extremely important issue that we need to get right. Ofcom must be given adequate time to consult as it sees necessary and undertake the appropriate research.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
Before the Minister succeeds in disappointing us, can he clarify something for us? Once Ofcom has published the report, it has the power to issue guidance. What requirement is there for platforms to abide by that guidance? We want there to be some teeth at the end of all this. There is a concern that a report will be issued, followed by some guidance, but that nothing much else will happen.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It is guidance rather than direction, but it will be done openly and transparently. Users will be able to see the guidance which Ofcom has issued, to see whether companies have responded to it as they see fit and, through the rest of the framework of the Bill, be empowered to make their decisions about their experiences online. This being done openly and transparently, and informed by Ofcom’s research, will mean that everyone is better informed.
We are sympathetic to the amendment. It is complex, and this has been a useful debate—
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I wonder whether the Minister has an answer to the academic community, who now see their European colleagues getting ahead through being able to access data through other legislation in other parts of the world. Also, we have a lot of faith in Ofcom, but it seems a mistake to let it be the only arbiter of what needs to be seen.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are very aware that we are not the only jurisdiction looking at the important issues the Bill addresses. The Government and, I am sure, academic researchers will observe the implementation of the European Union’s Digital Services Act with interest, including the provisions about researchers’ access. We will carefully consider any implications of our own online safety regime. As noble Lords know, the Secretary of State will be required to undertake a review of the framework between two and five years after the Bill comes into force. We expect that to include an assessment of how the Bill’s existing transparency provisions facilitate researcher access.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to this today, but it will be useful to get this on the record as it is quite important. Can he let us know the Government’s thinking on the other piece of the equation? We are getting the platforms to disclose the data, and an important regulatory element is the research organisations that receive it. In the EU, that is being addressed with a code of conduct, which is a mechanism enabled by the general data protection regulation that has been approved by the European Data Protection Board and creates this legal framework. I am not aware of equivalent work having been done in the UK, but that is an essential element. We do not want to find that we have the teeth to persuade the companies to disclose the data, but not the other piece we need—probably overseen by the Information Commissioner’s Office rather than Ofcom—which is a mechanism for approving researchers to receive and then use the data.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are watching with interest what is happening in other jurisdictions. If I can furnish the Committee with any information in the area the noble Lord mentions, I will certainly follow up in writing.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I have a question, in that case, in respect of the jurisdictions. Why should we have weaker powers for our regulator than others?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not think that we do. We are doing things differently. Of course, Ofcom will be looking at all these matters in its report, and I am sure that Parliament will have an ongoing interest in them. As jurisdictions around the world continue to grapple with these issues, I am sure that your Lordships’ House and Parliament more broadly will want to take note of those developments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
But surely, there is no backstop power. There is the review but there is no backstop which would come into effect on an Ofcom recommendation, is there?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We will know once Ofcom has completed its research and examination of these complex issues; we would not want to pre-judge its conclusions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
With that, if there are no further questions, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, this was a short but important debate with some interesting exchanges at the end. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, mentioned the rapidly changing environment generated by generative AI. That points to the need for wider ecosystem-level research on an independent basis than we fear we might get as things stand, and certainly wider than the skilled persons we are already legislating for. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred to the access that advertisers already have to insight. It seems a shame that we run the risk, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, of researchers in other jurisdictions having more privileged access than researchers in this country, and therefore becoming dependent on those researchers and whistleblowers to give us that wider view. We could proceed with a report and guidance as set out in the Bill but add in some reserved powers in order to take action if the report suggests that Ofcom might need and want that. The Minister may want to reflect on that, having listened to the debate. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
“General procedure
(1) An appeal to the Upper Tribunal under section 148 or 149 must be commenced by sending a notice of appeal to the court.(2) The notice of appeal must set out the grounds of appeal in sufficient detail to indicate— (a) under which provision of this Act the appeal is to be brought;(b) to what extent (if any) the appellant contends that the decision against, or with respect to which, the appeal is brought was based on an error of fact or was wrong in law; and(c) to what extent (if any) the appellant is appealing against OFCOM’s exercise of its discretion in making the disputed decision.(3) The Upper Tribunal may give an appellant leave to amend the grounds of appeal identified in the notice of appeal.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces additional procedural steps to be followed when the Upper Tribunal considers an appeal under Clauses 148 and 149.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendments 242, 243 and 245, which have been tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. The intention of this group is to probe what we consider to be an interesting if somewhat niche area, and I hope the Minister will take it in that spirit.
To give the Committee some idea of the background to this group, when Ofcom was originally set up and was mainly dealing with mobile and fixed telephony cartels, it had a somewhat torrid time, if I can describe it that way. Just about every decision it took was challenged in the courts on the so-called merits of the respective cases and on its powers, as the companies taking it to court had many resources they could call upon. That very much held up Ofcom’s progress and, of course, incurred major costs.
Prior to the Digital Economy Act, the worst of the experiences of this period were over, but Ofcom managed to persuade the Government that challenges made by companies in scope of Ofcom would in future be based on judicial review, rather than on merits. In other words, the test was whether Ofcom had acted within its powers and had not acted irrationally. An area of concern to a number of companies is who can challenge the regulator, even if it is acting within its powers, if it gets it wrong in the eyes of said companies. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that.
This group of amendments is intended to provide better protections for service providers, their users and the wider public, alongside processes that should mean fewer delays and greater efficiency. The Competition Act 1998 permits appeals of Ofcom’s decisions to be made additionally on account of an error of fact, an error of law or an error of the exercise of its discretion.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having elucidated this arcane set of amendments. Unfortunately, though, it makes me deeply suspicious when I see what the amendments seem to do. I am not entirely clear about whether we are returning to some kind of merits-based appeal. If so, since the main litigators are going to be the social media companies, it will operate for their benefit to reopen every single thing that they possibly can on the basis of the original evidence that was taken into account by Ofcom, as opposed to doing it on a JR basis. It makes me feel quite uncomfortable if it is for their benefit, because I suspect it is not going to be for the ordinary user who has been disadvantaged by a social media company. I hope our brand spanking new independent complaints system—which the Minister will no doubt assure us is well on the way—will deal with that, but this strikes me as going a little too far.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I enter the fray with some trepidation. In a briefing, Carnegie, which we all love and respect, and which has been fantastic in the background in Committee days, shared some concerns. As I interpret its concerns, when Ofcom was created in 2003 its decisions could be appealed on their merits, as the noble Lord has just suggested, to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, and I believe that this was seen as a balancing measure against an untested regime. What followed was that the broad basis on which appeal was allowed led to Ofcom defending 10 appeals per year, which really frustrated its ability as a regulator to take timely decisions. It turned out that the appeals against Ofcom made up more than 80% of the workload of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, whose work was supposed to cover a whole gamut of matters. When there was a consultation in the fringes of the DEA, it was decided to restrict appeal to judicial review and appeal on process. I just want to make sure that we are not opening up a huge and unnecessary delaying tactic.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank all those who have spoken, and I very much appreciate the spirit in which the amendments were tabled. They propose changes to the standard of appeal, the standing to appeal and the appeals process itself. The Government are concerned that enabling a review of the full merits of cases, as proposed by Amendments 243 and 245, could prove burdensome for the courts and the regulator, since a full-merits approach, as we have been hearing, has been used by regulated services in other regulatory regimes to delay intervention, undermining the effectiveness of the enforcement process. With deep-pocketed services in scope, allowing for a full-merits review could incentivise speculative appeals, both undermining the integrity of the system and slowing the regulatory process.
While the Government are fully committed to making sure that the regulator is properly held to account, we feel that there is not a compelling case for replacing the decisions of an expert and well-resourced regulator with those of a tribunal. Ofcom will be better placed to undertake the complex analysis, including technical analysis, that informs regulatory decisions.
Amendment 245 would also limit standing and leave to appeal only to providers and those determined eligible entities to make super-complaints under Clause 150. This would significantly narrow the eligibility requirements for appeals. For appeals against Ofcom notices we assess that the broader, well-established standard in civil law of sufficient interest is more appropriate. Super-complaints fulfil a very different function from appeals. Unlike appeals, which will allow regulated services to challenge decisions of the regulator, super-complaints will allow organisations to advocate for users, including vulnerable groups and children, to ensure that systemic issues affecting UK users are brought to Ofcom’s attention. Given the entirely distinct purposes of these functions, it would be inappropriate to impose the eligibility requirements for super-complaints on the appeals system.
I am also concerned about the further proposal in Amendment 245 to allow the tribunal to replace Ofcom’s decision with its own. Currently, the Upper Tribunal is able to dismiss an appeal or quash Ofcom’s decision. Quashed decisions must be remitted to Ofcom for reconsideration, and the tribunal may give directions that it considers appropriate. Amendment 245 proposes instead allowing the Upper Tribunal to
“impose or revoke, or vary the amount of, a penalty … give such directions or take such other steps as OFCOM could itself have given or taken, or … make any other decision which OFCOM could itself have made”.
The concern is that this risks undermining Ofcom’s independence and discretion in applying its powers and issuing sanctions, and in challenging the regulator’s credibility and authority. It may also further incentivise well-resourced providers to appeal opportunistically, with a view to securing a more favourable outcome at a tribunal.
On that basis, I fear that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord would compromise the fundamental features of the current appeals provisions, without any significant benefits, and risk introducing a range of inadvertent consequences. We are confident that the Upper Tribunal’s judicial review process, currently set out in the Bill, provides a proportionate, effective means of appeal that avoids unnecessary expense and delays, while ensuring that the regulator’s decisions can be thoroughly scrutinised. It is for these reasons that I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I will take that as a no—but a very well-considered no, for which I thank him. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we certainly would not wish to make him feel uncomfortable at any time. I am grateful to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for their contributions. As I said at the outset, this amendment was intended to probe the issue, which I feel we have done. I certainly would not want to open a can of worms—online, judicial or otherwise. Nor would I wish, as the Minister suggested, to undermine the work, efficiency and effectiveness of Ofcom. I am glad to have had the opportunity to present these amendments. I am grateful for the consideration of the Committee and the Minister, and with that I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with the amendment to page 138, line 12 to which Lord Clement-Jones has added his name, seeks to probe the creation of a specific criminal offence of identity theft.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, even by the standards of this Bill, this is a pretty diverse group of amendments. I am leading the line with an amendment that does not necessarily fit with much of the rest of the group, except for Amendment 266, which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will be speaking to. I look forward to hearing her speak.
This amendment is designed to probe the creation of a new offence of identity theft in Clause 160. As I argued in my evidence to the consultation on digital identity and attributes in 2021, a new offence of identity theft is required. Under the Fraud Act 2006, the Identity Documents Act 2010, the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Data Protection Act 2018 there are currently the offences of fraud using a false identity, document theft, forging an identity, unauthorised computer access and data protection offences respectively, but no specific crime of digital identity theft.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 266 and 267, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, my noble friend Lord Leicester and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have added their names. They are the final two amendments from a group of amendments that were also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
The purpose of this Bill is to make the internet a safer place. The new offence of false communications is just one of the important means it seeks to use with the objective of making it an offence to harm people by telling lies online—and this is welcome. It is right that the Bill should focus on preventing harms to individuals. One of the most important guarantors that a person can have of good health and well-being is their freedom to pursue their livelihood unimpeded by illegitimate hostile action. Attacks on people’s livelihoods have the potential to wreak unimaginable harm on their mental and physical health, but these attacks are also among the easiest to perpetrate through the internet. My amendments seek to prevent such harms by protecting people who run, or work for, businesses that have been targeted with malicious fake reviews posted to online platforms, such as Google Maps or TripAdvisor. These platforms already fall within scope of this Bill in hosting user-generated content.
By referencing fake reviews, I am not referring to legitimate criticism, fair comment or even remarks about extraneous matters such as the owners’ pastimes or opinions, provided that the reviewer is honest about the nature of their relationship with the business. If someone wants to write a review of a business which they admit they have never patronised, and criticise it based on such factors, this would not be illegal, but it would very likely breach the platform’s terms of service and be removed. Review platforms are not the proper venue for such discussions; their role is to let people share opinions about a business’s products and services, but policing that is up to them.
The malicious fake reviews that I am referring to are those that are fundamentally dishonest. People with grudges to bear know that the platforms they use to attack their victims will remove any reviews that are clearly based on malice rather than a subjective assessment of quality. That is why they have come to adopt more insidious tactics. Without mentioning the real reason for their hostility towards a business and/or its staff, they purport to be customers who have had bad experiences. Of course, in almost every case, the reviewer has never so much as gone near the business. The review is therefore founded on lies.
This is not merely an abstract concern. Real people are being really harmed. Noble Lords will know that in earlier debates I used the prism of rural communities to amplify the objective of my amendments. Only yesterday, during Oral Questions in your Lordships’ House, there was an overwhelming collective consensus that we need to do more to protect the livelihoods of those working so hard in rural communities. My simple amendments would make a massive difference to their well-being.
The Countryside Alliance recently conducted a survey that found innumerable instances of ideologically motivated fake reviews targeted at rural businesses; these were often carried out by animal rights extremists and targeted businesses and their employees who sometimes participated in activities to which they objected, such as hosting shoots or serving meat. In April this year, the Telegraph reported on one case of a chef running a rural pub whose business was attacked with fake reviews by a vegan extremist who had verifiably never visited the pub, based initially on the man’s objection to him having posted on social media a picture of a roast chicken. The chef said these actions were making him fear for his livelihood as his business fought to recover from the pandemic. He is supporting my amendments.
Amendment 266 would therefore simply add the word “financial” to “physical” and “psychological” in the Bill’s definition of the types of harm that a message would need to cause for it to amount to an offence. This amendment is not an attempt to make the Bill into something it was not designed to be. It is merely an attempt to protect the physical and mental health of workers whose businesses are at risk of attack through malicious fake reviews. It may be that the victim of such an attack could argue that a fake review has caused them physical or psychological harm, as required under the Bill as currently drafted—indeed, it would likely do so. The reason for adding financial harm is to circumvent the need for victims to make that argument to the police, the police to the Crown Prosecution Service and then the prosecutors in front of the jury.
That links to Amendment 267, which would enlarge the definition of parties who may be harmed by a message for it to an amount to an offence. Under the Bill, a message must harm its intended, or reasonably foreseeable, recipient; however, it is vital to understand that a person need not receive the message to be harmed by it. In the case of fake reviews, the victim is harmed because the false information has been seen by others; he or she is not an intended recipient. The amendment would therefore include harms to the person or organisation to which the information—or, in reality, disinformation—contained within it relates.
My principal objective in bringing these amendments is not to create a stick with which to beat those who wish harm to others through malicious fake reviews; rather—call me old-fashioned—it is about deterrence. It is to deter this conduct by making it clear that it is not acceptable and would, if necessary, be pursued by police and through the courts under criminal law. It is about seeing to it that malicious fake reviews are not written and their harm is not caused.
I am aware that the Government have responded to constituents who have contacted their MPs in support of these amendments to say that they intend to act through the Competition and Markets Authority against businesses that pay third parties to write fake disparaging reviews of their competitors. I must stress to my noble friend the Minister, with respect, that this response misunderstands the issue. While there is a problem with businesses fraudulently reviewing their competitors to gain commercial advantage—and it is welcome that the Government plan to act on it—I am concerned with extreme activists and other people with ideological or personal axes to grind. These people are not engaged in any relevant business and are not seeking to promote a competitor by comparison. It is hard to see how any action by the Competition and Markets Authority could offer an effective remedy. The CMA exists to regulate businesses, not individual cranks. Further, this is not a matter of consumer law.
If the Government wish to propose some alternative means of addressing this issue besides my amendments, I and those who have added their names—and those who are supporters beyond your Lordships’ House—would be pleased to engage with Ministers between now and Report. In that regard though, I gently urge the Government to start any conversation from a position of understanding—really understanding—what the problem is. I fully appreciate that the purpose of this Bill is to protect individuals, and that is the key point of my amendments. My focus is upon those running and working in small businesses who are easy targets of this form of bullying and abuse. It is entirely in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the Bill to protect them.
Finally, I must be clear that the prism of what happens in our rural areas translates directly to everything urban across the UK. A practical difference is that people working in remote areas are often very isolated and find this intrusion into their life and livelihood so hard to cope with. We live in a pretty unpleasant world that is diminishing our love of life—that is why this Bill is so necessary.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I wish to add to what my noble friend Lady Buscombe has just said, but I can do so a little more briefly, not least because she has made all the points that need to be made.
I would disagree with her on only one point, which is that she said—I am not sure that she wanted to be called old-fashioned, but she certainly wanted to have it explained to us—that the purpose of our amendment was to deter people from making malicious posts to the detriments of businesses and so forth. I think it is about more than deterrence, if I may say so. It is about fairness and justice.
It is very natural for a civilised, humane person to want to protect those who cannot protect themselves because of the anonymity of the perpetrator of the act. Over the last nearly 50 years, I have practised at the media Bar, including in cases based on the tort of malicious falsehood, trade libel or slander of goods. Essentially, my noble friend and I are trying to bring into the criminal law the torts that I have advised on and appeared in cases involving, so that the seriousness of the damage caused by the people who do these anonymous things can be visited by the weight of the state as the impartial prosecutor.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, this is a very broad group, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not comment on every amendment in it. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for the case put forward by my noble friend Lady Buscombe and my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. The addition of the word “financial” to Clause 160 is not only merited on the case made but is a practical and feasible thing to do in a way that the current inclusion of the phrase “non-trivial psychological” is not. After all, a financial loss can be measured and we know how it stands. I will also say that I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about his amendment. In so far as I understand them—I appreciate that they have not yet been spoken to—I am also sympathetic to the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam.
I turn to my Amendment 265, which removes the word “psychological” from this clause. We have debated this already, in relation to other amendments, so I am going to be fairly brief about it. Probably through an oversight of mine, this amendment has wandered into the wrong group. I am going to say simply that it is still a very, very good idea and I hope that my noble friend, when he comes to reflect on your Lordships’ Committee as a whole, will take that into account and respond appropriately. Instead, I am going to focus my remarks on the two notices I have given about whether Clauses 160 and 161 should stand part of the Bill; Clause 161 is merely consequential on Clause 160, so the meat is whether Clause 160 should stand part of the Bill.
I was a curious child, and when I was learning the Ten Commandments—I am sorry to see the right reverend Prelate has left because I hoped to impress him with this—I was very curious as to why they were all sins, but some of them were crimes and others were not. I could not quite work out why this was; murder is a crime but lying is not a crime—and I am not sure that at that stage I understood what adultery was. In fact, lying can be a crime, of course, if you undertake deception with intent to defraud, and if you impersonate a policeman, you are lying and committing a crime, as I understand it—there are better-qualified noble Lords than me to comment on that. However, lying in general has never been a crime, until we get to this Bill, because for the first time this Bill makes lying in general—that is, the making of statements you know to be false—a crime. Admittedly, it is a crime dependent on the mode of transmission: it has to be online. It will not be a crime if I simply tell a lie to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, for example, but if I do it online, any form of statement which is not true, and I know not to be true, becomes a criminal act. This is really unprecedented and has a potentially chilling effect on free speech. It certainly seems to be right that, in your Lordships’ Committee, the Government should be called to explain what they think they are doing, because this is a very portentous matter.
The Bill states that a person commits the false communications offence if they send a message that they know to be false, if they intend the message to cause a degree of harm of a non-trivial psychological or physical character, and if they have no reasonable excuse for sending the message. Free speech requires that one should be allowed to make false statements, so this needs to be justified. The wording of the offence raises substantial practical issues. How is a court meant to judge what a person knows to be false? How is a committee of the House of Commons meant to judge, uncontroversially, what a person knows to be false at the time they say it? I say again: what is non-trivial psychological harm and what constitutes an excuse? None of these things is actually defined; please do not tell me they are going to be defined by Ofcom—I would not like to hear that. This can lead to astonishing inconsistency in the courts and the misapplication of criminal penalties against people who are expressing views as they might well be entitled to do.
Then there is the question of the audience, because the likely audience is not just the person to whom the false statement is directed but could be anybody who subsequently encounters the message. How on earth is one going to have any control over how that message travels through the byways and highways of the online world and be able to say that one had some sense of who it was going to reach and what non-trivial psychological harm it might cause when it reached them?
We are talking about this as if this criminal matter is going to be dealt with by the courts. What makes this whole clause even more disturbing is that in the vast majority of cases, these offences will never reach the courts, because there is going to be, inevitably, an interaction with the illegal content duties in the Bill. By definition, these statements will be illegal content, and the platforms have obligations under the Bill to remove and take down illegal content when they become aware of it. So, the platform is going to have to make some sort of decision about not only the truth of the statement but whether the person knows what the statement is, that the statement is false and what their intention is. Under the existing definition of illegal content, they will be required to remove anything they reasonably believe is likely to be false and to prevent it spreading further, because the consequences of it, in terms of the harm it might do, are incalculable by them at that point.
We are placing a huge power of censorship—and mandating it—on to the platforms, which is one of the things that some of us in this Committee have been very keen to resist. Just exploring those few points, I think my noble friend really has to explain what he thinks this clause is doing, how it is operable and what its consequences are going to be for free speech and censorship. As it stands, it seems to me unworkable and dangerous.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Does my noble friend agree with me that our courts are constantly looking into the state of mind of individuals to see whether they are lying? They look at what they have said, what they have done and what they know. They can draw an inference based on the evidence in front of them about whether the person is dishonest. This is the daily bread and butter of court. I appreciate the points he is making but, if I may say so, he needs to dial back slightly his apoplexy. Underlying this is a case to be made in justice to protect the innocent.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I did not say that it would be impossible for a court to do this; I said it was likely to lead to high levels of inconsistency. We are dealing with what is likely to be very specialist cases. You can imagine this in the context of people feeling non-trivially psychologically harmed by statements about gender, climate, veganism, and so forth. These are the things where you see this happening. The idea that there is going to be consistency across the courts in dealing with these issues is, I think, very unlikely. It will indeed have a chilling effect on people being able to express views that may be controversial but are still valid in an open society.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I want to reflect on the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just put to us. I also have two amendments in the group; they are amendments to the government amendment, and I am looking to the Minister to indicate whether it is helpful for me to explain the rationale of my amendments now or to wait until he has introduced his. I will do them collectively.
First, the point the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised is really important. We have reached the end of our consideration of the Bill; we have spent a lot of time on a lot of different issues, but we have not spent very much time on these new criminal offences, and there may be other Members of your Lordships’ House who were also present when we discussed the Communications Act back in 2003, when I was a Member at the other end. At that point, we approved something called Section 127, which we were told was essentially a rollover of the dirty phone call legislation we had had previously, which had been in telecoms legislation for ever to prevent that deep-breathing phone call thing.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this grouping. I am afraid that I did not have time to get others to put their names to them, but I hope that they will find some support in this Committee.
For almost the whole of 2021, I chaired an inquiry in Scotland into misogyny. It was about the fact that many complaints were being made to the devolved Government in Scotland about women’s experiences not just of online harassment but of the disinhibition that the internet and social media have given people to be abusive online now also visiting the public square. Many people described the ways in which they are publicly harassed. I know that concerns people in this House too.
When I came to the Bill, I was concerned about something that became part of the evidence we heard. It is no different down here from in Scotland. As we know, many women—I say women, but men receive harassment online too—are sent really vicious, vile things. We all know of parliamentarians and journalists who have received them, their lives made a misery by threats to rape and kill and people saying, “Go and kill yourself”. There are also threats of disfigurement—“Somebody should take that smile off your face”—and suggestions that an acid attack be carried out on someone.
In hearing that evidence, it was interesting that some of the forms of threat are not direct in the way that criminal law normally works; they are indirect. They are not saying, “I’m going to come and rape you”. Sometimes they say that, but a lot of the time they say, “Somebody should rape you”; “You should be raped”; “You deserve to be raped”; “You should be dead”; “Somebody should take you out”; “You should be disfigured”; “Somebody should take that smile off your face, and a bit of acid will do it”. They are not saying, “I’m going to come and do it”, in which case the police go round and, if the person is identifiable, make an arrest—as happened with Joanna Cherry, the Scottish MP, for example, who had a direct threat of rape, and the person was ultimately charged under the Communications Act.
Our review of the kinds of threat taking place showed that it was increasingly this indirect form of threat, which has a hugely chilling effect on women. It creates fear and life changes, because women think that some follower of this person might come and do what is suggested and throw acid at them as they are coming out of their house, and they start rearranging their lives because of it—because they live in constant anxiety about it. It was shocking to hear the extent to which this is going on.
In the course of the past year, we have all become much more familiar with Andrew Tate. What happens with these things is that, because of the nature of social media and people having big followings, you get the pile-on: an expression with which I was not that familiar in the past but now understand only too well. The pile-on is where, algorithmically, many different commentaries are brought together and suddenly the recipient receives not just one, or five, but thousands of negative and nasty threats and comments. Of course, as a public person in Parliament, or a councillor, you are expected to open up your social media, because that is how people will get in touch with you or comment on the things you are doing, but then you receive thousands of these things. This affects journalists, Members of Parliament, councillors and the leaders of campaigns. For example, it was interesting to hear that people involved in the Covid matters received threats. It affects both men and women, but the sexual nature of the threats to women is horrifying.
The Andrew Tate thing is interesting because only yesterday I saw in the newspapers that part of the charging in Romania is about the way in which, because of his enormous following, and his encouragement of violence towards women, he is being charged, among many other things that are directly about violence to and the rape of women, for his incitement to these behaviours in many of his young male followers. In the report of the inquiry that I conducted, there are a number of recommendations around offences of that sort.
To specifically deal with this business of online threats, my amendments seek to address their indirect nature—not the ones that say, “I’m going to do it”, but the encouragement to others to do it or to create the fear that it will happen—and to look at how the criminal law addresses that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I will address my remarks to government Amendment 268AZA and its consequential amendments. I rather hope that we will get some reassurance from the Minister on these amendments, about which I wrote to him just before the debate. I hope that that was helpful; it was meant to be constructive. I also had a helpful discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Allan.
As has already been said, the real question relates to the threshold and the point at which this measure will clock in. I am glad that the Government have recognised the importance of the dangers of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm. I am also grateful for the way in which they have defined it in the amendment, relating to it grievous bodily harm and severe injury. The amendment says that this also
“includes successive acts of self-harm which cumulatively reach that threshold”.
That is important; it means, rather than just one act, a series of them.
However, I have a question about subsection (10), which states that:
“A provider of an internet service by means of which a communication is sent, transmitted or published is not to be regarded as a person who sends, transmits or publishes it”.
We know from bereaved parents that algorithms have been set up which relay this ghastly, horrible and inciteful material that encourages and instructs. That is completely different from those organisations that are trying to provide support.
I am grateful to Samaritans for all its help with my Private Member’s Bill, and for the briefing that it provided in relation to this amendment. As it points out, over 5,500 people in England and Wales took their own lives in 2021 and self-harm is
“a strong risk factor for future suicide”.
Interestingly, two-thirds of those taking part in a Samaritans research project said that
“online forums and advice were helpful to them”.
It is important that there is clarity around providing support and not encouraging and goading people into activity which makes their self-harming worse and drags them down to eventually ending their own lives. Three-quarters of people who took part in that Samaritans research said that they had
“harmed themselves more severely after viewing self-harm content online”.
It is difficult to know exactly where this offence sits and whether it is sufficiently narrowly drawn.
I am grateful to the Minister for arranging for me to meet the Bill team to discuss this amendment. When I asked how it was going to work, I was somewhat concerned because, as far as I understand it, the mechanism is based on the Suicide Act, as amended, which talks about the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide. The problem as I see it is that, as far as I am aware, there has not been a string of prosecutions following the suicide of many young people. We have met their families and they have been absolutely clear about how their dead child or sibling—whether a child or a young adult—was goaded, pushed and prompted. I recently had experience outside of a similar situation, which fortunately did not result in a death.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, has already addressed some of the issues around this, and I would not want the amendment not to be there because we must address this problem. However, if we are to have an offence here, with a threshold that the Government have tried to define, we must understand why, if assisting and encouraging suicide on the internet is already a criminal offence, nothing has happened and there have been no prosecutions.
Why is subsection (10) in there? It seems to negate the whole problem of forwarding on through dangerous algorithms content which is harmful. We know that a lot of the people who are mounting this are not in the UK, and therefore will be difficult to catch. It is the onward forwarding through algorithms that increases the volume of messaging to the vulnerable person and drives them further into the downward spiral that they find themselves in—which is perhaps why they originally went to the internet.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, and to hearing how this will work.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this group relates to communications offences. I will speak in support of Amendment 265, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and in support of his opposition to Clause 160 standing part of the Bill. I also have concerns about Amendments 267AA and 267AB, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. Having heard her explanation, perhaps she can come back and give clarification regarding some of my concerns.
On Clause 160 and the false communications offence, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I want to focus on psychological harm and the challenge this poses for freedom of expression. I know we have debated it before but, in the context of the criminal law, it matters in a different way. It is worth us dwelling on at least some aspects of this.
The offence refers to what is described as causing
“non-trivial psychological or physical harm to a likely audience”.
As I understand it—maybe I want some clarity here—it is not necessary for the person sending the message to have intended to cause harm, yet there is a maximum sentence of 51 weeks in prison, a fine, or both. We need to have the context of a huge cultural shift when we consider the nature of the harm we are talking about.
J.S. Mill’s harm principle has now been expanded, as previously discussed, to include traumatic harm caused by words. Speakers are regularly no-platformed for ideas that we are told cause psychological harm, at universities and more broadly as part of the whole cancel culture discussion. Over the last decade, harm and safety have come no longer to refer just to physical safety but have been conflated. Historically, we understood the distinction between physical threats and violence as distinct from speech, however aggressive or incendiary that speech was; we did not say that speech was the same as or interchangeable with bullets or knives or violence—and now we do. I want us to at least pause here.
What counts as psychological harm is not a settled question. The worry is that we have an inability to ascertain objectively what psychological harm has occurred. This will inevitably lead to endless interpretation controversies and/or subjective claims-making, at least some of which could be in bad faith. There is no median with respect to how humans view or experience controversial content. There are wildly divergent sensibilities about what is psychologically harmful. The social media lawyer Graham Smith made a really good point when he said that speech is not a physical risk,
“a tripping hazard … a projecting nail … that will foreseeably cause injury … Speech is nuanced, subjectively perceived and capable of being reacted to in as many different ways as there are people.”
That is true.
We have seen an example of the potential disputes over what creates psychological harm in a case in the public realm over the past week. The former Culture Secretary, Nadine Dorries, who indeed oversaw much of this Bill in the other place, had her bullying claims against the SNP’s John Nicolson MP overturned by the standards watchdog. Her complaints had previously been upheld by the standards commissioner. John Nicolson tweeted, liked and retweet offensive and disparaging material about Ms Dorries 168 times over 24 hours—which, as they say, is a bit OTT. He “liked” tweets describing Ms Dorries as grotesque, a “vacuous goon” and much worse. It was no doubt very unpleasant for her and certainly a personalised pile-on—the kind of thing the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, just talked about—and Ms Dorries would say it was psychologically harmful. But her complaint was overturned by new evidence that led to the bullying claim being turned down. What was this evidence? Ms Dorries herself was a frequent and aggressive tweeter. So, somebody is a recipient of something they say causes them psychological harm, and it has now been said that it does not matter because they are the kind of person who causes psychological harm to other people. My concern about turning this into a criminal offence is that the courts will be full of those kinds of arguments, which I do not think we want.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in introducing this group some time ago, it is very diverse. I shall comment on two aspects of the amendments in this group. I entirely associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who really nailed the problems with Amendment 266, and I very much support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws; I would have signed them if I had caught up with them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about causing alarm and distress. I can draw on my own experience here, thinking about when someone randomly starts to post you pictures of crossbows. I think about what used to happen when I was a journalist in Bangkok, when various people used to get hand grenades posted into their letterbox. That was not actively dangerous—the pin was not pulled; it was still held down—but it was clearly a threat, and the same thing happens on social media.
This is something of which I have long experience. In 2005, when I was the founder of the feminist blog Carnival of Feminists, I saw the kinds of messages that the noble Baronesses have referred to, which in the days before social media used to be posted as comments on people’s blogs. You can still find the blog out there—it ran from 2005 to 2009—but many of its links to other blogs will be dead because they were often run by young women, often young women of colour, who were driven to pull down their blogs and sometimes were driven off the internet entirely by threatening, fearsome messages of the type that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to. We can argue about the drafting here—I will not have any opinion on that in detail—but something that addresses that issue is really important.
Secondly, we have not yet heard the Government’s introductions to Amendment 268AZA, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, provided us with the information that it is an amendment to create the offence of encouraging or assisting self-harm. I express support for the general tenor of that, but I want to make one specific point: so far as I can see, the amendment does not have any defence or carve-out for harm-reduction messages, which may be necessary.
To set the context here, figures from the Royal College of Psychiatrists say that about one in 10 young people self-harm at some stage in their youth, and the RCP says those figures are probably an underestimate because they are based on figures where medical professionals actually see them so the number is probably significantly higher than that. An article in the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing from 2018 entitled “Self-cutting and harm reduction” is focused on in-patient settings, but the arguments in it are important in setting the general tone. It says that
“harm reduction in all its guises starts from the premise that the end goal”—
that is, to end self-harm entirely—
“is neither necessarily nor inevitably abstinence”,
which cannot be the solution for some people. Rather,
“the extinction of some particular form of behaviour may not be realistic for, or even desired by, the individual”.
So you may find messages that say, “If you are going to cut yourself, use a clean blade. If you do cut yourself, look after the wound afterwards”, but there is a risk that those kinds of well-intentioned, well-meaning and indeed expert messages could be caught by the amendment. I googled self-harm and harm reduction, and the websites that came up included Self Injury Support, which provides expert advice; a number of mental health trusts and healthcare trusts; and, indeed, the royal college’s own website.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, was trying to address this issue with Amendment 268AZC, which would allow the DPP to authorise prosecutions, but it seems to me that a better approach would be to have in the government amendment a statement saying, “We acknowledge that there will be cases where people talk about self-harm in ways that seek to minimise harm rather than simply stopping it, and they are not meant to be caught by this amendment”.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, it seems a very long time since we heard the introduction from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but it was useful in setting this helpful and well-informed debate on its way. I am sure the whole Committee is keen to hear the Minister introducing the government amendments, even at this very late stage in the debate.
I would like to make reference to a few points. I was completely captivated by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who invoked the 10 commandments. I say to him that one can go to no higher order, which I am sure will support the amendments that he and his colleagues have put forward.
I will refer first to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Kennedy. At a minimum, they are interesting because they try to broaden the scope of the current offences. I believe they also try to anticipate the extent of the impact of the government amendments, which in my view would be improved by my noble friend’s amendments. As my noble friend said, so many of the threats that are experienced online by, and directed towards, women and girls are indirect. They are about encouraging others: saying “Somebody should do something terrible to you” is extremely common. I feel that here is an opportunity to address that in the Bill, and if we do not, we will have missed a major aspect. I hope that the Minister will take account of that and be positive. We can all be relaxed about whether the amendments need to be made, but the intent is there.
That part of the debate made a strong case to build on the debate we had on an earlier day in Committee about violence against women and girls, which was led by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and supported by noble Baronesses and noble Lords from all sides of the House. We called upon the Minister then to ensure that the Bill explicitly includes the necessary amendments to make it refer to violence against women and girls because, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lady Kennedy has explained, it is considerably greater for them than for others. Without wishing to dismiss the fact that everybody receives levels of abuse, we have to be realistic here: I believe that my noble friend’s amendments are extremely helpful there.
This is a bit in anticipation of what the Minister will say—I am sure he will forgive me if he already has the answers. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Allan, referred particularly to the coalition of some 130 individuals and organisations which have expressed their concerns. I want to highlight those concerns as well, because they speak to some important points. The groups in that coalition include the largest self-harm charity, Self Injury Support, along with numerous smaller self-harm support organisations and, of course, the mental health charity Mind. Their voice is therefore considerable.
To emphasise what has already been outlined, the concern with the current amendments is that they are somewhat broad and equivalent to an offence of glamorising self-harm, which was rejected by the Law Commission in its consultation on the offence. That followed concern from the Magistrates’ Association and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners that the offence would be ambiguous in application and complex to prosecute. It also risks criminalising people in distress, something that none of us want to see.
In addition, the broadness of the offence risks criminalising peer support and harm reduction resources, by defining them as capable of “encouraging or assisting” when they are in fact intended to help people who self-harm. This was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, today and in respect of her Private Member’s Bill, which we debated very recently in this Chamber, and I am sure that it would not be the Minister’s intention.
I would like to emphasise another point that has been made. The offence may also criminalise content posted by people who are in distress and sharing their own experiences of self-harm—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to this—by, for example, posting pictures of wounds. We do not want to subject vulnerable people to litigation, so let us not have an offence which ends up harming the very people it aims to protect. I shall be listening closely to the Minister.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a broad and mixed group of amendments. I will be moving the amendments in my name, which are part of it. These introduce the new offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm and make technical changes to the communications offences. If there can be a statement covering the group and the debate we have had, which I agree has been well informed and useful, it is that this Bill will modernise criminal law for communications online and offline. The new offences will criminalise the most damaging communications while protecting freedom of expression.
Amendments 264A, 266 and 267, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Buscombe, would expand the scope of the false communications offence to add identity theft and financial harm to third parties. I am very grateful to them for raising these issues, and in particular to my noble friend Lady Buscombe for raising the importance of financial harm from fake reviews. This will be addressed through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which was recently introduced to Parliament. That Bill proposes new powers to address fake and misleading reviews. This will provide greater legal clarity to businesses and consumers. Where fake reviews are posted, it will allow the regulator to take action quickly. The noble Baroness is right to point out the specific scenarios about which she has concern. I hope she will look at that Bill and return to this issue in that context if she feels it does not address her points to her satisfaction.
Identity theft is dealt with by the Fraud Act 2006, which captures those using false identities for their own benefit. It also covers people selling or using stolen personal information, such as banking information and national insurance numbers. Adding identity theft to the communications offences here would duplicate existing law and expand the scope of the offences too broadly. Identity theft, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted, is better covered by targeted offences rather than communications offences designed to protect victims from psychological and physical harm. The Fraud Act is more targeted and therefore more appropriate for tackling these issues. If we were to add identity theft to Clause 160, we would risk creating confusion for the courts when interpreting the law in these areas—so I hope the noble Lord will be inclined to side with clarity and simplicity.
Amendment 265, tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan, gives me a second chance to consider his concerns about Clause 160. The Government believe that the clause is necessary and that the threshold of harm strikes the right balance, robustly protecting victims of false communications while maintaining people’s freedom of expression. Removing “psychological” harm from Clause 160 would make the offence too narrow and risk excluding communications that can have a lasting and serious effect on people’s mental well-being.
But psychological harm is only one aspect of Clause 160; all elements of the offence must be met. This includes a person sending a knowingly false message with an intention to cause non-trivial harm, and without reasonable excuse. It has also been tested extensively as part of the Law Commission’s report Modernising Communications Offences, when determining what the threshold of harm should be for this offence. It thus sets a high bar for prosecution, whereby a person cannot be prosecuted solely on the basis of a message causing psychological harm.
The noble Lord, Lord Allan, rightly recalled Section 127 of the Communications Act and the importance of probing issues such as this. I am glad he mentioned the Twitter joke trial—a good friend of mine acted as junior counsel in that case, so I remember it well. I shall spare the blushes of the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, in recalling who the Director of Public Prosecutions was at the time. But it is important that we look at these issues, and I am happy to speak further with my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about this and their broader concerns about freedom of expression between now and Report, if they would welcome that.
My noble friend Lord Moylan said that it would be unusual, or novel, to criminalise lying. The offence of fraud by false representation already makes it an offence dishonestly to make a false representation—to breach the ninth commandment—with the intention of making a gain or causing someone else a loss. So, as my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier pointed out, there is a precedent for lies with malicious and harmful intent being criminalised.
Amendments 267AA, 267AB and 268, tabled my noble friend Lady Buscombe and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, take the opposite approach to those I have just discussed, as they significantly lower and expand the threshold of harm in the false and threatening communications offences. The first of these would specify that a threatening communications offence is committed even if someone encountering the message did not fear that the sender specifically would carry out the threat. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her correspondence on this issue, informed by her work in Scotland. The test here is not whether a message makes a direct threat but whether it conveys a threat—which can certainly cover indirect or implied threats.
I reassure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords that Clause 162 already captures threats of “death or serious harm”, including rape and disfigurement, as well as messages that convey a threat of serious harm, including rape and death threats, or threats of serious injury amounting to grievous bodily harm. If a sender has the relevant intention or recklessness, the message will meet the required threshold. But I was grateful to see my right honourable friend Edward Argar watching our debates earlier, in his capacity as Justice Minister. I mentioned the matter to him and will ensure that his officials have the opportunity to speak to officials in Scotland to look at the work being done with regard to Scots law, and to follow the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made about pictures—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. I was not imagining that the formulations that I played with fulfilled all of the requirements. Of course, as a practising lawyer, I am anxious that we do not diminish standards. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for raising concerns about freedom of speech, but this is not about telling people that they are unattractive or ugly, which is hurtful enough to many women and can have very deleterious effects on their self-confidence and willingness to be public figures. Actually, I put the bar reasonably high in describing the acts that I was talking about: threats that somebody would kill, rape, bugger or disfigure you, or do whatever to you. That was the shocking thing: the evidence showed that it was often at that high level. It is happening not just to well-known public figures, who can become somewhat inured to this because they can find a way to deal with it; it is happening to schoolgirls and young women in universities, who get these pile-ons as well. We should reckon with the fact that it is happening on a much wider basis than many people understand.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we will ensure that, in looking at this in the context of Scots law, we have the opportunity to see what is being done there and that we are satisfied that all the scenarios are covered. In relation to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 268, the intentional encouragement or assistance of a criminal offence is already captured under Sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, so I hope that that satisfies her that that element is covered—but we will certainly look at all of this.
I turn to government Amendment 268AZA, which introduces the new serious self-harm offence, and Amendments 268AZB and 268AZC, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Allan and Lord Clement-Jones. The Government recognise that there is a gap in the law in relation to the encouragement of non-fatal self-harm. The new offence will apply to anyone carrying out an act which intends to, and is capable of, encouraging or assisting another person seriously to self-harm by means of verbal or electronic communications, publications or correspondence.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that the new clause inserted by Amendment 268AZA is clear that, when a person sends or publishes a communication that is an offence, it is also clear that, when a person forwards on another person’s communication, that will be an offence too. The new offence will capture only the most serious behaviour and avoid criminalising vulnerable people who share their experiences of self-harm. The preparation of these clauses was informed by extensive consultation with interested groups and campaign bodies. The new offence includes two key elements that constrain the offence to the most culpable offending; namely, that a person’s act must be intended to encourage or assist the serious self-harm of another person and that serious self-harm should amount to grievous bodily harm. If a person does not intend to encourage or assist serious self-harm, as will likely be the case with recovery and supportive material, no offence will be committed. The Law Commission looked at this issue carefully, following evidence from the Samaritans and others, and the implementation will be informed by an ongoing consultation as well.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the Law Commission recommended that the DPP’s consent should be required. The case that the Minister has made on previous occasions in some of the consultations that he has had with us is that this offence that the Government have proposed is different from the Law Commission one, and that is why they have not included the DPP’s consent. I am rather baffled by that, because the Law Commission was talking about a high threshold in the first place, and the Minister is talking about a high threshold of intent. Even if he cannot do so now, it would be extremely helpful to tie that down. As the noble Baroness and my noble friend said, 130 organisations are really concerned about the impact of this.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Law Commission recommended that the consent, but not the personal consent, of the Director of Public Prosecutions should be required. We believe, however, that, because the offence already has tight parameters due to the requirement for an intention to cause serious self-harm amounting to grievous bodily harm, as I have just outlined, an additional safeguard of obtaining the personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is not necessary. We would expect the usual prosecutorial discretion and guidance to provide sufficient safeguards against inappropriate prosecutions in this area. As I say, we will continue to engage with those groups that have helped to inform the drafting of these clauses as they are implemented to make sure that that assessment is indeed borne out.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I completely accept that, yes, by requiring the regulated services to prevent access to this kind of content, we will make a significant difference, but it is still the case that there will be—we know there will be, because they exist today—these individual websites, blogs or whatever you want to call them which are not regulated user-to-user services and which are promoting self-harm content. It would be really helpful to know what the Government think should happen to a service such as that, given that it is outside the regulation; it may be persistently breaking the law but be outside our jurisdiction.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will follow up in writing on that point.
Before I conclude, I will mention briefly the further government amendments in my name, which make technical and consequential amendments to ensure that the communications offences, including the self-harm offence, have the appropriate territorial extent. They also set out the respective penalties for the communications offences in Northern Ireland, alongside a minor adjustment to the epilepsy trolling offence, to ensure that its description is more accurate.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the new criminal laws that we will make through this Bill are a marked improvement on the status quo. I hope that they will continue to support the government amendments. I express my gratitude to the Law Commission and to all noble Lords—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Just before the Minister sits down—I assume that he has finished his brief on the self-harm amendments; I have been waiting—I have two questions relating to what he said. First, if I heard him right, he said that the person forwarding on is also committing an offence. Does that also apply to those who set up algorithms that disseminate, as opposed to one individual forwarding on to another individual? Those are two very different scenarios. We can see how one individual forwarding to another could be quite targeted and malicious, and we can see how disseminating through an algorithm could have very widespread harms across a lot of people in a lot of different groups—all types of groups—but I am not clear from what he said that that has been caught in his wording.
Secondly—I will ask both questions while I can—I asked the Minister previously why there have been no prosecutions under the Suicide Act. I understood from officials that this amendment creating an offence was to reflect the Suicide Act and that suicide was not included in the Bill because it was already covered as an offence by the Suicide Act. Yet there have been no prosecutions and we have had deaths, so I do not quite understand why I have not had an answer to that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will have to write on the second point to try to set that out in further detail. On the question of algorithms, the brief answer is no, algorithms would not be covered in the way a person forwarding on a communication is covered unless the algorithm has been developed with the intention of causing serious self-harm; it is the intention that is part of the test. If somebody creates an algorithm intending people to self-harm, that could be captured, but if it is an algorithm generally passing it on without that specific intention, it may not be. I am happy to write to the noble Baroness further on this, because it is a good question but quite a technical one.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
It needs to be addressed, because these very small websites already alluded to are providing some extremely nasty stuff. They are not providing support to people and helping decrease the amount of harm to those self-harming but seem to be enjoying the spectacle of it. We need to differentiate and make sure that we do not inadvertently let one group get away with disseminating very harmful material simply because it has a small website somewhere else. I hope that will be included in the Minister’s letter; I do not expect him to reply now.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Some of us are slightly disappointed that my noble friend did not respond to my point on the interaction of Clause 160 with the illegal content duty. Essentially, what appears to be creating a criminal offence could simply be a channel for hyperactive censorship on the part of the platforms to prevent the criminal offence taking place. He has not explained that interaction. He may say that there is no interaction and that we would not expect the platforms to take any action against offences under Clause 160, or that we expect a large amount of action, but nothing was said.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
If my noble friend will forgive me, I had better refresh my memory of what he said—it was some time ago—and follow up in writing.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief. There is much to chew on in the Minister’s speech and this was a very useful debate. Some of us will be happier than others; the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will no doubt look forward to the digital markets Bill and I will just have to keep pressing the Minister on the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about digital identity theft. It will not necessarily always be fraud that is demonstrated—the very theft of the identity is designed to be the crime, and it is not covered by the Fraud Act 2006. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to talk further with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, because that is a really important area. I am not sure that my noble friend will be that happy with the response, but he will no doubt follow up with the Minister on his amendments.
The Minister made a very clear statement on the substantive aspect of the group, the new crime of encouraging self-harm, but further clarification is still needed. We will look very carefully at what he said in relation to what the Law Commission recommended, because it is really important that we get this right. I know that the Minister will talk further with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who is very well versed in this area. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I now have to go through a mass of amendments that are not to be the subject of debate today as they have been debated previously. I will proceed as swiftly as I can.
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the penalties for the false communications offence in Northern Ireland, since the offence is now to extend to Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to England and Wales to differentiate the provision from the similar provision applying to Northern Ireland (see the next amendment in the Minister’s name).
“(aa) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the penalties for the threatening communications offence in Northern Ireland, since the offence is now to extend to Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment about extent - the extent of the epilepsy trolling offence in clause 164 is now dealt with by amendments of clause 210 (see the amendments of that clause in the Minister’s name).
“Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm
(1) A person (D) commits an offence if—(a) D does a relevant act capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of another person, and(b) D’s act was intended to encourage or assist the serious self-harm of another person.(2) D “does a relevant act” if D—(a) communicates in person,(b) sends, transmits or publishes a communication by electronic means,(c) shows a person such a communication,(d) publishes material by any means other than electronic means,(e) sends, gives, shows or makes available to a person—(i) material published as mentioned in paragraph (d), or(ii) any form of correspondence, or(f) sends, gives or makes available to a person an item on which data is stored electronically.(3) “Serious self-harm” means self-harm amounting to—(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, grievous bodily harm within the meaning of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and(b) in Scotland, severe injury,and includes successive acts of self-harm which cumulatively reach that threshold.(4) The person referred to in subsection (1)(a) and (b) need not be a specific person (or class of persons) known to, or identified by, D.(5) D may commit an offence under this section whether or not serious self-harm occurs.(6) If a person (D1) arranges for a person (D2) to do an act that is capable of encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of another person and D2 does that act, D1 is to be treated as also having done it.(7) In the application of subsection (1) to an act by D involving an electronic communication or a publication in physical form, it does not matter whether the content of the communication or publication is created by D (so for example, in the online context, the offence under this section may be committed by forwarding another person’s direct message or sharing another person’s post).(8) In the application of subsection (1) to the sending, transmission or publication by electronic means of a communication consisting of or including a hyperlink to other content, the reference in subsection (2)(b) to the communication is to be read as including a reference to content accessed directly via the hyperlink.(9) In the application of subsection (1) to an act by D involving an item on which data is stored electronically, the reference in subsection (2)(f) to the item is to be read as including a reference to content accessed by means of the item to which the person in receipt of the item is specifically directed by D.(10) A provider of an internet service by means of which a communication is sent, transmitted or published is not to be regarded as a person who sends, transmits or publishes it.(11) Any reference in this section to doing an act that is capable of encouraging the serious self-harm of another person includes a reference to doing so by threatening another person or otherwise putting pressure on another person to seriously self-harm. “Seriously self-harm” is to be interpreted consistently with subsection (3).(12) Any reference to an act in this section, except in subsection (3), includes a reference to a course of conduct, and references to doing an act are to be read accordingly.(13) In subsection (3) “act” includes omission.(14) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);(d) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine (or both).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new offence of encouraging or assisting another person to seriously self-harm, with intent to do so, by means of verbal or electronic communications, publications or correspondence.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits provisions which relate to offences that extended to England and Wales only, as the offences in question are now to extend to Northern Ireland as well.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, regarding extra-territorial application, is needed because of the extension of the offences in clauses 160 and 162 to Northern Ireland.
“(4A) Section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm)(1) applies to an act done outside the United Kingdom, but only if the act is done by a person within subsection (4B).(4B) A person is within this subsection if the person is—(a) an individual who is habitually resident in the United Kingdom, or(b) a body incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the extra-territorial application of the new offence proposed by the amendment in the Minister’s name to be inserted after clause 164.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits a provision which relates to offences that extended to England and Wales only, as the offences in question are now to extend to Northern Ireland as well.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, regarding extra-territorial jurisdiction, is needed because of the extension of the offences in clauses 160 and 162 to Northern Ireland.
“(6A) Proceedings for an offence committed under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm) outside the United Kingdom may be taken, and the offence may for incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, at any place in the United Kingdom.(6B) In the application of subsection (6A) to Scotland, any such proceedings against a person may be taken, and the offence may for incidental purposes be treated as having been committed—(a) in any sheriff court district in which the person is apprehended or is in custody, or(b) in such sheriff court district as the Lord Advocate may determine.(6C) In subsection (6B) “sheriff court district” is to be construed in accordance with the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (see section 307(1) of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is required in order to give courts in the United Kingdom jurisdiction to deal with the new offence proposed by the amendment in the Minister’s name to be inserted after clause 164, if the offence is committed outside the United Kingdom.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment about extent - the extent of clause 165 is now dealt with by amendments of clause 210 (see the amendments of that clause in the Minister’s name).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that clause 166, which is about the liability of corporate officers for offences, applies in relation to the new offence proposed by the amendment in the Minister’s name to be inserted after clause 164.
“(2A) If an offence under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm) is committed by a Scottish partnership and it is proved that the offence—(a) has been committed with the consent or connivance of a partner of the partnership, or(b) is attributable to any neglect on the part of a partner of the partnership,the partner (as well as the partnership) commits the offence and is liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (2B) “Partner”, in relation to a Scottish partnership, includes any person who was purporting to act as a partner.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that clause 166, which is about the liability of corporate officers for offences, applies to Scottish partnerships.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment about extent - the extent of clause 166 is now dealt with by amendments of clause 210 (see the amendments of that clause in the Minister’s name).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that section 127(2)(a) and (b) of the Communications Act 2003 is repealed for Northern Ireland as well as England and Wales (because the false communications offence in clause 160 is now to extend to Northern Ireland as well).
“(3) The following provisions of the Malicious Communications (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 (S.I. 1988/1849 (N.I. 18)) are repealed—(a) Article 3(1)(a)(ii),(b) Article 3(1)(a)(iii), and(c) Article 3(2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment amends the specified Northern Ireland legislation in consequence of the extension of the false and threatening communications offences to Northern Ireland.
“(1A) Part 1A of Schedule 14 contains amendments consequential on section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a Part of Schedule 14 containing consequential amendments related to the new offence proposed by the amendment in the Minister’s name to be inserted after clause 164.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clearer that changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 to the Bill relate to England and Wales only (since the next amendment in the Minister’s name makes equivalent amendments for Northern Ireland).
“2A_ In Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, in the list of offences for Northern Ireland, after paragraph 171H insert—“171I_ An offence under section 160 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (false communications).171J_ An offence under section 162 of that Act (threatening communications).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment concerns offences relevant to the making of certain orders under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Now that the false and threatening communications offences under this Bill are to extend to Northern Ireland, this amendment updates the references in Schedule 5 to the Sexual Offences Act that relate to Northern Ireland.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor change to the description of the epilepsy trolling offence so that the description is more accurate.
“Part 1AAMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON OFFENCE IN SECTION (ENCOURAGING OR ASSISTING SERIOUS SELF-HARM)Children and Young Persons Act 19334A_ In Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (offences against children and young persons with respect to which special provisions of Act apply), after the entry relating to the Suicide Act 1961 insert—“An offence under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm)(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm) where the relevant act is an act capable of, and done with the intention of, encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of a child or young person.”Visiting Forces Act 19524B_(1) The Schedule to the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (offences referred to in section 3) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 1(b), after paragraph (xv) insert—“(xvi) section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm) of the Online Safety Act 2023;”.(3) In paragraph 2(b), after paragraph (iv) insert— “(v) section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm) of the Online Safety Act 2023;”.Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 34 (N.I.))4C_ In Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (offences against children and young persons with respect to which special provisions of Act apply), after the entry relating to the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 insert—“An offence under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm)(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm) where the relevant act is an act capable of, and done with the intention of, encouraging or assisting the serious self-harm of a child or young person.”Criminal Attempts Act 19814D_ In section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 (attempting to commit an offence), in subsection (4), after paragraph (c) insert—“(d) an offence under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm)(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).”Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/ 1120 (N.I. 13))4E_ In Article 3 of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (attempting to commit an offence), in paragraph (4), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) an offence under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm)(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm);”Armed Forces Act 20064F_ In Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006 (“Schedule 2 offences”), in paragraph 12, at the end insert—“(ba) an offence under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).”Serious Crime Act 20074G_(1) The Serious Crime Act 2007 is amended as follows.(2) In section 51A (exceptions to section 44 for encouraging or assisting suicide)—(a) the existing text becomes subsection (1);(b) after that subsection insert—“(2) Section 44 does not apply to an offence under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm)(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).”;(c) in the heading, at the end insert “or serious self-harm”.(3) In Part 1 of Schedule 3 (listed offences: England and Wales and Northern Ireland), after paragraph 24A insert—“Online Safety Act 202324B_ An offence under section (Offence of encouraging or assisting serious self-harm)(1) of the Online Safety Act 2023 (encouraging or assisting serious self-harm).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes changes which are consequential on the new offence proposed by the amendment in the Minister’s name to be inserted after clause 164. Among other things, changes are proposed to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to ensure that offences of attempt and encouragement etc in those Acts do not apply in relation to the new offence, because that offence is itself an inchoate offence.
(b) judgements by providers about whether news publisher content amounts to a relevant offence (see section 14(5) and (10)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, in effect, re-states the provision currently in clause 14(11), requiring OFCOM’s guidance under clause 171 to cover the judgements described in the amendment.
“Offence of failure to comply with confirmation decision: supplementary
(1) Where a penalty has been imposed on a person by a penalty notice under section 126 in respect of a failure constituting an offence under section (Confirmation decisions: offence)(failure to comply with certain requirements of a confirmation decision), no proceedings may be brought against the person for that offence.(2) A penalty may not be imposed on a person by a penalty notice under section 126 in respect of a failure constituting an offence under section (Confirmation decisions: offence) if—(a) proceedings for the offence have been brought against the person but have not been concluded, or(b) the person has been convicted of the offence.(3) Where a service restriction order under section 131 or an access restriction order under section 133 has been made in relation to a regulated service provided by a person in respect of a failure constituting an offence under section (Confirmation decisions: offence), no proceedings may be brought against the person for that offence.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures, among other things, that a person cannot be prosecuted for the new offence created by the new clause to be inserted after clause 125 in the Minister’s name if OFCOM have imposed a financial penalty for the same conduct instead, and vice versa.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to clause 137(11) so that that provision (which is about enforcement by civil proceedings) has extra-territorial application.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the preceding amendment in the Minister’s name.
“(2A) Section (Confirmation decisions: offence) applies to acts done by a person in the United Kingdom or elsewhere (offence of failure to comply with confirmation decision).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives wide extra-territorial effect to the new offence created by the new clause to be inserted after clause 125 in the Minister’s name (failure to comply with certain requirements of a confirmation decision).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the extra-territorial effect of the new offence of failure to comply with certain requirements of a confirmation decision in the case of senior managers etc who may commit the offence under clause 178(2) or 179(5).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is required in order to give United Kingdom courts jurisdiction to deal with the new offence of failure to comply with certain requirements of a confirmation decision if it is committed elsewhere.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Land is in sight! I call Amendment 286ZA.
Amendment 286ZA
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“Artificial intelligence: labelling of machine-generated content
Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish draft legislation with provisions requiring providers of regulated services to put in place systems and processes for—(a) identifying content on their service which is machine-generated, and(b) informing users of the service that such content is machine-generated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment is to facilitate a discussion around the potential labelling of machine-generated content, which is a measure being considered in other jurisdictions.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, that was a bravura performance by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. We thank him. To those listening in the Public Gallery, I should say that we debated most of those; it was not quite as on the nod as it looked.
Amendment 286ZA, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, seeks to address a critical issue in our digital landscape: the labelling of AI-generated content on social media platforms.
As we navigate the ever-evolving world of technology, it is crucial that we uphold a transparency safeguarding the principles of honesty and accountability. Social media has become an integral part of our lives, shaping public discourse, disseminating information and influencing public opinion. However, the rise of AI-powered algorithms and tools has given rise to a new challenge: an increasing amount of content generated by artificial intelligence without explicit disclosure.
We live in an age where AI is capable of creating incredibly realistic text, images and even videos that can be virtually indistinguishable from those generated by humans. While this advancement holds immense potential, it also raises concerns regarding authenticity, trust and the ethical implications of AI-generated content. The proposed amendment seeks to address this concern by advocating for a simple but powerful solution—labelling AI-generated content as such. By clearly distinguishing human-generated content from AI-generated content, we empower individuals to make informed decisions about the information they consume, promoting transparency and reducing the potential for misinformation or manipulation.
Labelling AI-generated content serves several crucial purposes. First and foremost, it allows individuals to differentiate between information created by humans and that generated by algorithms in an era where misinformation and deep fakes pose a significant threat to public trust. Such labelling becomes a vital tool to protect and promote digital literacy.
Secondly, it enables users to better understand the potential biases and limitations of AI-generated content. AI algorithms are trained on vast datasets, and without labelling, individuals might unknowingly attribute undue credibility to AI-generated information, assuming it to be wholly objective and reliable. Labelling, however, helps users to recognise the context and provides an opportunity for critical evaluation.
Furthermore, labelling AI-generated content encourages responsible behaviour from the platforms themselves. It incentivises social media companies to develop and implement AI technologies with integrity and transparency, ensuring that users are aware of the presence and influence of AI in their online experiences.
Some may argue that labelling AI-generated content is an unnecessary burden or that it could stifle innovation. However, the intention behind this amendment is not to impede progress but to foster a healthier digital ecosystem built on trust, integrity and informed decision-making. By promoting transparency, we can strike a balance that allows innovation to flourish while safeguarding the interests of individuals and society as a whole.
In conclusion, the amendment to label AI-generated content on social media platforms represents a crucial step forward in addressing the challenges of the digital age. By embracing transparency and empowering individuals, we can foster a more informed and discerning society. Let us lead by example and advocate for a digital landscape that values accountability, integrity and the rights of individuals. I urge your Lordships to support this amendment as we strive to build a future where technology works hand-in-hand with humanity for the betterment of all.
In the spirit of the amendment, I must flag that my entire speaking note was generated by AI, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, from his expression, had clearly guessed. In using this tool, I do so not to belittle the amendment but to illustrate that these tools are already infiltrating everyday life and can supercharge misinformation. We need to do something to ease internet users in trusting what they read.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Does the noble Lord agree that the fact that we did not notice his speech was generated by AI somewhat damages his argument?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
The fact that I labelled it as being AI-generated helped your Lordships to understand, and the transparency eases the debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for laying out the amendment and recognise that there was a very thoughtful debate on the subject of machine-generated content on Amendment 125 in my name on a previous day of Committee.
I appreciate that the concept of labelling or watermarking machine-generated material is central to recent EU legislation, but I am equally aware that there is more than one school of thought on the efficacy of that approach among AI experts. On the one hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, beautifully set out—with the help of his artificial friend—there are those who believe that visibly marking the division of real and altered material is a clue for the public to look more carefully at what they are seeing and that labelling it might provide an opportunity for both creators and digital companies to give greater weight to “human-created material”. For example, it could be that the new BBC Verify brand is given greater validity by the public, or that Google’s search results promote it above material labelled as machine-generated as a more authentic source. There are others who feel that the scale of machine-generated material will be so vast that this labelling will be impossible or that labelling will downgrade the value of very important machine-generated material in the public imagination, when in the very near future it is likely that most human activity will be a blend of generated material and human interaction.
I spent the first part of this week locked in a room with others at the Institute for Ethics in AI in Oxford debating some of these issues. While this is a very live discussion, one thing is clear: if we are to learn from history, we must act now before all is certain, and we should act with pragmatism and a level of humility. It may be that either or both sets of experts are correct.
Industry has clearly indicated that there is an AI arms race, and many companies are launching services that they do not understand the implications of. This is not my view but one told to me by a company leader, who said that the speed of distribution was so great that the testing was confined to whether deploying large language models crashed the platforms; there was no testing for safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, says in his explanatory statement that this is a probing amendment. I therefore ask the Minister whether we might meet before Report and look once again at the gaps that might be covered by some combination of Amendment 125 and the amendment in front of us, to make certain that the Bill adequately reflects the concerns raised by the enforcement community and reflects the advice of those who best understand the latest iterations of the digital world.
The Communications Act 2003 made a horrible mistake in not incorporating digital within it; let us not do the same here. Adding explicit safety duties to AI and machine learning would not slow down innovation but would ensure that innovation is not short-sighted and dangerous for humanity. It is a small amendment for what may turn out to be an unimaginably important purpose.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I will try to keep my remarks brief.
It is extremely helpful that we have the opportunity to talk about this labelling question. I see it more as a kind of aperitif for our later discussion of AI regulation writ large. Given that it is literally aperitif hour, I shall just offer a small snifter as to why I think there may be some challenges around labelling—again, perhaps that is not a surprise to the noble Baroness.
When we make rules, as a general matter we tend to assume that people are going to read them and respond in a rationalist, conformist way. In reality, particularly in the internet space, we often see that there is a mixed environment and there will be three groups. There are the people who will look at the rules and respond in that rational way to them; a large group of people will just ignore them—they will simply be unaware and not at all focused on the rules; and another group will look for opportunities to subvert them and use them to their own advantage. I want to comment particularly on that last group by reference to cutlery and call centres, two historic examples of where rules have been subverted.
On the cutlery example, I am a Sheffielder, and “Made in Sheffield” used to mean that you had made the entire knife in Sheffield. Then we had this long period when we went from knives being made in Sheffield to bringing them to Sheffield and silver-plating them, to eventually just sharpening them and putting them in boxes. That is relevant in the context of AI. Increasingly, if there is an advantage to be gained by appearing to be human, people will look at what kind of finishing you need, so: “The content may have been generated by AI but the button to post it was pushed by a human, therefore we do not think it is AI because we looked at it and posted it”. On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, does the fact that my noble friend intervened on him and the noble Lord had to use some of his own words now mean that his speech in Hansard would not have to be labelled “AI-generated” because we have now departed from it? Therefore, there is that question of individuals who will want something to appear human-made even if it was largely AI-generated, and whether they will find the “Made in Sheffield” way of bypassing it.
Interestingly, we may see the phenomenon flipping the other way, and this is where my call centres come in. If people go to a popular search engine and type in “SpinVox”, they will see the story of a tech company that promised to transcribe voicemails into written text. This was a wonderful use of technology, and it was valued on the basis that it had developed that fantastic technology. However, it turned out—or at least there were claims, which I can repeat here under privilege—that it was using call centres in low-cost, low-wage environments to type those messages out. Therefore, again, we may see, curiously, some people seeing an advantage to presenting content as AI-generated when it is actually made by humans. That is just to flag that up—as I say, it is a much bigger debate that we are going to have. It is really important that we are having it, and labelling has a role to play. However, as we think about it, I urge that we remember those communities of people who will look at whatever rules we come up with and say, “Aha! Where can I get advantage?”, either by claiming that something is human when it is generated by AI or claiming that it is generated by AI if it suits them when it was actually produced by humans.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Allan. He reminded me of significant reports of the huge amount of exploitation in the digital sector that has come from identification of photos. A great deal of that is human labour, even though it is often claimed to have been done through machine intelligence.
In speaking to this late but important amendment, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Knight, for giving us the chance to do so, because, as every speaker has said, this is really important. I should declare my position as a former newspaper editor. I distinctly recall teasing a sports journalist in the early 1990s when it was reported that journalists were going to be replaced by computer technology. I said that the sports journalists would be the first to go because they just wrote to a formula anyway. I apologise to sports journalists everywhere.
The serious point behind that is that a lot of extreme, high claims are now being made about so-called artificial intelligence. I declare myself an artificial-intelligence sceptic. What we have now—so-called generative AI—is essentially big data. To quote the science fiction writer, Ted Chiang, what we have is applied statistics. Generative AI relies on looking at what already exists, and it cannot produce anything original. In many respects, it is a giant plagiarism machine. There are huge issues, beyond the scope of the Bill, around intellectual property and the fact that it is not generating anything original.
None the less, it is generating what people in the sector like to describe as hallucinations, which might otherwise be described as errors, falsehoods or lies. This is where quotes are made up; ideas are presented which, at first glance, look as though they make sense but fall apart under examination; and data is actively invented. There is one rather famous case where a lawyer got himself into a great deal of trouble by producing a whole lot of entirely false cases that a bot generated for him. We need to be really careful, and this amendment shows us a way forward in attempting to deal with some of the issues we are facing.
To pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, about the real-world impacts, I was at an event in Parliament this week entitled “The Worker Experience of the AI Revolution”, run by the TUC and Connected by Data. It highlighted what has happened with a lot of the big data exercises already in operation: rather than humans being replaced by robots, people are being forced to act like robots. We heard from Royal Mail and Amazon workers, who are monitored closely and expected to act like machines. That is just one example of the unexpected outcomes of the technologies we have been exercising in recent years.
I will make two final comments. First, I refer to 19th-century Luddite John Booth, who was tortured to death by the state. He was a Luddite, but he was also on the record as saying that new machinery
“might be man’s chief blessing instead of his curse if society were differently constituted”.
History is not pre-written; it is made by the choices, laws and decisions we make in this Parliament. Given where we are at the moment with so-called AI, I urge that caution really is warranted. We should think about putting some caution in the Bill, which is what this amendment points us towards.
My final point relates to an amendment I was not allowed to table because, I was told, it was out of scope. It asked the Secretary of State to report on the climate emissions coming from the digital sector, specifically from artificial intelligence. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said that it will operate on a vast scale. I point out that, already, the digital sector is responsible for 3% of the world’s electricity use and 2% of the world’s carbon emissions, which is about the same as the airline sector. We really need to think about caution. I very much agree with everyone who said that we need to have more discussions on all these issues before Report.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this is a real hit-and-run operation from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. He has put down an amendment on my favourite subject in the last knockings of the Bill. It is totally impossible to deal with this now—I have been thinking and talking about the whole area of AI governance and ethics for the past seven years—so I am not going to try. It is important, and the advisory committee under Clause 139 should take it into account. Actually, this is much more a question of authenticity and verification than of content. Trying to work out whether something is ChatGPT or GPT-4 content is a hopeless task; you are much more likely to be able to identify whether these are automated users such as chatbots than you are to know about the content itself.
I will leave it there. I missed the future-proofing debate, which I would have loved to have been part of. I look forward to further debates with the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, on the deficiencies in the White Paper and to the Prime Minister’s much more muscular approach to AI regulation in future.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, is smiling over a sherry somewhere about the debate he has facilitated. His is a useful probing amendment and we have had a useful discussion.
The Government certainly recognise the potential challenges posed by artificial intelligence and digitally manipulated content such as deepfakes. As we have heard in previous debates, the Bill ensures that machine-generated content on user-to-user services created by automated tools or machine bots will be regulated where appropriate. Clause 49(4)(b) means that machine-generated content is regulated unless the bot or automated tool producing the content is controlled by the provider of the service.
The labelling of this content via draft legislation is not something to which I can commit today. The Government’s AI regulation White Paper sets out the principles for the responsible development of artificial intelligence in the UK. These principles, such as safety, transparency and accountability, are at the heart of our approach to ensuring the responsible development and use of AI. As set out in the White Paper, we are building an agile approach that is designed to be adaptable in response to emerging developments. We do not wish to introduce a rigid, inflexible form of legislation for what is a flexible and fast-moving technology.
The public consultation on these proposals closed yesterday so I cannot pre-empt our response to it. The Government’s response will provide an update. I am joined on the Front Bench by the Minister for Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property, who is happy to meet with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others before the next stage of the Bill if they wish.
Beyond labelling such content, I can say a bit to make it clear how the Bill will address the risks coming from machine-generated content. The Bill already deals with many of the most serious and illegal forms of manipulated media, including deepfakes, when they fall within scope of services’ safety duties regarding illegal content or content that is potentially harmful to children. Ofcom will recommend measures in its code of practice to tackle such content, which could include labelling where appropriate. In addition, the intimate image abuse amendments that the Government will bring forward will make it a criminal offence to send deepfake images.
In addition to ensuring that companies take action to keep users safe online, we are taking steps to empower users with the skills they need to make safer choices through our work on media literacy. Ofcom, for example, has an ambitious programme of work through which it is funding several initiatives to build people’s resilience to harm online, including initiatives designed to equip people with the skills to identify disinformation. We are keen to continue our discussions with noble Lords on media literacy and will keep an open mind on how it might be a tool for raising awareness of the threats of disinformation and inauthentic content.
With gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Knight, and everyone else, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Knight, will be content to withdraw his noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone for that interesting and quick debate. It is occasionally one’s lot that somebody else tables an amendment but is unavoidably detained in Jerez, drinking sherry, and monitoring things in Hansard while I move the amendment. I am perhaps more persuaded than my noble friend might have been by the arguments that have been made.
We will return to this in other fora in response to the need to regulate AI. However, in the meantime, I enjoyed in particular the John Booth quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. In respect of this Bill and any of the potential harms around generative AI, if we have a Minister who is mindful of the need for safety by design when we have concluded this Bill then we will have dealt with the bits that we needed to deal with as far as this Bill is concerned.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
Can the noble Lord confirm whether he generated those comments himself, or was he on his phone while we were speaking?
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I do not have an invisible earpiece feeding me my lines—that was all human-generated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, during the transitional period when video-sharing platform services continue to be regulated by Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003, providers of such services are not exempt from the new duty in clause 19 to supply records of risk assessments to OFCOM.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment effects the repeal of a provision of the Digital Economy Act 2017 which solely relates to another provision of that Act being repealed.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment re-names “content moderation technology” as “content identification technology” as that term is more accurate.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first amendment of clause 202 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment revises the definition of content identification technology so that the restrictions in the Bill on OFCOM recommending or requiring the use of proactive technology apply to content identification technology operating on any kind of content.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first amendment of clause 202 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first amendment of clause 202 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first amendment of clause 202 in the Minister’s name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first amendment of clause 202 in the Minister’s name.
(ii) users of another internet service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment concerns the factors that OFCOM must particularly consider when deciding if content is communicated publicly or privately. The change ensures that one such factor is how easily the content may be shared with users of another service.
Baroness Kidron
“age estimation” includes reference to an age range or an age expressed in years;“age verification” means the exact age of a person in years, months, and days or an established date of birth;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines the meaning of age assurance in the Bill to recognise it includes any test of age including but not limited to verification. Age verification means the exact age of a person in years, months, and days or a date of birth. Age estimation may refer to an age range or an age expressed in years. This is a definition of terms only: the intention is that Ofcom will produce guidance of what level of assurance is required in different settings.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, we already had a long debate on this subject earlier in Committee. In the interim, many noble Lords associated with these amendments have had conversations with the Government, which I hope will bear some fruit before Report. Today, I want to reiterate a few points that I hope are clarifying to the Committee and the department. In the interests of everyone’s evening plans, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, wish to associate themselves with these remarks so that they represent us in our entirety.
For many years, we thought age verification was a gold standard, primarily because it involved a specific government-issued piece of information such as a passport. By the same token, we thought age estimation was a lesser beast, given that it is an estimate by its very nature and that the sector primarily relied on self-declarations with very few checks and balances. In recent years, many approaches to age checking have flourished. Some companies provide age assurance tokens based on facial recognition; others use multiple signals of behaviour, friendship group, parental controls and how you move your body in gameplay; and, only yesterday, I saw the very impressive on-device privacy-preserving age-verification system that Apple rolled out in the US two weeks ago. All of these approaches, used individually and cumulatively, have a place in the age-checking ecosystem, and all will become more seamless over time. But we must ensure that, when they are used, they are adequate for the task they are performing and are quality controlled so that they do not share information about a child, are secure and are effective.
That is why, at the heart of the package of measures put forward in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Bethell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, are two concepts. First, the method of measuring age should be tech neutral so that all roads can be used. Secondly, there must be robust mechanism of measurement of effectiveness so that only effective systems can be used in high-risk situations, particularly those of primary priority harms such as self-harm and pornography, and that such a measurement will be determined by Ofcom, not industry.
From my work over the last decade and from recent discussion with industry, I am certain that any regime of age assurance must be measurable and hold to certain principles. We cannot create a situation where children’s data is loosely held and liberally shared; we cannot have a system that discriminates against, or does not have automatic appeal mechanisms for, children of colour or those who are 17 or 19, who are at most likelihood of error. Systems should aim to be interoperable and private, not leave traces as children go from one service to another.
Each of the principles of our age-verification package set out in the schedule are of crucial importance. I hope that the Government will see the sense in that because, without them, this age checking will not be trusted. Equally, I urge the Committee to embrace the duality of age verification and estimation that the Government have put forward, because, if a child uses an older sibling’s form of verification and a company understands through the child’s behaviour that they are indeed a child, then we do not want to set up a perverse situation in which the verification is considered of a higher order and they cannot take action based on estimation; ditto, if estimation in gameplay is more accurate than tokens that verify whether someone is over or under 18, it may well be that estimation gives greater assurance that the company will treat the child according to their age.
I hope and believe that, in his response, the Minister will confirm that definitions of age assurance and age estimation will be on the face of the Bill. I also urge him to make a generous promise to accept the full gamut of our concerns about age checking and bring forward amendments in his name on Report that reflect them in full. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, support her amendments and, likewise, hope that they form part of the package that is trundling on its way towards us.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, what more can I say than that I wish to be associated with the comments made by the noble Baroness and then by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her amendment, which is a useful opportunity for us to state publicly and share with the Committee the progress we have been making in our helpful discussions on these issues in relation to these amendments. I am very grateful to her and to my noble friends Lord Bethell and Lady Harding for speaking as one on this, including, as is well illustrated, in this short debate this evening.
As the noble Baroness knows, discussions continue on the precise wording of these definitions. I share her optimism that we will be able to reach agreement on a suitable way forward, and I look forward to working with her, my noble friends and others as we do so.
The Bill already includes a definition of age assurance in Clause 207, which is
“measures designed to estimate or verify the age or age-range of users of a service”.
As we look at these issues, we want to avoid using words such as “checking”, which suggests that providers need to take a proactive approach to checking age, as that may inadvertently preclude the use of technologies which determine age through other means, such as profiling. It is also important that any definition of age assurance does not restrict the current and future use of innovative and accurate technologies. I agree that it is important that there should be robust definitions for terms which are not currently defined in the Bill, such as age verification, and recommit to the discussions we continue to have on what terms need to be defined and the best way to define them.
This has been a very helpful short debate with which to end our deliberations in Committee. I am very grateful to noble Lords for all the points that have been raised over the past 10 days, and I am very glad to be ending in this collaborative spirit. There is much for us still to do, and even more for the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to do, before we return on Report, and I am grateful to it and to the officials working on the Bill. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment avoids any implication that the power proposed to be inserted by the amendment of the extent clause in the Minister’s name giving power to extend provisions of the Bill to the Crown Dependencies, and related provisions, are limited in extent to the United Kingdom.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment omits a provision in the extent clause which is now dealt with by text inserted by the next three amendments in the Minister’s name.
“(3) The following provisions extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland—(a) sections 160 to 164;(b) section 168(1).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment revises the extent clause as a result of changes to the extent of the communications offences in Part 10 of the Bill.
“(6) The following provisions extend to Northern Ireland only—(a) section 168(3);(b) section 190(7) to (9).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment revises the extent clause so that the amendments of Northern Ireland legislation in clause 168 extend to Northern Ireland only.
“(7A) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to the Bailiwick of Guernsey or to the Isle of Man.(7B) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 196 apply to an Order in Council under subsection (7A) as they apply to regulations under this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a power for His Majesty by Order in Council to extend any of the provisions of the Bill to Guernsey or the Isle of Man.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that the power conferred by section 411(6) of the Communications Act 2003 may be exercised so as to extend to Guernsey or the Isle of Man the amendment or repeal of provisions of that Act made by the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that the power conferred by section 338 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 may be exercised so as to extend to Guernsey (but not Jersey) the amendment of provisions of that Act made by paragraph 7 of Schedule 14 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that the power conferred by section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 may be exercised so as to extend to Guernsey (but not Jersey) the amendment of Schedule 4 to that Act made by paragraph 9 of Schedule 14 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that the power conferred by section 415(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 may be exercised so as to extend to Guernsey (but not Jersey) the amendment of Schedule 18 to that Act made by paragraph 10 of Schedule 14 to the Bill.