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
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
As I am sure everybody knows, I will never get tired of flying the flag for apprenticeships and skills. This Government are investing record levels of funding, with an additional £3.8 billion in skills over this Parliament. That includes an extra £1.6 billion for 16-to-19 education, and increasing investment in apprenticeships to £2.7 billion by 2024-25. That supports our commitment to create a world-leading skills system that is employer-focused, high quality, and fit for the future.
Siobhan Baillie
This Government’s schools, colleges and businesses around the country are working hard to show young people that going to university is not the only route to success, and there are now so many study options, which the RHA, the Federation of Small Businesses, and lots of Stroud businesses are talking to me about all the time. What is my right hon. Friend doing to reform the existing apprenticeship levy to work better for small businesses and students?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am proud of all the work we have done on apprenticeships. We removed the limit on the number of apprentices that small businesses can take on, and we continue to pay 100% of training costs for the smallest employers, and allow levy payers to transfer 25% of their funds to support small and medium-sized enterprises. We spent 99.6% of the apprenticeship budget in 2021-22, which has helped to support 8,940 apprenticeship starts in my hon. Friend’s constituency since 2010. To continue that progress and ensure that everyone knows what apprenticeship opportunities are available, we are working with UCAS so that for the first time ever, young people will be able to use UCAS to search and apply for apprenticeships alongside degrees, making it easier for young people to find the right opportunity for them.
Sara Britcliffe
I thank the Secretary of State for visiting BAE Systems recently in Lancashire. Accrington and Rossendale College in my Hyndburn and Haslingden constituency has been successfully rolling out the T-level programme, but to ensure that young people in my constituency have the skills they need in areas such as technology and engineering, further capital investment is needed to ensure that it can continue to provide state-of-the-art facilities. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether there will be further waves of the T-level capital fund?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for joining me on that visit, which I think was eye-opening for both of us. The Nelson & Colne College group, which includes Accrington and Rossendale College in my hon. Friend’s constituency, has benefited from capital investment of more than £6 million since 2010, including funding to improve the condition of its estate and support the delivery of T-levels and technical education. Most recently, it benefited from further investment as one of our 108 T-level capital projects, working towards delivering engineering and manufacturing T-levels. We will continue to support the roll-out of T-levels.
Royston Smith
The Secretary of State will know that levelling up is about not geography but opportunity, and what better opportunity can we give our young people than a first-class education? Southampton has put in a bid for a university technical college. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she has seen our bid and will look favourably on it, and will she update the House on when we are likely to hear whether we have been successful?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for his continuous campaigning on this subject. I do not know how many meetings we have had, but I see his passion to get a UTC in Southampton. I recently met Becky Smith, one of the fantastic former students of UTC Portsmouth, who is now a degree apprentice studying mechanical engineering at the University of Chichester in my constituency. She was full of praise for her time at UTC Portsmouth. We are currently considering the applications we have received. I have seen them all, and I have been through them in great detail in the latest free school wave, including Portsmouth’s bid for a new UTC in Southampton. We hope to announce the successful applications very soon.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Hospitality and tourism is an industry worth £3.5 billion a year to Cumbria, and it is our biggest employer. Apprenticeships are an important way into a career within that sector. The problem is that T-levels are a useful stepping stone into apprenticeships, yet the Government have again kicked into the long grass the T-level on catering, having already taken out the hospitality element of that. Will the Secretary of State meet me and representatives from Cumbria Tourism, so we can talk about how she can change that policy, and so that more young people can enter that important profession?
Gillian Keegan
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, I always have a laser-like focus on quality, and if the quality is not good enough then I will not release the apprenticeship, the apprenticeship standard or the T-level. Too often we have had low-quality qualifications in this country, and it is important that we work with a vast array of businesses to ensure that we get the quality system that they demand and that will be good for all our young people.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I beg the Minister to pay attention to the fact that good apprenticeships and good training in any town and city must come from a blend of good universities—I think most of our universities are good—with local further education colleges? Will she take a leaf out of Tony Blair’s book, when he said in a recent important speech that what we need is more high-class universities and more polytechnics made up from the new former FE colleges?
Gillian Keegan
As usual, we are ahead of the Opposition. We have already invested in 21 institutes of technology, which are where a group of colleges and universities work with employers in the area. They are a great addition to the landscape, along with all the other technical qualifications and skills training that we have introduced since 2010.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I welcome the funding made available to the space systems engineering degree apprenticeship and the opportunities that will provide young people in the UK’s growing space industry. What plans do Ministers have to fund similar apprenticeships in other emerging sectors?
Gillian Keegan
It was a great pleasure to go to the space park in Leicester to launch the space systems engineering level 6 degree apprenticeship, on top of the level 4 space engineering apprenticeship, which I launched previously. There are many different routes into the space industry, which is important and something that we are good at in the UK. Any employers or employer groups wishing to develop an apprenticeship standard could work with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. We have worked with more than 5,000 employers in the past few years, and we have built more than 670 apprenticeship standards, none of which existed before we started the programme in 2012.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
New research from the House of Commons Library has shown that the amount of the apprenticeship levy paid by employers that has been allocated to the apprenticeship budget has fallen from 89% in 2017 to just 77% in the most recent year. The truthful answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) is that the Secretary of State is doing nothing to reform the apprenticeship levy, as she believes it is working perfectly. Can the Minister confirm that any employer that, like the hon. Member for Stroud, wants greater flexibility in the levy should vote Labour in the next general election?
Gillian Keegan
There is nothing that would make me give such drastic advice. The truth about the apprenticeship levy is that 99.6% of it will be spent this year. We can look in the rear view mirror, and there are some reports going back over time that show some underspend in the levy, but they are back over time. We are now spending 99.6% of the levy. Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated is that some of the funding goes to the devolved Governments. If we examine the apprenticeship system in Wales and Scotland, it is not a patch on what we have introduced in England.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
School attendance is important for not just a child’s education but their wellbeing and life chances, and it is a personal priority. We have: rolled out the daily attendance data tool; launched the attendance action alliance group of system leaders, which includes representatives from health, policing and social care; expanded the attendance hub support; and, deployed expert advice to work with local authorities. Termly persistent absence fell by a fifth from summer last year to spring this year, with 350,000 fewer persistently absent pupils, but we know we still have more to do, and it is a top priority for me.
Esther McVey
Does the Secretary of State agree that shutting schools during covid lockdowns was a disaster for children and their mental health and has led to an explosion in severely absent rates? Will she make sure that cannot happen again by classifying all education settings, including schools, colleges and universities, as essential infrastructure, to ensure they remain open during national emergencies?
Gillian Keegan
Schools were not shut during lockdown. Many of our fantastic teachers were still teaching key cohorts, supporting our NHS and the most vulnerable, such as those with special educational needs, but I fully share my right hon. Friend’s concerns about the impact that the pandemic has had on attainment, attendance and mental health. She knows we are working hard to recover, making almost £5 billion available for recovery. I can assure her that we will always seek to minimise the disruption to education in emergency situations. We all have a lot to learn from the experience during the pandemic, including the impact on children of all the decisions that we took, which were led by medical advice.
Mr Walker
It is good to hear the Secretary of State prioritising getting children into school. Alongside her welcome funded pay offer, which will hopefully see an end to disruptive strikes, a real drive to reduce persistent absence and increase attendance would be welcome. A long-standing recommendation of the Education Committee is a statutory register of children not in school, which she is well aware of and has told us is a priority. May I therefore urge her to rapidly adopt the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) so that we can get on with delivering on that priority?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for his Committee’s work on this issue, which really is important. We have a world-class education system, but we need children in school to be able to take advantage of that. As he knows, my Department remains committed to legislating for statutory local authority registers of children not in school and will do so at the next suitable legislative opportunity when parliamentary time allows. I will work closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) on how we can best introduce that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State very much for her responses. It is obvious that she is committed to making things better. In the light of the covid home-schooling period during which parents may have forgotten the importance of socialisation as well as academic education, many may need reminding of the legal obligation to educate children. Has the Department considered tidying up the intervention period to allow early intervention and discussion with parents where possible before any action is taken?
Gillian Keegan
We are very much taking a supportive approach. We know that there are complex reasons why some children are missing school—some have lost their confidence and are anxious about school and how far they are behind—so we are taking a focused approach. We have leads in local authorities working closely with schools, and we are measuring the impact of all the things we are doing, which includes attendance hubs, as well as looking to support parents to get their children back into school, where we know their outcomes will be so much better.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
Ofsted’s report on school maths, published last week, stated:
“In the last few years, a resounding, positive shift in mathematics education has taken place in primary schools.”
In the 2019 TIMSS international survey of maths attainment for year 5 pupils, England achieved its highest ever score and rose from 10th out of 49 countries in 2015 to eighth out of 58 countries.
Bob Blackman
It is clearly good news that 73% of young people are achieving or exceeding the expected grades at the standard assessment tests. Measures have been taken to catch up after covid, which is really good news, but it is important that we lay the foundations in primary schools so that young people love mathematics and can continue to work on it until they are 18. What measures is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition to expanding the successful maths hubs programme to deliver teaching for mastery to 75% of primary schools by 2025, we are increasing delivery of the mastering number programme for reception to year 2, which helps students achieve fluency with number bonds, to 8,000 schools by 2024. We will also extend the programme into years 4 and 5 to bolster fluency in times tables.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
At the spring statement, we announced the single largest investment in childcare in England ever. By 2027, the Government will be spending in excess of £8 billion, doubling the amount that we do now and helping working families with their childcare costs.
Samantha Dixon
Good-quality childcare is essential to a child’s early development, to parents and to the economy. The owners of the Best Friends Day Nursery and the Spinney Day Nursery in Chester have told me of the real struggle faced by so many nurseries across the country, despite the Government’s latest funding announcement. Many have been forced to close, including five nurseries in the Hoole area alone in five years. What more will the Government do to alleviate the situation set out by my constituents?
Claire Coutinho
As I have mentioned, we are putting the single largest ever investment into childcare over the next few years, to provide funding to settings such as the one she mentioned. We are also looking at things such as workforce, which we know can be a challenge, making sure that we remove barriers to additional routes to entry.
Mr Mohindra
South West Hertfordshire is home to lots of young couples, particularly those who have moved out of London to start their families. Could the Minister tell the House how her Department is supporting new parents as they return to work?
Claire Coutinho
That is a huge priority for this Government. The funding that we are setting out will provide parents with support worth, on average, £6,500 a year from maternity leave right up to primary school. We are doing additional work to support things such as wraparound care.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Across the early years sector, nurseries and childminders are raising concerns that the Government have no coherent plan for the expansion of the early years workforce to meet the requirements of an expanded offer. The only ideas on the table so far are the relaxation of ratios and a reduction in the proportion of level 2 qualified staff—plans that the Sutton Trust has found could lead to worse outcomes for children. Why are this Government so uninterested in the quality of childcare and the outcomes that high-quality early years education delivers for children?
Claire Coutinho
The Government care about education standards. That is seen across every single result across the board, whether reading or maths results. It is this Government who care about education standards. Over 90% of our early years providers are rated good or outstanding. We will do everything we can to keep them that way.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
All children should have access to a calm, safe and supportive school environment. In addition to school behaviours policies that must include measures to prevent bullying, we have provided more than £3 million in funding between August 2021 and March 2024 to five anti-bullying organisations supporting schools in tackling bullying.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate my hon. Friend for all her work tackling bullying. So many constituents write to me about the problems their children are experiencing. How are the behaviour hubs making a difference in schools and tackling the bullying that is so prevalent, particularly as a result of online harms and social media, which are all too frequent?
Claire Coutinho
We are confident that the behaviour hubs programme is helping schools to create calm, understanding and positive environments by spreading best practice. The behaviour hubs programme is being evaluated and impact assessed. We will publish an interim report in 2024. I would be delighted to discuss those findings with my right hon. Friend.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week I introduced by ten-minute rule Bill on bullying and respect at work. It is not just children who experience bullying in the school environment but teachers and other staff. Will the Minister look at my Bill, which will establish a legal definition of bullying at work and a route to employment tribunal to protect the people who are looking after our children in our schools?
Claire Coutinho
I have not seen the hon. Lady’s Bill, but I would be happy to take a look and have a discussion with her.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
Our teachers do an incredible job and inspire children every day. Last week, we accepted the independent pay review body’s recommendations in full, giving schoolteachers their largest pay award for 30 years of at least 6.5%. I also announced funding for the further education sector to address key priorities, including teacher recruitment and retention. To help us get more of the top talent into teaching, we are delivering on our 2019 manifesto commitment to raise the starting salary for teachers to a minimum of £30,000. That is a competitive salary that will help us to continue to build on the record numbers of teachers in our schools in England.
Grahame Morris
The further education sector is facing a teaching crisis, not fully addressed by the pay review body. In my constituency, East Durham College has had two teacher vacancies in engineering and a computer science position unfilled for 18 months. Barriers to recruitment include high workload, qualification reform, excessive assessment and a huge pay disparity compared with comparable work in industry. Could the Secretary of State tell us what steps she is taking to ensure that further education teaching is an attractive and viable career?
Gillian Keegan
I very much care about further education and ensuring that it has the funding. That is why, as of last week, we are investing an additional £185 million in the financial year 2023-24 and £285 million in 2024-25 to drive forward skills delivery in further education. The Government do not set pay for the FE sector. However, I have been clear that I expect that funding, which is new funding, to go to the frontline. I hope the investment will support the FE sector to address its recruitment and retention challenges. In addition, we introduced bursaries of £29,000 for STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects, and the Taking Teaching Further programme is working with industry and paying £6,000 to attract those from industry who want to spend their second career in FE teaching.
Mary Kelly Foy
We have seen a significant increase in the number of teachers leaving the profession in Durham. They are burnt out and their unmanageable workloads are made harder by support staff redundancies in schools where there is an absence of furniture and equipment, with children even carrying chairs between lessons so that there is somewhere to sit. One teacher said to me, “It is like being a baker with no flour, a delivery driver without a van, an IT specialist without a computer.” When will the Department provide the absolute basics for our schools in Durham?
Gillian Keegan
We are going even further than the basics, because we will be funding education higher than we have ever funded it in our history. It will be £60 billion next year. But I do take workload seriously. As part of our discussions with the unions, we have agreed to set up a workload taskforce, which has a target to remove five hours from the school working week in addition to the five hours we have already reduced. Last year, more teachers entered the profession than left it: 47,954 entered the profession and 43,997 left it. If we look at the averages, the leavers rate has been stable since 2010, but we are investing more in our education system than ever before.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
One particularly challenging area of work for teachers is special needs education. There are many who want to work in that field, but in Essex our special needs schools are unfortunately already full to bursting. That is why, today, I am launching a campaign for a new special needs school in south Essex. I met the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb) in advance and he was very helpful. Will the Secretary of State and the Schools Minister work with me and Essex County Council to try to get us the additional special needs places in Essex that parents and special needs children so desperately need?
Gillian Keegan
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. This is something we have already announced: we will invest £2.6 billion in building more special schools. We are getting another one in Sussex and many hon. Members are getting more special educational needs schools in their areas. We would be very happy to work with him and Essex County Council to ensure the right provision in Essex for all children who have additional needs.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I pay tribute to all the staff and teachers at my local FE college, Basingstoke College of Technology for all the work they do to ensure that young people in my constituency are ready for work. The reform of BTECs is causing some uncertainty when it comes to staffing for the future in the college. Will my right hon. Friend join me and headteacher Anthony Bravo for a meeting to discuss those concerns, so that we can continue to ensure that the young people of Basingstoke are work-ready in large numbers?
Gillian Keegan
Yes, I am always happy to meet my right hon. Friend and her college. I have had many meetings on this subject. We are focused on ensuring that high quality T-levels are introduced across the country in all colleges, so that young people can access them. We are also looking, side by side, to see what BTEC qualifications will sit alongside A-levels as part of our level 3 offer.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
We know that we need more foster carers. That is a really important part of our plan, “Stable Homes, Built on Love”, to reform the care system. We are investing £27 million in recruitment and retention over the next two years. We have also increased the national minimum allowance for foster parents by 12.4% as part of those plans.
James Morris
Does my hon. Friend agree that foster carers can play a vital role in improving the health and wellbeing of a looked-after child, and that we need to encourage more people to go into foster caring by removing unnecessary bureaucratic barriers so that we can build a network of foster carers across the country to improve the life chances of children in care?
Claire Coutinho
This is a big priority for me. Some children end up in children’s homes when they should have ended up with foster carers, so we need to recruit more. As I have said, we are making a significant investment in recruitment and retention so that we can keep some of our brilliant, experienced foster carers as well as attracting more into the system.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
The Progress in International Reading Literacy Study was published in May this year. England had come fourth among 43 countries that tested children of the same age, nine and 10-year-olds. In 2012 we introduced the phonics screening check, testing six-year-olds for their progress in reading and phonics. In that year, 58% of pupils reached the expected standard; by 2019, just before the pandemic, the proportion had risen to 82% following a transformation in the teaching of phonics in nearly all primary schools.
Sally-Ann Hart
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the National Literacy Trust and Bloomsbury Publishing for including a number of schools in Hastings and St Leonards in their pioneering new reading programme, which is specifically aimed at persuading more children to read for pleasure, and will he encourage parents and carers to engage in a programme that is a vital part of their children’s development?
Nick Gibb
I recently met Jonathan Douglas of the National Literacy Trust, and I thank the trust for its enormous contribution to raising the profile of reading for pleasure in schools. Its new programme—which, as my hon. Friend said, it launched in partnership with Bloomsbury—involves working with seven Brighton Academies Trust schools throughout Hastings to encourage more children to read for pleasure.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
In its White Paper for schools, published last year, the Government’s headline ambition was for 90% of pupils leaving primary school to meet the expected standards in reading, writing and maths. Why does the Minister think that, since that pledge, tens of thousands more children have been leaving primary school without meeting those standards?
Nick Gibb
As the hon. Gentleman will know, owing to the pandemic we did see a fall in writing and maths standards. Reading standards rose, and then fell by two points this year. However, reading standards today are broadly similar to those before the pandemic, and since 2010 both reading and maths have improved enormously in primary schools throughout the country. I am confident that we will meet the 90% target by 2030.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
We cannot talk about attainment at any level without also taking into account child poverty. The link between undernourishment and lower reading standards and, therefore, attainment across the board is irrefutable. When children are hungry, they cannot focus on learning. The Scottish Government are currently rolling out free school meals for all primary school children. When will the Minister take decisive steps to combat child poverty and emulate the actions of the Scottish Government?
Nick Gibb
Under this Government, the number of children receiving free school meals has increased hugely. About a third of children are now eligible for either benefits-related free school meals or the universal infant free school meals introduced by our 2010 Government. However, the hon. Lady should be careful when talking about reading and education standards, because standards in this country have risen significantly, and I am not sure that the same can be said for Scotland.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
My hon. Friend and I have discussed education provision on the Isle of Sheppey many times over the years. Given the inadequate Ofsted grading for Oasis Academy Isle of Sheppey, the school is now being removed from the Oasis Community Learning trust to a strong multi-academy trust.
Gordon Henderson
I welcome that response from my very right hon. Friend.
Currently, 1,000 children a day are bussed from the Isle of Sheppey to Sittingbourne schools because parents do not want to send their children to the Isle of Sheppey academy, which means that all Sittingbourne secondary schools are over-subscribed and many children in the town cannot get into their local schools. As my right hon. Friend said, the Department is in the process of transferring the academy to a new multi-academy trust, but with the end of the summer term fast approaching, island parents have no idea whether that transfer will happen, or, if it does, what form it will take. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been working with the Department on secondary education problems on the Isle of Sheppey for many years, and I know that officials are doing their best, but what can he do to speed up the process and end the current uncertainties?
Nick Gibb
I pay tribute to my very hon. Friend for his passion for improving standards in schools in his constituency. The transfer of the Isle of Sheppey academy to a new multi-academy trust is a priority for the Department. A strong preferred sponsor has been found, and a proposal is being developed by them. Once those plans are completed, they will be put to parents before a final decision is taken by the trust and the Department on the academy transfer.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
As part of our commitment to have at least 600,000 students study in the UK every year, we have worked closely with the Home Office to strike the right balance between acting decisively on migration, being fair to the taxpayer and protecting our position as a world leader in higher education. We fully expect Britain to remain an attractive destination for students across the world.
Joanna Cherry
I thank the Minister for his answer. My constituency of Edinburgh South West is home to two leading universities: Heriot-Watt and Edinburgh Napier. Research by Universities UK shows that the constituency’s net economic benefit from international students is £170.8 million. The Government plan to massage the net migration figures by making the UK less attractive to international students. That is going to harm the economy in my constituency, Scotland’s economy and our educational institutions. Can the Minister tell me: is that an example of the Union delivering for Scotland?
Robert Halfon
I am not quite sure what problem the hon. and learned Lady is trying to solve. I mentioned to her that our target was 600,000 international students; we have surpassed that—679,000 international students are coming to our country, which is something we are proud of. But as I said, we have to be fair to not only international students and universities but the taxpayer, who bears the cost of the infrastructure. But I agree with the hon. and learned Lady that international students have a huge impact on the economy, of up to £37 billion-plus.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Time after time, we find that every Government Department is short of young graduates with digital skills. Will my right hon. Friend think about making an application to the Home Office to encourage more visas to be granted to students who want to take digital degrees in this country?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is learned in these matters, but they are for the Home Office. We are developing our digital skills at home with amazing digital apprenticeships. Half of our 670 apprenticeship standards are in STEM subjects, and there are T-levels and higher technical qualifications in digital. We are spending on the digital skills that our local people need. We have to give them the skills they need as well.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
We are transforming tertiary education by building state of the art prestigious institute of technology colleges, backed by £300 million and led by further education and higher education businesses. We have also introduced the lifelong loan entitlement—it is in the House of Lords at the moment. That will allow higher and further education to collaborate, offering short courses and the transfer of courses between FE and HE institutions.
Alex Sobel
Last week, I met representatives of the National Farmers Union at the Great Yorkshire Show. We discussed the great need for new skills and a skilled workforce in areas such as agro-ecology. What work is his Department doing to link specialist agricultural colleges with the non-specialist FE and HE sector?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have good land colleges and we are doing everything we can to support them. There are two institute of technology colleges in Yorkshire, although not in his area. I am sure that he will be pleased with the investment of £88 million in his area into FE, sixth form and the university technical college, as well as a grammar school. We are doing a lot of work on agricultural T-levels as well.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to work with employers, local authorities and jobcentres to ensure that as many adults as possible are aware of the opportunities available to them to learn and upskill?
Robert Halfon
My right hon. Friend speaks with huge wisdom. We are transforming careers advice through the National Careers Service, which is advising people on adult skills. We are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on boot camps and on more than 400 free level 3 courses. Our apprenticeship scheme offers hundreds of different apprenticeships. Through careers advice and our skills offer, we are ensuring that adults get the skills they need.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
As a working-class kid from the constituency I now represent, I am not sure where I would be today if not for the opportunity I had to study for a so-called “Mickey Mouse degree” at university. After today’s media push and the Government’s apparent crackdown on students, how does the Minister expect us to believe that this is not just a ruse to protect the privileges of the Timothies and Tabithas of the home counties, as opposed to working-class kids?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman could not be more wrong. Why is it right to send somebody to a higher education institution, taking out a significant loan of £9,250 each year, to take a course that leads either to poor completion, poor continuation or poor progression? This Government are stopping that by imposing recruitment caps on such courses. I am proud that record numbers of disadvantaged students are going to university. More disadvantaged students are going to university than ever before.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Parents and pupils across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke wait anxiously to find out the result of the fantastic bid made by the further education City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College and the higher education Staffordshire University for a free school to unleash the digital skills, in particular, that we want to see in Stoke-on-Trent. Will my right hon. Friend lobby the Schools Minister and the Secretary of State not only to make sure this is announced soon, but to make sure it is delivered quickly so that we get the school places we so desperately need?
Robert Halfon
I was very pleased to visit Staffordshire University, which is a model university that offers a brilliant policing degree apprenticeship scheme, among others. The Secretary of State is listening carefully to the bid, and I am sure she will make the announcement shortly.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement, which we all support, will inevitably require greater collaboration between higher education and further education providers, but under the current regulatory system, as the lines between HE and FE blur, we are seeing significant regulatory duplication and increased burden. This acts as a brake on partnership. Does the Minister not recognise the need to streamline the regulatory system to foster collaboration ahead of, rather than after, the introduction of the LLE?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the lifelong loan entitlement of up to £37,000 will be transformative for millions of people across the country, enabling them to take short or modular courses at a time of their choosing. We are looking at regulation across the higher education and further education sector, and we are doing all we can to reduce it, but I recognise some of the issues he raises.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
The introduction of tuition fees has not led to fewer disadvantaged young people going into higher education. As I have already highlighted, the 18-year-old entry rate for disadvantaged students in England increased from 14.4% in 2011 to 25.1% in 2022. We saw record numbers of disadvantaged students going into higher education in 2022, with the rate for students on free school meals going up from 20% to 30%.
John Mc Nally
I thank the Minister for that answer but, in the last academic year, English students graduated with £30,000 more debt, on average, than their Scottish counterparts. Despite this, both the Government and the Labour party refuse to follow the Scottish Government’s lead by abolishing tuition fees in England. With more than 16,000 undergraduates dropping out of higher education this year, will this Government admit that their policies are pushing students into debt, and often out of university?
Robert Halfon
Actually, we are being fair both to students and to all those taxpayers who do not go to university. I might point out that low-income students living away from home will qualify for more living cost support over the coming year than low-income students in Scotland.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The new Labour dream of 50% of young people going to university has left many saddled with debt, a third of graduates unable to find graduate jobs and more than half of graduates never earning enough to repay their student loans, so I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement today of a reduction in the number of low-value degrees, which benefit neither students nor taxpayers. Will the Department look to go further by identifying whole universities that could be transformed into higher technical and vocational institutions, which would give far more young people the opportunities and training they really need for the productive jobs of the future?
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in the sense that the Labour party was all about quantity over quality, and we are about quality, high standards and a good education. We are already doing a lot of what she wants, because we are introducing institutes of technology, which are collaborations between higher education and further education that provide flagship skills and teach higher technical qualifications, with 21 across the country. They are doing exactly what she wants us to do.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
This week, I have accepted the independent review body’s recommendation in full, so our fantastic teachers will receive their highest pay award for 30 years—it will be at least 6.5%. From September, we will have delivered on our manifesto commitment by raising teachers’ starting salaries to £30,000. To support our school leaders, we are providing an extra £525 million this year and a further £900 million in 2024-25. This is not just about schools, because we will also be investing £185 million and £285 million in our further education colleges over the same period. All four unions have recommended the pay award, and it is fully funded. I hope that teachers will join them, so that we can bring an end to strike action and get our teachers doing what they do best: teaching the next generation.
Jamie Stone
UK students who have been offered opportunities to study abroad are waiting for funding decisions under the Turing scheme. Clearly, for students from less well-off families this is tough, as visas and accommodation have to be paid in advance. Will the Secretary of State, out of the kindness of her heart and to a man from the highlands, give a commitment to bring forward these decisions next year, to make the Turing scheme more accessible to all students, regardless of their background?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Turing scheme is a great success. Disadvantaged students will take up two thirds of the international study and work opportunities from September, with students going to 160 different countries. It is a remarkable scheme, given that it has been introduced so quickly. It is a new demand-led scheme, but I will work with the sector to make improvements to it and make sure that people are funded in time.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
My hon. Friend is a true fisherman’s friend, although a lot sweeter tasting than the lozenges, I might add. She will be pleased to know that high-quality apprenticeship standards in agriculture and a level 2 fisher apprenticeship are available. We are promoting apprenticeships, including in agriculture, in our schools, and through the apprenticeship support and knowledge programme, and the Careers & Enterprise Company.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Ministers have known since last year that strike action by teachers was likely, yet after months of refusing to talk, it was only last week that the Secretary of State finally settled the dispute. Will she take this opportunity to apologise to parents for the completely needless and avoidable disruption to their children’s education for which she is responsible?
Gillian Keegan
Since I came into this job at the end of October, the unions asked for an extra £2 billion and I delivered it; families asked for childcare and I delivered it; the School Teachers Review Body asked for 6.5% for teachers and I delivered it; and that had to be funded, and I have delivered it. I have worked to deliver every day in this job, whereas the hon. Lady cannot even decide whether she will accept 6.5% or not.
Bridget Phillipson
Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that ending private schools’ tax breaks will raise up to £1.5 billion in additional revenue, confirming that Labour’s plans are fiscally credible. We would use that money to invest in 6,500 new expert teachers and better mental health support for all our young people. Will the Secretary of State distance herself from the discredited claim of the private schools’ lobby, do the right thing and adopt Labour’s plan to drive up standards in our schools?
Gillian Keegan
Labour has never driven up a standard in our schools. Most of our private schools are nothing like Eton or Harrow; they are far smaller and they charge a lot less. Many cost the same as a family holiday abroad, and there are plenty of parents who choose to forgo life’s luxuries to give their children those opportunities. The IFS also said:
“The effect might be larger over the medium to long run… There is still lots of uncertainty around these estimates.”
Labour’s tax hikes are nothing more than the politics of envy. As Margaret Thatcher once said:
“The spirit of envy can destroy; it can never build.”
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)
We recently changed the location of the Warrington free school from the Bruche Primary School to a better suited site at Padgate, with the agreement of the local authority and the trust. We are now working with all parties to begin design preparation work and the school is on track to open in September 2025.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Today, headteachers in England have spoken of an unprecedented struggle to recruit teachers, because teachers in England feel undervalued and underpaid. To combat this, when will the UK Government match the offer made by the Scottish Government, which will see most Scottish teachers’ pay rise by 14.6% by January 2024, delivering a starting salary of £39,000, which is much more than the £30,000 that the Secretary of State has boasted about today for teachers in England?
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
In England, standards are rising. We have a record number of teachers in our profession: 468,000 teachers, which is some 27,000 more than in 2010. We value education in this country, standards are rising and they will continue to rise, provided we have a Conservative Government.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Nick Gibb
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. Progress is being made in identifying and securing a site on which to relocate the school. Officials continue to work with Devon County Council and the diocese of Exeter. I thank my hon. Friend for his support in progressing the discussions. The next step is for site appraisals to take place on potential new locations, and officials will continue to keep my hon. Friend informed.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
We continue to raise standards in our schools, as the hon. Gentleman will know. He should not talk down the profession. This is an exciting time to join teaching. It is an honour to be able to work with children and to shape the next generation. This year, 47,000 people came into teaching, a number that is broadly similar year on year, because this is a good profession to join and there is a Government that will support the teaching profession.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Gillian Keegan
I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work in this sector. It was wonderful to visit Busy Bees and the fantastic team who work there. As well as the £204 million increase for providers, we have announced a £289 million investment to develop our universal wraparound childcare offer. We are the party of working parents. Labour has flip-flopped repeatedly on childcare, announcing vague policies in the autumn, which it quickly backtracked on. Its new plan, which I hear is to be means-tested, would snatch away childcare from thousands of hard-working parents. We are rolling out the largest investment in childcare in our history; Labour cannot even keep to its word.
Mr Speaker
I say gently to the Secretary of State that I was very generous at the beginning, but that does not carry on all the way through topicals. I want you to set a good example in this school classroom.
Samantha Dixon (City of Chester) (Lab)
Claire Coutinho
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. This is really important. We are trying to make sure that all staff in early years settings are better equipped. We will be setting out a practice guide specifically on early years speech and language, as well as working with the NHS on better diagnostics.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Nick Gibb
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. We have spent £15 billion since 2015 on repairs and maintenance of our school estate. We intend to announce any successful appeals from the latest condition improvement fund round this month, as CIF typically opens for applications each autumn. Eligible schools with an urgent condition need that cannot wait until the next round may of course apply for the urgent capital support.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Claire Coutinho
Rates for teaching assistants are set by the local authority. Teaching assistants are highly regarded by all of us. As the hon. Lady says, they provide important pastoral care alongside the mental health support that we are rolling out via the mental health support teams.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
Robert Halfon
I know that my hon. Friend is a champion of his brilliant Weston College, which is an example of the greatness of our FE colleges. He will be pleased to know that the DFE publishes outcomes data on further education, which shows statistics on the employment, earnings and learning outcomes of further education learners. We are introducing a data dashboard, which is in the direction of travel in which he wants to go.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Despite statutory guidance to reduce the costs of school uniforms, far too many schools are requiring four and up to five branded items. What more will the Minister do to intervene to ensure that schools abide by the law?
Nick Gibb
I thank the hon. Member for his private Member’s Bill that, with the Government’s support, enabled us to put the guidance on a statutory footing. About 61% of headteachers are aware of that guidance and are taking action to implement it. If parents are still concerned that the school uniform is too expensive, they can raise it with the school and go through the school’s complaints process.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
In the absence of any Ofsted oversight or regulation of multi-academy trusts, will my right hon. Friend tell me what mechanism is in place for a school to escalate concerns over the pooling of pupil grant funding, especially in a situation where a multi-academy trust gives a school considerably less money than the Education and Skills Funding Agency allowance for that school?
Nick Gibb
Academy trusts can pool their general annual grant to deliver key improvements and efficiencies across the academies in the trust. The academy trust handbook requires consideration of each school’s needs and an appeals mechanism, which can be escalated to the ESFA.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
In my constituency of Edinburgh West this week, students are graduating, some of them with unclassified results, because of a dispute involving marking. This is making it difficult for those wishing to do masters or PhDs, particularly foreign students who have been told that they will have to reapply for visas. Are the Department for Education and the Home Office looking at ways of facilitating those students taking up the places that they have been offered without the classification and avoiding that problem with the visas?
Robert Halfon
UK Visas and Immigration will consider exercising discretion, and will hold graduate route applications made before the applicant results have been received, provided that the results are received within eight weeks of the application being made. Students who do not know when they will receive their results due to the boycott will be able to extend their permission while they wait for their results. They will be exceptionally exempt from meeting academic progression requirements. I will write to the hon. Lady with fuller details.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Recently I visited Rushmere Hall Primary School in Ipswich, which is doing a fantastic job to support all neurodiverse pupils, particularly dyslexic pupils; however, its head spoke of a need for all regular teachers to have a better base understanding of neurodiversity, not just new specialists. In the special educational needs and disabilities improvement plan, the Government committed to that. I would like an update on how far we are getting with delivering that in practice.
Claire Coutinho
I thank my hon. Friend, who I know is an amazing campaigner on this issue. We are doing a lot to progress the support in schools, making sure that we have access to a specialist workforce and that teachers have proper training. We will set out a best practice guide on autism specifically, for which we have seen a big rise in need.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The price of school meals has increased by more than a third in some parts of the UK, yet the Government, and indeed the Labour Front Benchers, will not commit to universal free school meals for primary school-age children. The Scottish Government are rolling out free school meals across all primary schools. The question is when this Government will take the lead from the Scottish Government and act decisively to help struggling families.
Nick Gibb
Record numbers of pupils in England are now eligible for a free school meal. Under universal infant free school meals, all infant pupils get a free meal. A third of children in our schools are receiving a free school meal. We believe very strongly, however, that we should focus the funding on the children in the greatest need. We keep the issue under review, but our focus is always on the most disadvantaged.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Education Committee, mentioned my Children Not in School (Register) Bill, which passed its First Reading with support from colleagues across all parties and both Houses. The Schools Minister himself said before the Select Committee last month:
“It is important that we know where children are and can make sure that they are safe.”
Therefore, is it not critical that the Government work with me to expedite the Bill, as an existing and ongoing legislation vehicle that the Government can use without any further delay?
Gillian Keegan
As I have pointed out, we do intend to legislate for the children not in school measures and put attendance on a statutory footing when the legislative timetable allows, looking at the sitting Fridays that are left within this period. The Department is currently running a call for evidence on improving the support for children missing from education, and that evidence will be used to inform future policy.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Reclaim)
Does the Secretary of State think that something might be going seriously wrong when children in our junior schools are being indoctrinated by gender ideology at the same time as senior Members of this House appear unable to define what a woman is?
Gillian Keegan
I can assure my hon. Friend that I am more than capable of defining what a woman is. It is true that some schools are asking for guidance in this area, so we intend to bring forward guidance. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Equalities Minister to bring that forward in the near term.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Last week, 14 officers from West Midlands police were recognised at the Police Bravery Awards for forming a human chain and breaking through the ice as Fin, Tom, Jack and Sam fell through in sub-zero temperatures at Babbs Mill lake in Kingshurst. I thank the Minister for his time on this previously. What progress has been made in revising the relationships, health and sex education curriculum guidelines specifically on understanding the implications of cold water shock on the body?
Nick Gibb
What happened to my hon. Friend’s constituents is tragic. Swimming and water safety are in the national curriculum, and the Government are updating the school sport and activity action plan, which will set out actions to help all pupils take part in sport and keep fit, including swimming and water safety. The plan will be published this year to align with the timing of the Government’s new school sport strategy.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State told the media at the weekend that she had found the money for the pay settlement from an underspend in the Department. Can she tell the House exactly where she found the money and what policies have not been delivered?
Gillian Keegan
I am delighted to. We have a constructive relationship with the Treasury, whether on childcare, school funding or extra budgeting, and in this particular case what we have done, as I have done many times in my 30-year business career, is to go through every line of the budget. We spend £100 billion on education, so there are a lot of things in that budget, and we have gone through it and checked every single assumption. Some are demand led and some depend on the roll-out of certain projects. We have protected the frontline and reprioritised; what has changed is that the Treasury has allowed us to keep that money to reprioritise—[Interruption.] It is an answer. The right hon. Lady may not understand, because she does not—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure the Secretary of State is understanding me, either. When I say these are topicals, I mean that—[Interruption.] Order. No, I am sorry; if you do not want Members on your side of the House to get in, please say so, because that is what is going to happen, and it is totally unfair to the people who are waiting. Let us play by the rules—that is what we expect from all of us.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I recently visited the impressive National STEM Learning Centre in York and was fortunate enough to be able to observe some of its work. I would be delighted if my right hon. Friend could visit, but in the interim, can she detail what professional support is available for teachers in their continuing professional development?
Nick Gibb
We have engaged in an extensive reform of teacher training, introducing what we call the golden thread: a higher level of requirements in initial teacher training and a two-year early career framework for teachers just starting off in their career. Those standards will mean that in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, and in all subjects, teachers are better prepared to enter the profession.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The chairs of the governing bodies of 19 primary and secondary schools across the London Boroughs of Richmond and Kingston upon Thames have today written to the Education Secretary, requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the crippling funding and recruitment challenges they face. Will she agree to meet them?
Nick Gibb
Of course the Secretary of State will agree, as she has just said to me. We are spending record amounts of funding on schools. The Secretary of State achieved an extra £2 billion in the autumn statement last year and we are now spending £59.6 billion on school funding. We have recruited 2,800 more teachers this year than last year and we have a record number of teachers in the profession, at 468,000, but of course I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady and the teachers in her constituency to discuss their particular concerns.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, we have taken too much time on questions. You will have to do without.
Higher Education Reform
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to announce the publication of the Government’s higher education reform consultation response. This country is one of the best in the world for studying in higher education, boasting four of the world’s top 10 universities. For most, higher education is a sound investment, with graduates expected to earn on average £100,000 more over their lifetime than those who do not go to university.
However, there are still pockets of higher education provision where the promise that university education will be worthwhile does not hold true and where an unacceptable number of students do not finish their studies or find a good job after graduating. That cannot continue. It is not fair to taxpayers who subsidise that education, but most of all it is not fair to those students who are being sold a promise of a better tomorrow, only to be disappointed and end up paying far into the future for a degree that did not offer them good value.
We want to make sure that students are charged a fair price for their studies and that a university education offers a good return. Our reforms are aimed at achieving that objective. That is why the Government launched the consultation in 2022, to seek views on policies based on recommendations made by Sir Philip Augar and his independent panel. The consultation ended in May 2022, and the Department for Education has been considering the responses received. I am now able to set out the programme of reforms that we are taking forward.
I believe that the traditional degree continues to hold great value, but it is not the only higher education pathway. Over the past 13 years, we have made substantial reforms to ensure that the traditional route is not the only pathway to a good career. Higher technical qualifications massively enhance students’ skills and career prospects, and deserve parity of esteem with undergraduate degrees. We have seen a growth in degree-level apprenticeships, with over 188,000 students enrolling since their introduction in 2014. I have asked the Office for Students to establish a £40 million competitive degree apprenticeships fund to drive forward capacity-building projects to broaden access to degree apprenticeships over the next two years.
That drive to encourage skills is why we are also investing up to £115 million to help providers deliver higher technical education. In March, we set out detailed information on how the lifelong learning entitlement will transform the way in which individuals can undertake post-18 education, and we continue to support that transformation through the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill, which is currently passing through the other place. We anticipate that that funding, coupled with the introduction of the LLE from 2025, will help to incentivise the take-up of higher technical education, filling vital skills gaps across the country.
Each of those reforms has had one simple premise: that we are educating people with the skills that will enable them to have a long and fulfilling career. I believe that we should have the same expectation for higher education: it should prepare students for life by giving them the right skills and knowledge to get well-paid jobs. With the advent of the LLE, it is neither fair nor right for students to use potentially three quarters of their lifelong learning entitlement for a university degree that does not offer them good returns. That would constrain their future ability to learn, earn and retrain. We must shrink the parts of the sector that do not deliver value, and ensure that students and taxpayers are getting value for money given their considerable investment.
Data shows that there were 66 providers from which fewer than 60% of graduates progressed to high-skilled employment or further study fifteen months after graduating. That is not acceptable. I will therefore issue statutory guidance to the OfS setting out that it should impose recruitment limits on provision that does not meet its rigorous quality requirements for positive student outcomes, to help to constrain the size and growth of courses that do not deliver for students. We will also ask the OfS to consider how it can incorporate graduate earnings into its quality regime. We recognise that many factors can influence graduate earnings, but students have a right to expect that their investment in higher education will improve their career prospects, and we should rightly scrutinise courses that appear to offer limited added value to students on the metric that matters most to many.
We will work with the OfS to consider franchising arrangements in the sector. All organisations that deliver higher education must be held to robust standards. I am concerned about some indications that franchising is acting as a potential route for low quality to seep into the higher education system, and I am absolutely clear that lead providers have a responsibility to ensure that franchised provision is of the same quality as directly delivered provision. If we find examples of undesirable practices, we will not hesitate to act further on franchising.
As I have said, we will ensure that students are charged a fair price for their studies. That is why we are also reducing to £5,760 the fees for classroom-based foundation year courses such as business studies and social sciences, in line with the highest standard funding rate for access to HE diplomas. Recently we have seen an explosion in the growth of many such courses, but limited evidence that they are in the best interests of students. We are not reducing the fee limits for high-cost, strategically important subjects such as veterinary sciences and medicine, but we want to ensure that foundation years are not used to add to the bottom line of institutions at the expense of those who study them. We will continue to monitor closely the growth of foundation year provision, and we will not hesitate to introduce further restrictions or reductions. I want providers to consider whether those courses add value for students, and to phase out that provision in favour of a broad range of tertiary options with the advent of the LLE.
Our aim is that everyone who wants to benefit from higher education has the opportunity to do so. That is why we will not proceed at this time with a minimum requirement of academic attainment to access student finance—although we will keep that option under review. I am confident that the sector will respond with the ambition and focused collaboration required to deliver this package of reforms. I extend my wholehearted thanks to those in the sector for their responses to the consultation.
This package of reforms represents the next step in tackling low-quality higher education, but it will not be the last step. The Government will not shy away from further action if required, and will consider all levers available to us if these quality reforms do not result in the improvements we seek. Our higher education system is admired across many countries, and these measures will ensure that it continues to be. I commend this statement to the House.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
Today’s statement tells us several stories about this Government. It tells a story about their priorities: why universities, and why now? It tells a story about their analysis: what they think is wrong and what they think is not. It tells a story about their competence: why these changes, when their own regulator has used a different approach for so long? It tells a story about their prejudice, about why they continue to reinforce a binary choice for young people: either academic or vocational, university or apprenticeship. Above all, it tells a story about values—about the choice to put caps on the aspirations and ambitions of our young people; about Ministers for whom opportunity is for their children, but not for other people’s children; about a Government whose only big idea for our world-leading universities is to put up fresh barriers to opportunity, anxious to keep young people in their place. It tells you everything you need to know about the Tories that this is their priority for our young people.
This is the Tories’ priority when we are in the middle of an urgent crisis in this country; when families are struggling to make ends meet; when patients are facing the biggest waiting lists in NHS history; when children are going to school in buildings that Ministers themselves acknowledge are “very likely” to collapse; and when a spiral of low productivity, low growth, and low wages under the Tories is holding Britain back. It is because the Prime Minister is weak and he is in hock to his Back Benchers that we are not seeing action on those important priorities. Instead, after more than 13 years in power, the Government have shown what they really think of our universities, which are famous across the world, are core to so many of our regional economies and were essential to our pandemic response: that they are not a public good, but a political battleground.
The Government’s concept of a successful university course, based on earnings, is not just narrow but limiting. I ask the Secretary of State briefly to consider the case of the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). The Prime Minister has a degree in politics from one of our leading universities, yet his Government lost control of almost 50 councils this year, he was the second choice of his own party, and now he is on track to fail to deliver on the pledges he set himself publicly. Does the Secretary of State believe that the Prime Minister’s degree was in any sense a high-value course?
Let us be clear what today’s announcement is really about. Many of our most successful newer universities—the fruits of the determination of successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, to spread opportunity in this country—often draw more students from their local communities. Many of those areas are far from London, far from existing concentrations of graduate jobs. Many of those students come from backgrounds where few in their family, if any, will have had the chance to go to university. Many of those young people benefit from extra support when they arrive at university to ensure they succeed. We on the Labour Benches welcome the success of those universities in widening participation and welcoming more young people into higher education, yet today, the Secretary of State is telling those young people—including those excited to be finishing their studies this year—that this Government believe their hard work counts for nothing. Can the Secretary of State be absolutely clear with the House, and tell us which of those universities’ courses she considers to be of low value?
The Secretary of State is keen to trumpet her party’s record on apprenticeships, but let me set out what this Government’s record really is. Since 2015-16, apprenticeship starts among under-19s have dropped by 41%, and apprentice achievements in that age group are down by 57%. Since the Secretary of State entered this place, the number of young people achieving an apprenticeship at any level has more than halved, failing a generation of young people desperate to take on an apprenticeship.
Lastly and most importantly, the values that this Government have set out today are clear: the Conservatives are saying to England’s young people that opportunity is not for them and that choice is not for them. The bizarre irony of a Conservative Government seeking to restrict freedom and restrict choices seems entirely lost on them. Labour will shatter the class ceiling. We will ensure that young people believe that opportunity is for them. Labour is the party of opportunity, aspiration and freedom. Let us be clear, too, that young people want to go to university not merely to get on financially, but for the chance to join the pursuit of learning, to explore ideas and undertake research that benefits us all. That chance and that opportunity matter too. Our children deserve better. They deserve a Government whose most important mission will be to break down the barriers to opportunity and to build a country where background is no barrier. They deserve a Labour Government.
Gillian Keegan
As usual, the hon. Lady has more words than actions. None of those actions was put in place either in Wales, where Labour is running the education system, or in the UK when it was running it in England. We have always made the deliberate choice of quality over quantity, and this is a story of a consistent drive for quality, whether that is through my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister having driven up school standards, so that we are the best in the west for reading and fourth best in the world, or through childcare, revolutionising the apprenticeship system—none of that existed before we put it in place—and technical education and higher education.
I was an other people’s child: I was that kid who left school at 16, who went to a failing comprehensive school in Knowsley. I relied on the business, and the college and the university that I went to. I did not know their brand images and I knew absolutely nobody who had ever been there. I put my trust in that company, and luckily it did me very well. Not all universities and not all courses have the trusted brand image of Oxford and Cambridge, which I think is where the hon. Lady went, along with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have worked with many leaders all over the world in my many years in business, and the Prime Minister is a world-class leader.
On apprenticeships, it is a case of quality always over quantity. What we found, and this is why I introduced the quality standards, is that, yes, the numbers were higher, but many of the people did not realise they were on an apprenticeship, many of the apprenticeships lasted less than 12 months and for many of them there was zero off-the-job training. They were apprenticeships in name only, which is what the Labour party will be when it comes to standards for education.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State. Those of us with long memories know that we either ration places by number or we give people choice. If she is giving people the choice of being able to discriminate between the courses and universities on offer, I congratulate her, as I do especially on the lifetime learning and the degree apprenticeship expansion, which has already happened, with more to come.
However, can I also speak up for those who either got fourth-class degrees or failed to take a degree at all, including two of the three Governors of the Bank of England who went to King’s and who came out without a degree? Rabi Tagore left university, and many other poets, painters, teachers or ministers of religion—whether rabbis, imams or ministers in the Christian Church—do not show up highly on the earnings scale, but they might show up highly in their contributions to society. Can my right hon. Friend please make sure that she does not let an algorithm rate colleges, courses or universities?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I very much agree that this is about choice—the lifelong loan entitlement, degree apprenticeships and all of the other choices—and about people understanding that there are many different routes to success in life. We have asked the Office for Students to look at earnings, because I realise that is difficult and that some jobs will not earn people more. However, for his information, five years after graduating from some courses, people are earning less than £18,000. That is less than the minimum wage, and it is not acceptable.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
May I ask the Secretary of State, because she has not actually spelled this out, what is a low-value degree?
Gillian Keegan
In relation to low-value degrees, an example of the quality provisions we have introduced for the Office for Students is B3, which is about: whether students continue in their degree, because clearly if they drop out, it is not of much value; whether they complete their degree, because clearly if they do not complete it, it is of zero value; and whether they get a job or progress into higher education afterwards. Those are the three quality measures we look at. Right now, the Office for Students is looking at 18 providers and two specific areas—business and management, and computer science—because there is a massive range in what people can expect to earn from jobs having followed one course or others, all of which seem to have the same name. There are quality issues, and we want to make sure that they are thoroughly investigated. The Office for Students is doing that.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I welcome the focus on both choice and policy that my right hon. Friend has focused on in her statement. The Education Committee will want to look at the detail of the proposals, and at the kind of courses that are affected. It is crucial that in launching this approach, she recognises that all our universities are selling a premium product. All our universities are high-quality institutions, and it would be wrong to discriminate against different universities in the system when, after all, they are all funded on the same fundamental basis.
Gillian Keegan
I agree with my hon. Friend and I am proud of our university sector. It is much admired all over the world, but we must ensure that specific courses in all institutions offer the quality that people expect. When people invest in these degrees they will come out with £40,000 or £50,000 of debt, and it is important first that they know that, and secondly that they know what they are investing in, and what return they will get on that investment.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I beg the Secretary of State not to throw the baby out with the bath water? Everybody wants good-quality degrees, and we all want degrees to lead to good, fulfilling occupations, but some of us are worried about the comments that were made in an interview this morning by the Secretary of State’s ministerial colleague that we have four or five of the best universities in the world, as if all the other 120 universities were rubbish. That is not the case. We have diverse universities and great courses. I ask her please not to throw the baby out with the bath water and do great damage to our higher education system.
Gillian Keegan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have an excellent university system with excellent universities. Four out of the top 10 are world-class, but if we broaden that to the top 100, many others would appear in that list. We have a good university sector, which is why it is most important that we protect the brand image. It is also very popular abroad, and every year more than 600,000 students choose to come here, which is more than to almost every other country in the world. Why? It is because they know they will get quality, and it is very important for the sector that that quality is maintained.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I know the Secretary of State takes a more than purely transactional view of higher education, and I am with the Father of the House in hoping that in her reforms there will be protections for degrees that do not offer an immediate commercial advantage, such as theology, philosophy or the study of poetry. I also hope that within her reforms there will be protections to allow universities to innovate and introduce new courses. Our university sector has obviously been at the forefront of driving forward British intellectualism and thinking, and not allowing universities to experiment with courses that may not immediately fulfil the criteria that she is proposing, or indeed forbidding or deterring them from doing so, would set us back in world terms. Will she reassure us that innovation will still be encouraged?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that he did in this area. Yes, I understand the difficulty of choosing a blunt number or tool. That is why I have asked the Office for Students to consider how such things could be used and what approaches we need to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water, or end up with unintended consequences. On innovation, I am absolutely encouraging all our universities to innovate, working with businesses. The pace of technological change across the world and what is to come in the future is immense, and I want our universities to work with our further education colleges, training providers, businesses and others, to ensure that we innovate and give everybody the best opportunities for the future.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
There is no clearer sign of a Government who are out of ideas and have run out of steam than when they re-announce policies and badge them as new. The Office for Students already has these powers, and has already capped four specific providers. Rather than putting down our universities and capping our young people’s aspirations, why does the Secretary of State not invest in them by restoring maintenance grants, and finally signing the dotted line on Horizon membership?
Gillian Keegan
Not all the things I have brought forward today have already been announced. The information on foundation degrees is new, and the work we are doing with the OfS is also new. We have asked the OfS to consider the impact of recruitment limits, and how those can be introduced. I personally think this is an important set of reforms. We need to make sure that we have access to these fantastic courses at our universities so that through programmes—such as Horizon, when we complete those negotiations—we can continue to offer the very best in science from this country.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement to limit the number of students that universities can recruit to courses that are failing. The Secretary of State has my full support. Can she tell me whether this measure will also apply to foreign students? At the very least, will foreign students be barred from bringing dependants with them to do these courses?
Gillian Keegan
The quality of the courses on offer applies to everybody. If we change the quality for domestic students, it will then be the same quality for international students, which is important because of the size of the international student sector, which brings about £25 billion to £30 billion to our economy every year. We have already addressed the issue of dependants for taught master’s courses in our recent changes to migration visas.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has confirmed that the Office for Students already had the powers to enforce on student outcome provisions, so this announcement is just narrow politicking. Hidden in the UCAS figures last week was the fact that home student applications are falling in this country. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this Government’s policy is now one of narrowing participation?
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely not, no. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked this question, because our policy is about widening participation and making sure that education is high-quality. It is also about making sure that there are more degree apprenticeships. There are now 180,000, which did not exist before. There are now 180,000 more people who can do what I did, as the only degree apprentice in the House of Commons. It is a fantastic route into the workplace. We also have higher technical qualifications and boot camps. There is so much investment that has all happened under this Conservative Government.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), missed the opportunity to condemn the disgusting and cruel University and College Union marking boycott? Will my right hon. Friend use these reforms to protect young people to ensure that this never happens again and that universities such as Cambridge and Exeter can issue degrees?
Gillian Keegan
It is important. Young people have suffered already a lot during covid. They have invested in their degree and put all the hard work in. It is only right that they should have their degrees marked. This is a dispute between universities and their lecturers, but we are urging them to make sure they prioritise all those who will be graduating this year.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the announcement today, because for far too long, some universities cynically sold courses to students even though they knew the outcomes were poor in qualifications and employment opportunities. Does the Minister accept that it was her party that allowed the increase in fees, was aware of the mismatch sometimes between courses and the needs of the economy, and did nothing to cap those courses? Does she not recognise that some people will be rather cynical that the tsunami of announcements we are getting now is more to do with the by-elections, rather than the ability to deliver between now and a general election?
Gillian Keegan
Absolutely not. I have been working on this policy with many former Ministers, even since I was the Apprenticeships and Skills Minister. We have been working on this for a long time to make sure we get it right. When a working-class kid who will come out with £50,000 of debt puts their trust in an institution, they have to put their trust in the system and it is vital that the system delivers for them. If they have £50,000 of debt and no better job prospects, that is not a system delivering for them.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Would it not benefit university courses’ quality more if university administrators were paid a lot less and university lecturers were paid rather more?
Gillian Keegan
My right hon. Friend puts his finger on a debate that is going on in our universities right now, and I know it is part of the discussions between university lecturers and university management.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I have been around the block—Oxbridge, red brick, ex-poly—long enough to know that this statement reeks of academic snobbery and desperation. In cultural studies, people can legitimately analyse Mickey Mouse as a subject of academic inquiry—I have ex-students who did that who are now earning more than any of us in here. When will the Government address the things that our constituents really want to be dealt with, such as crippling student debt and the massively reduced and minimal contact hours that the covid generation got?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady will be delighted about the data that we now have. If students having done those courses go on to earn more—I do not know what her judgment is on those institutions—that will be absolutely fantastic; that is all that we expect. I have two business and management degrees and know business well, having spent 30 years in it, but if people cannot get a good business job after doing a business and management degree, I would suggest that was not a good-quality degree. One must recognise that.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to celebrate Britain’s international higher education success, but does she agree that any changes made must recognise the tremendous success of the 2,000 workers at the University of Bolton, which has shot up The Guardian’s best university guide league table now to be placed in the top 40?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I know that he is a big champion of the University of Bolton, which I was delighted to meet recently. It is quite interesting that a lot of former polytechnics and newer universities are working and collaborating so well with businesses, offering more degree apprenticeships and more flexible courses, and storming up the league tables.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I am concerned that many university degrees that lead young people into the creative sector will be squeezed under the Government’s plans. Industry leaders have warned that limiting student numbers based on graduate earnings fails to account for the working patterns of graduates in the creative industries, and particularly the arts, where people do not immediately earn high salaries. The salaries in those professions do not reflect their importance to national wellbeing and the contribution that the arts make to our national income. What assessment has the Department for Education made of the damage that this latest policy will do to those arts and humanities subjects that have already been relentlessly cut back under Conservative-led Governments?
Gillian Keegan
I am a huge supporter of our creative and arts industries, which are among our largest, and we are very successful in them. I work with them a lot to ensure that we can deliver even broader apprenticeship routes, because they are difficult industries to get into. I have asked the Office for Students to consider how to do this reform to ensure that we consider things like the creative arts and other routes, which sometimes take longer to get into but offer a different aspect of learning. That is why we have not just introduced a blunt tool. I will continue to work with our fantastic creative sector.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Department on their focus on excellence. This morning, I attended the graduation ceremony of students from Anglia Ruskin University in Chelmsford. It was so moving, because, for the first time in history, students graduated as medical doctors in Essex. Our investment five years ago in five new medical schools across the country is a shining example of a Conservative Government investing for future needs. Will she work with me to try to double the number of medical students and encourage a degree apprenticeship for doctors, and will she congratulate our new doctors?
Gillian Keegan
I know that my right hon. Friend is a huge champion of Anglia Ruskin University. I am delighted about the number of medical doctors and the new medical schools, which, as she said, were introduced under this Government. When I was the Apprenticeships and Skills Minister, one of the last things I did, and which I am most proud about, was to get a medical doctors apprenticeship standard built, and I am delighted that that is being rolled out from September. I look forward to Anglia Ruskin offering that as well.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I was the first in my family to get a university degree—I hope that I am not the last. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Tory party is the party of the blockers—blocking aspiration and opportunity in higher education as well as the building of affordable houses?
Gillian Keegan
No, I think that the hon. Member has got it completely wrong. Under the Conservatives, an 18-year-old from a disadvantaged background is 86% more likely to go to university than they were in 2010. Under Labour, the richest students were seven times more likely to go to university than the poorest 40% in society.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s plans, but I want higher education reform to go further. A recent paper by the New Conservatives included an excellent suggestion to extend the closure of the student dependant route to students enrolled on one-year research master’s degrees. Would she support that?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend knows that we have already looked at that in careful detail. It is kept under review, and we recently made changes to the taught course route.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Of course students deserve high-quality education at university. They also deserve to be cared for during what is, for most of them, their first time away from home. Does the Secretary of State agree with me, and with the families of young people who have tragically taken their own lives at university, that higher education institutions should do more to look out for and protect those students, including by having a statutory duty of care?
Gillian Keegan
I completely agree. That is why the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), has asked all universities to sign up to the mental health charter.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
A key stakeholder is the British taxpayer, who ends up picking up a £1 billion bill for people who cannot pay back their student debt. Bricklayers, roofers and carpenters—there are not enough people in Britain to do those jobs. Does the Education Secretary agree that we should promote those opportunities and routes in our school system? No one should turn up their nose at those jobs; they offer a good pathway to a good wage, and we should promote them.
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Lots of people are surprised by how much they can earn in some of those trades, whether welding, bricklaying or plumbing. There have been, and there will always be, fabulous apprenticeships and full-time courses to make sure everyone can reach those careers.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The most important factor in determining graduate outcomes remains the student’s socioeconomic background. The average student from a working-class background goes on to earn less after graduating than their wealthier peers with the same degree. Does the Minister concede that the Government’s insistence on degrading the value of degrees and restricting access to higher education will only compound those deep structural inequalities that define our education system? Does the Minister accept that many young people in my constituency will consider those plans an attempt to put them back in their place and out of university?
Gillian Keegan
I was in exactly the same place as the people in his constituency—in fact, in the same city—so I do not accept that at all. We are upgrading the options for people from working-class backgrounds and upgrading the quality of degrees. I would not be here if I had not had the options I had, which included an apprenticeship, FE college and a part-time degree at Liverpool John Moores University. That was high quality. Everybody who puts their trust in the system should get the same.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I support my right hon. Friend’s comments on the UCU marking ban, which is so hurtful to students. The latest UCAS data shows a record number of 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas accepted on to a course, and that the entry rate gap between the most advantaged and disadvantaged areas now stands at 2.1, a record low. That is great, but there is more work to be done. Will my right hon. Friend continue to focus on closing that gap?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are continuing to close that gap, and we have made unbelievable progress—more in the last 13 years than ever in this country. We will continue to make sure that working class people get access to all high-quality routes into the workplace.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government should address the reasons why some courses are struggling, not the consequences. Higher education funding is in crisis, and that is having an impact on the function of universities, not least the post-1992 universities. Will the review by the Office for Students look at the higher education funding model? How will it address the real symptoms that she is talking about?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but at the moment the OfS has 18 providers under investigation for poor quality. There are many more providers, and we have a standard fee. It will look at contextual aspects such as demographics, socioeconomics and mature students. It looks at all that in context, but there are 18 providers out of a much larger number.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State has my full support for the measures she has announced this afternoon. On that key mission of ensuring that students pay a fair price and get a good return for their university education, does she agree that more institutions should follow the example of the University of Buckingham, which offers fantastic two-year undergraduate degrees with staggered start points throughout the year?
Gillian Keegan
Yes. The University of Buckingham has taken an excellent leadership position and its two-year degree is very much welcomed by many people. We will introduce the lifelong learning entitlement, which will revolutionise how and when people go to university, what type of courses they take, for what period of time, and how they make those decisions over their entire career and lifetime.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Many of my constituents study or have obtained degrees from Harper Adams University, just up the road. Those degrees are at the cutting edge of agriculture and the key challenge facing all of us, which is how to feed the planet in a sustainable way. Their degrees and the likely careers they go into are classified by the Office for National Statistics as “unprofessional”. Will the Secretary of State consider reviewing the data and taking a really hard look at how those occupations are classified, because some of my constituents would miss out on a really important opportunity to do a high-class and important degree?
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Lady. Harper Adams University is a fantastic university. It does a fantastic range of courses, more and more looking at agri-tech, the technology within agriculture. I am sure it offers fantastic high quality to its students. There have been discussions about the professions and how the data is organised, so I will look at that. A number have raised that concern, not just those in agriculture.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
It seems absolutely right to me that those who choose to go to university should expect a good-quality, good-value education they can put to good use throughout their lives. My right hon. Friend mentions apprenticeships. Will she say a little more about what we can do to ensure parity of esteem between degree and apprenticeship routes?
Gillian Keegan
I thank my hon. Friend for all her support and I know she is a keen proponent of apprenticeships in her area. A lot of it is now about awareness—the apprenticeships are fantastic; I knew 35 years ago that they were fantastic, but I think now everybody knows how fantastic they are—through putting them on UCAS and, from next year, having people able to apply through UCAS. We will also have a centralised site, so that all the apprenticeships are together and people can look at the vast array of careers they can access—670 different routes into pretty much every career you can think of. It is about awareness. I thank all my hon. Friends who have apprenticeship fairs and do a lot to make people aware of these fantastic choices.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement outlining that university courses which fail to deliver good outcomes, with high dropout rates and poor employment prospects, will be subject to strict controls. That is great news for families who struggle to pay the money for courses which end up with no benefit. What discussions has she had with the universities in Northern Ireland, Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University? Will she confirm that this approach will be UK-wide, and that the postal and trade sea border will not extend to an education sea border?
Gillian Keegan
I think the hon. Gentleman knows that this policy is devolved, but I work very closely with my ministerial counterparts in all devolved nations. We share information and best practice, and there are collaborative discussions, too. I will make sure I share this with them, as well.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I whole-heartedly support what the Secretary of State said today. Does she agree that degrees should provide value for money and lead to better employment prospects and career development, as thankfully happened with my studying politics at Nottingham Trent University, not just a certificate and a debt, as developed under the previous Labour Administration who introduced fees and then did their best to devalue them?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend is right. Labour has flip-flopped on fees, with several different policies in that area. We are fully committed to building up our university higher education sector and we continue to do that. It is admired across the world, but it is most important that every degree is a quality degree that leads to good outcomes.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right: the Labour party has not just flip-flopped on its position on tuition fees, but is now coming across as not wanting parents and young people to have the best possible information about their options. I am working with the think-tank Policy Exchange on reforming the apprenticeship levy. As it has identified, if the public sector apprenticeship target of 2.8% was met in all areas, we could create 25,000 additional apprenticeships. Will my right hon. Friend look at that and at whether we can change the procurement contract rules, because we will need these new opportunities as we go forward?
Gillian Keegan
As my hon. Friend knows, I fully support giving more and more people access to apprenticeships. We are currently spending 99.6% of the budget, which does not leave much room for further flexibilities over and above what we have already introduced. The Labour party’s policy of halving the apprenticeship levy will result only in fewer opportunities: it is a terrible policy and they should flip that policy, because it is a flop.
Points of Order
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
In that case, I will come to you after I have heard the first one.
Sammy Wilson
This evening a Committee was meant to discuss the draft Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023, which relate to part of the implementation of the Windsor framework agreement. The Delegated Legislation Committee has already criticised the Government for the way in which they have rushed these regulations, for the lack of information given, and for their inability to answer the questions that it had asked about the legislation. Today the Government decided that half the Conservative Members on the Committee, who were selected and approved by this House, were to be removed because it was felt that they might be too critical and ask too many questions. Is it in order for Committee members who have been selected by the House to be removed in this manner, especially when that is designed to stifle debate and when, indeed, one can only conclude that the Government’s actions would make the North Korean leader blush at the lack of democratic process?
Sir James Duddridge
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was one of those who was thrown off the Committee. I had been asked by the House to join it, and I did the right thing in reviewing the paperwork.
At the outset, I did not know that the draft Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023 were particularly controversial, but when I had done the research and found that they were, I told my Whip that I had some concerns. All the consultation had come out against the legislation, the Democratic Unionist party was concerned about it, and it did not deliver on Brexit. I said that I would probably want to probe and query it—as is my right as a Member of Parliament—and perhaps even vote against it. I was asked whether I would like to be replaced; I said no. I was asked whether I would like to take the week off; I said no. This morning I found that I had been replaced because the Government had thought that the sitting might continue for as long as 90 minutes, and that that might be inconvenient for me, so they had found someone who could take the time. I then discovered that other hon. Members were in the same position. This will go on for the full 90 minutes: we will make sure of that. I suspect that other Members who are in the Chamber will be present.
May I ask you two questions, Mr Speaker? First, can time be found for us to debate this substantive issue, which rides a coach and horses through Brexit, on the Floor of the House? Secondly, have you received any indication from Ministers that they will not be introducing the statutory instrument at 6 pm?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I do not want this to continue for too long. I do need to answer. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be brief.
Mr Francois
I will be brief, Mr Speaker.
The members of the Committee were nominated by the Committee of Selection in the normal way last week. So far so good, but when I checked with the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I learned that he had not been informed of the changes, which had been made by the Whips and not by the Committee. This is basically a sixth-form politics stunt, which came about because the Government feared that the people concerned would vote against that element of the Windsor framework. Why have our Government been reduced to this?
Mr Speaker
I am now going to bring in Gavin Robinson—but I think we all know the answer, by the way.
Gavin Robinson
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly the purpose of a Delegated Legislation Committee is to fast-track matters that contain no controversy, and this exchange alone would suggest that there are issues worthy of exploration. We have heard the suggestion that the Committee would sit for 90 minutes, but we know that within two hours the Chamber will be incredibly busy with Divisions. There is no practical or reasonable prospect of the Committee’s dealing substantively with these issues affecting the Windsor framework. I should appreciate it, Sir, if you could deal with that in your response.
Mr Speaker
You have answered it. I think all those who raised the point of order know the real answer without me going into it; I am grateful to at least two of them for giving me notice.
Although I accept that it can cause inconvenience, I can confirm that late changes to the membership of Delegated Legislation Committees can be made in the way that has been described. In any case, any Member of the House, whether nominated or not, may attend and speak at any meeting of a Delegated Legislation Committee. That may help, but the Members concerned did not need me to give the answer. They will know or can think about the reasons why they are not on the Committee. The answers to the two questions from the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) are no and no.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope this is slightly less controversial.
Stella Creasy
I feel I am letting people down when it comes to drama.
Mr Speaker, have you had any notice from the Government of any intended statements, either written or spoken, about the future of the regulation of “buy now, pay later” lenders? Some 8 million people in this country are struggling to pay a “buy now, pay later” bill because they are borrowing to fund the effects of inflation and the cost of living crisis. They have no protection from the financial ombudsman. In 2020, the Government agreed to legislate on the matter and we have been waiting since then for regulations. Yet now there are press reports—not reports to this House—suggesting that the whole thing is going to be scrapped and rethought, leaving millions of people open to harm from illegal loan sharks. What notice have you had of the matter, Mr Speaker?
Mr Speaker
I have not had any such indication from the Government. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s points will have been noted on the Government Benches. I hope they will be taken on board. Let us see where we go from there.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 17th July 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 July 2023 - (17 Jul 2023)
18:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 213 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 208 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 212 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 220 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 208 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 284 / Noes: 226 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 214 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 215 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1B, 7B and 90D.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 9B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 23B, and Government motion to disagree.
Amendments 36A and 36B, and Government motions to insist, and Lords amendments 36C and 36D, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 33B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 56B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 102B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 103B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 107B and 107C, and Government motions to disagree.
Robert Jenrick
Last Tuesday, this House voted 18 times —more times than on any other day on any other piece of legislation—and 18 times it voted to support this Bill.
Robert Jenrick
I will first make a few opening remarks.
This House sent back to the House of Lords its 20 amendments to the Bill, many of which simply drove a coach and horses through the fabric of the legislation. We brought forward reasonable amendments where it was sensible to do so and it is disappointing, to say the least, the some of those have been rejected. I welcome the fact that the 20 issues that we debated last week have now been whittled down to nine, but the issue now before us is whether the clearly expressed views of this House, the elected Chamber—not just in the votes last week, but throughout the earlier passage of the Bill—should prevail.
We believe that inaction is not an option, that we must stop the boats and that the Bill is a key part of our plan to do just that. The message and the means must be absolutely clear and unambiguous: if people come to the UK illegally, they will not be able to stay here. Instead, they will be detained and returned to their home country or removed to a safe third country. There is simply no point in passing legislation that does not deliver a credible deterrent or provide the means to back it up with effective and swift enforcement powers.
We cannot accept amendments that provide for exceptions, qualifications and loopholes that would simply perpetuate the current cycle of delays and endless late and repeated legal challenges to removal. I listened carefully to the debate in the other place, but no new arguments were forthcoming and certainly no credible alternatives were provided.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I thoroughly endorse what my right hon. Friend says. This is a matter of extreme national interest, as is reflected in the votes of constituents throughout the country. They feel very strongly about these matters. Does he not agree that it is time for their lordships to take note of the fact that the British people want this legislation to go through? They want progress, given the extreme difficulties this is presenting to the British people.
Robert Jenrick
I strongly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. This is an issue of the highest importance to the people we serve in this place. Of course there is a legitimate role for the other place in scrutinising legislation, but now is the time to move forward and pass this law to enable us to stop the boats.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noted the remarks of Lord Clarke, who is not a particularly vicious right-wing creature. He said this Bill is entirely necessary and that we have to get on with it.
I also wonder whether my right hon. Friend has looked at today’s remarks by Lord Heseltine.
Lord Clarke and Lord Heseltine seem to have come up with a sensible option. We should go ahead with this Bill. We have to have much better European co-operation and, really, we have to build a wall around Europe. [Interruption.] And we have to do much more—this is what the Opposition might like—in terms of a Marshall plan to try to remove the conditions of sheer misery that cause people to want to leave these countries in the first place.
Robert Jenrick
I read the remarks of the noble Lord Clarke, and I entirely agree with his point, which is that, having listened to the totality of the debate in the House of Lords, he had not heard a single credible alternative to the Government’s plan. For that reason alone, it is important to support the Government.
I also agree with Lord Clarke’s broader point that this policy should not be the totality of our response to this challenge. Deterrence is an essential part of the plan, but we also need to work closely with our partners in Europe and further upstream. One initiative that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have sought to pursue in recent months is to ensure that the United Kingdom is a strategic partner to each and every country that shares our determination to tackle this issue, from Turkey and Tunisia to France and Belgium.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that the Bill should go through, as we have to do something about the deaths in the channel, which is an important moral purpose.
I bring my right hon. Friend back to Lord Randall’s amendment on modern slavery. We agree quite a lot on this issue, and the Government have said that they will do stuff in guidance, so Lord Randall has taken the words spoken by my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box and put them on the face of the Bill—this amendment does exactly what my right hon. Friend promised the Government would do in guidance. The Government have not issued the guidance in detail, which is why the amendment was made. Why would we vote against the amendment today when my right hon. Friend’s words and prescriptions are now on the face of the Bill?
Robert Jenrick
First, the Lords amendment on modern slavery goes further by making the scheme, as we see it, much more difficult to establish. There are a number of reasons but, in particular, we think the complexity of the issue requires it to be provided for in statutory guidance rather than on the face of the Bill, in line with my assurances made on the Floor of the House. One of those assurances is particularly challenging to put in statutory guidance—where an incident has taken place in the United Kingdom, rather than an individual being trafficked here—and that is the point Lord Randall helpfully tried to bring forward.
We are clear that the process I have set out should be set out in statutory guidance, because the wording of the amendment is open to abuse by those looking to exploit loopholes. Those arriving in small boats would seek to argue that they have been trafficked into the UK and that the 30-day grace period should apply to them, on the basis that they qualify as soon as they reach UK territorial waters. The proposed provision is, for that reason, operationally impossible and serves only to create another loophole that would render the swift removal we seek impossible or impractical. The statutory guidance can better describe and qualify this commitment, by making it clear that the exploitation must have occurred once the person had spent a period of time within the UK and not immediately they get off the small boat in Kent. For that reason, we consider it better to place this on a statutory footing as guidance rather than putting it in the Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Democratic Unionist party is concerned about the trafficking of children and young people. My question is a simple one. We see economic migrants who are fit and healthy but none the less make that journey, and we see those who have had to leave their country because they have been persecuted, discriminated against or been subjected to brutal violence, or because their family members have been murdered. My party and I want to be assured that those who flee persecution have protection within this law, because we do not see that they do.
Robert Jenrick
We believe that they do, because at the heart of this scheme is the principle that if an individual comes to the UK illegally on a small boat, they will be removed back home if it is safe to do that—if they are going to a safe home country such as Albania. In determining that the country is safe, for example, as in the case of Albania, we would have sought specific assurances from it, if required. Alternatively, they will be removed to a safe third country, such as Rwanda, where, again we would have sought sufficient assurances that an individual would be well-treated there. As the hon. Gentleman can see in the courts at the moment, those assurances will be tested. So it is not the intention of the UK Government to expose any genuine victim of persecution to difficulties by removing them either back home and, in the process, enabling their refoulement, or to a country in which they would be unsafe. We want to establish a significant deterrent to stop people coming here in the first place, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of the individuals we are talking about who would be caught by the Bill were already in a place of safety. They were in France, which is clearly a safe country that has a fully functioning asylum system.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the criticism he was making of the other place, because if the elected House is about to break international law, it is entirely fitting that the other place should try to prevent that from happening. The Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box telling us that this Bill is about deterrence, whereas the Home Office’s own impact assessment has said:
“The Bill is a novel and untested scheme, and it is therefore uncertain what level of deterrence impact it will have.”
As a raft of children’s charities have pointed out, once routine child detention was ended in 2011 there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum. So will he come clean and accept that this Bill absolutely will have the effect, even if it does not have the intention, of meaning that people trying to escape persecution will not be able to come here, because there are not sufficient safe and legal routes?
Robert Jenrick
I am not sure exactly what the hon. Lady’s question was. If it was about access to safe and legal routes, let me be clear, as I have in numerous debates on this topic, that since 2015 the UK has welcomed more than 500,000 individuals here—it is nearer to 550,000 now—for humanitarian purposes. That is a very large number. The last statistics I saw showed that we were behind only the United States, Canada and Sweden on our global United Nations-managed safe and legal routes, and we were one of the world’s biggest countries for resettlement schemes. That is a very proud record. The greatest inhibitor today to the UK doing more on safe and legal routes is the number of people coming across the channel illegally on small boats, taking up capacity in our asylum and immigration system. She knows that only too well, because we have discussed on a number of occasions one of the most concerning symptoms of this issue, which is unaccompanied children who are having to stay in a Home Office-procured hotel near to her constituency because local authorities do not have capacity to flow those individuals into safe and loving foster care as quickly as we would wish. That issue is exactly emblematic of the problem that we are trying to fix. If we can stop the small boats, we can do more, as a country, and be an even greater force for good in the world.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister set out how my constituent will be protected? He is Albanian and has been subjected to modern slavery by gangs from Albania. He has three bullet holes in his body and, if he returns, perhaps those gangs will give him more. How will he be protected?
Robert Jenrick
The existing arrangement that we have secured with Albania—incidentally, Albania is a signatory to the European convention against trafficking— enables us to safely return somebody home to Albania, with specific assurances to prevent them being retrafficked to the United Kingdom and to enable them to be supported appropriately upon arrival.
On the broader issue of modern slavery, the Bill makes a number of important protections when we establish the scheme. If they are party to a law enforcement investigation, their removal from the country will be stayed. We have said that we will bring forward statutory guidance, giving them a 30-day period, allied to the period set out in ECAT, to come forward and work with law enforcement, which is extendable if that enforcement activity goes on for some time. We would then only remove that person either back home to a safe country, such as Albania, or to a country, such as Rwanda, where we have put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that that Government, in turn, looks after them.
I point the hon. Lady to the judgment in the Court of Appeal that made some criticisms of the Government’s approach, but did not say that the arrangements in Rwanda with respect to modern slaves were inappropriate; it supported the Government in that regard. We will clearly put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that victims, such as the one she refers to, are properly supported.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Many opponents of the Bill seem to support uncapped safe and legal routes. The reality of that would be that potentially over 1 million people could get the ability to come here. Does the Minister agree that those proposing that should be open and honest about it, and explain what the dramatic consequences would be for public services and community cohesion in this country?
Robert Jenrick
I completely agree. Anyone who feels that this country has sufficient resource to welcome significant further numbers of individuals at the present time, should look at the inbox of the Minister for Immigration. It is full of emails and letters from members of the public, local authorities and Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, complaining that they do not want to see further dispersal accommodation and worrying about GP surgery appointments, pressure on local public services and further hotels. I understand all those concerns, which is why we need an honest debate about the issue.
That is why, at the heart of the Bill, there is not only a tough deterrent position for new illegal entrants, but a consultation on safe and legal routes, where we specifically ask local authorities, “What is your true capacity?” If we bring forward further safe and legal routes, they will be rooted in capacity in local authorities, so that those individuals are not destined to be in hotels for months or years, but go straight to housing and support in local authorities. That must be the right way for us to live up to our international obligations, rather than the present situation that, all too often, is performative here, and then there are major problems down the road.
Let me reply to issues other than modern slavery in the amendments before us. On the issue of detention, we believe that a necessary part of the scheme, provided for in the Bill, is that there are strong powers. Where those subject to removal are not detained, the prospects of being able to effect removal are significantly reduced, given the likelihood of a person absconding, especially towards the end of the process.
We have made changes to the provision for pregnant women, which I am pleased have been accepted by the Lords, and unaccompanied children, but it is necessary for the powers to cover family groups, as to do otherwise would introduce a gaping hole in the scheme, as adult migrants and the most disgusting people smugglers would seek to profit from migrants and look to co-opt unaccompanied children to bogus family groups to avoid detention. That not only prevents the removal of the adults, but presents a very real safeguarding risk to children.
On unaccompanied children, we stand by the amendments agreed by the House last week. They provided a clear differentiation between the arrangements for the detention of adults and those for the detention of unaccompanied children. The amendments agreed by this House provide for judicial oversight after eight days’ detention where that detention is for the purpose of removal.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making it clear that, if there is any doubt about the age of an unaccompanied child, they will be treated as a child. I also thank him for saying that, if a child is detained, it will be in an age-appropriate centre. However, on the issue of what is age-appropriate, I will just say that I have looked at the operating standards to which he referred. It is an 82-page document. It has no mention of unaccompanied children. It talks about who looks after the locks and hinges and where the tools and the ladders are to be stored, but there is nothing about how we keep these children happy, healthy and safe from harm. I point him instead to the guidance for children’s care homes and ask him gently if we could update the rules on detention centres to make sure that they look more like the rules we have for safeguarding children in care homes.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend makes a number of important points. The guidance is very detailed, but I am sure that it would benefit from updating. Therefore, the points that she has made and that other right hon. and hon. Members have made in the past will be noted by Home Office officials. As we operationalise this policy, we will be careful to take those into consideration. We are all united in our belief that those young people who are in our care need to be treated appropriately.
Let me turn now to the Lords amendment on modern slavery—I hope that I have answered the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). This seeks to enshrine in the Bill some of the assurances that I provided in my remarks last week in respect of people who are exploited in the UK. However, for the reason that I have just described, we think that that is better done through statutory guidance. In fact, it would be impractical, if not impossible, to do it through the Bill.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The point that my right hon. Friend made earlier is that, somehow, those people will be able to get into the UK and make a false claim. However, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already provides for that, so anyone found to have made a false claim will be disqualified, and disqualified quite quickly. The critical thing is to prosecute the traffickers. That way, we can stop them trafficking more people on the boats. My worry is that this provision will put off many people from giving evidence and co-operating with the police for fear that they may still be overridden and sent abroad while they are doing it and then be picked up by the traffickers. Does he give any credence to the fear that this may end up reducing the number of prosecutions of traffickers as a result?
Robert Jenrick
I understand my right hon. Friend’s position, and it is right that he is vocalising it, but we do not believe that what he says is likely. The provision that we have made in the statutory guidance that I have announced will give an individual 30 days from the positive reasonable grounds decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation in relation to their exploitation. That should give them a period of time to recover, to come forward and to work with law-enforcement. That is a period of time aligned with the provisions of ECAT, so we rely on the decision of the drafters of ECAT to choose 30 days rather than another, potentially longer, period. That is an extendable period, so where a person continues to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and the protections of the national referral mechanism for a longer period.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I just want to make it clear that under the new regulations, the Secretary of State can still feasibly decide that, even if someone is co-operating, they do not need to remain in the UK for that. That is the critical bit: they live under the fear that they can be moved somewhere else to give that evidence. Does the Minister not agree that that will put a lot of people off giving evidence?
Robert Jenrick
I hope that that is not borne out. It is worth remembering that we will not remove anyone to a country in which they would be endangered. We would be removing that person either back to their home country, if we consider it safe to do so, usually because the country is an ECAT signatory and has provisions in place, or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, where once again we will have put in place significant provisions to support the individual. I hope that that provides those individuals with the confidence to come forward and work with law enforcement to bring the traffickers to book.
Vicky Ford
I am particularly interested in the arrival of unaccompanied children in this country, because obviously the Minister has tightened up the eight-day period for them on exit. I believe that he just agreed with me that the standards for age-appropriate accommodation in detention centres need to be updated to look more like those for children’s homes. Is he prepared to concede that no unaccompanied child should be put in such a detention centre until that update of the rules has been undertaken?
Robert Jenrick
I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes, but I am not sure that that is necessary, because the Detention Centre Rules 2001 are very explicit in the high standards expected. They set the overall standard, and underlying them will no doubt be further guidance and support for individuals who are working within the system. If there is work to be done on the latter point, we should do that and take account of her views and those of others who are expert in this field, but the Detention Centre Rules are very explicit in setting high overarching standards for this form of accommodation. That is exactly what we would seek to live up to; in fact, it would be unlawful if the Government did not.
Vicky Ford
In a children’s home, we would expect there to be the right to access a social worker and advocacy, and for the child to have the care that they particularly need. We would expect Ofsted to oversee that, not prison inspectors.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for those points. Social workers will clearly be at the heart of all this work, as they are today. Every setting in which young people are housed by the Home Office, whether it be an unaccompanied asylum-seeking children hotel, which we mentioned earlier, or another facility, has a strong contingent of qualified social workers who support those young people. I am certain that social workers will be at the heart of developing the policy and then, in time, operationalising it.
Their lordships have attempted but failed to smooth the rough edges of their wrecking amendments on legal proceedings, but we need be in no doubt that they are still wrecking amendments. They would tie every removal up in knots and never-ending legal proceedings. It is still the case that Lords amendment 1B would incorporate the various conventions listed in the amendment into our domestic law. An amendment shoehorned into the Bill is not the right place to make such a significant constitutional change. It is therefore right that we continue to reject it.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Robert Jenrick
I will not, because I need to close my remarks; this is a short debate.
Lords amendment 9B continues to undermine a core component of the Bill: that asylum and relevant human rights claims are declared inadmissible. The Lords amendment would simply encourage illegal migrants to game the system and drag things out for as long as possible, in the hope that they would become eligible for asylum here.
Lords amendment 23B brings us back to the issue of the removal of LGBT people to certain countries. The Government are a strong defender of LGBT rights across the globe. There is no question of sending a national of one of the countries listed in the amendment back to their home country if they fear persecution based on their sexuality. The Bill is equally clear that if an LGBT person were to be issued with a removal notice to a country where they fear persecution on such grounds, or indeed on any other grounds, they could make a serious harm suspensive claim and they would not be removed—
Robert Jenrick
I will not, because I need to bring my remarks to a close now. They would not be removed until that claim and any appeal had been determined. As I said previously, the concerns underpinning the amendments are misplaced and the protections needed are already in the Bill.
On safe and legal routes, Lords amendment 102B brings us to the question of when new such routes come into operation. The amendment again seeks to enshrine a date in the Bill itself. I have now said at the Dispatch Box on two occasions that we aim to implement any proposed new routes as soon as is practical, and in any event by the end of 2024. I have made that commitment on behalf of the Government and, that being the case, there is simply no need for the amendment. We should not delay the enactment of this Bill over such a non-issue.
Lords amendment 103B, tabled by the Opposition, relates to the National Crime Agency. Again, it is a non-issue and the amendment is either performative or born out of ignorance and a lack of grasp of the detail. The NCA’s functions already cover tackling organised immigration crime, and men and women in that service work day in, day out to do just that. There is no need to change the statute underlying the organisation.
Finally, we have Lords amendment 107B, which was put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This country’s proud record of providing a safe haven for more than half a million people since 2015 is the greatest evidence that we need that the UK is already taking a leading international role in tackling the refugee crisis. This Government are working tirelessly with international and domestic partners to tackle human trafficking, and continue to support overseas programmes. We will work with international partners and bring forward proposals for additional safe and legal routes where necessary.
However well-intentioned, this amendment remains unnecessary. As I said to his grace the Archbishop, if the Church wishes to play a further role in resettlement, it could join our community sponsorship scheme—an ongoing and global safe and legal route that, as far as I am aware, the Church of England is not currently engaged with.
This elected House voted to give the Bill a Second and Third Reading. Last Tuesday, it voted no fewer than 17 times in succession to reject the Lords amendments and an 18th time to endorse the Government’s amendments in lieu relating to the detention of unaccompanied children. It is time for the clear view of the elected House to prevail. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to stand with the Government in upholding the will of the democratically elected Commons, to support the Government motions and to get on with securing our borders and stopping the boats.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
On Tuesday, I described the way in which this Government have
“taken a sledgehammer to our asylum system”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 218.]
I outlined the massive and far-reaching costs and consequences of 13 years of Tory incompetence and indifference. I described this bigger backlog Bill as a “shambolic farce” that will only compound the chaos that Ministers have created. I urged the Government to accept the amendments proposed by the other place and to adopt Labour’s pragmatic, realistic and workable five-point plan to stop the boats and fix our broken asylum system.
I set out how the Bill’s unworkability centres on the fact that it orders the Home Secretary to detain asylum seekers where there is nowhere to detain them. It prevents her from processing and returning failed asylum seekers across the channel to their country of origin, instead forcing her to return them to a third country such as Rwanda. However, Rwanda can take only 0.3% of those who came here on small boats last year. The Rwanda plan is neither credible nor workable, because the tiny risk of being sent to Kigali will not deter those who have already risked life and limb to make dangerous journeys across the continent.
Yet here we are again today, responding to the realisation that, in their typically arrogant and tin-eared fashion, Ministers are once again refusing to listen. They are once again closing their eyes and ears to the reality of what is happening around them and choosing to carry on driving the car straight into a brick wall. But we on the Labour Benches refuse to give up. We shall continue in our attempts to persuade the Government to come to their senses. I shall seek to do that today by setting out why the arguments that the Immigration Minister has made against the amendments from the other place are both fundamentally flawed and dangerously counterproductive.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
If the principle of removal to a safe third country is not an adequate deterrent, why was that principle the flagship of the last Labour Government’s immigration policy in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002? What was the point of section 94—its most controversial provision—if it was not about the swift removal of failed asylum seekers?
Stephen Kinnock
The crucial point is that for a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible. A deterrent based on a 0.3% risk of being sent to Rwanda is completely and utterly incredible. The only deterrent that works is a comprehensive returns deal with mainland Europe. If someone knows that, were they to come here on a small boat, they would be sent back to mainland Europe, they will not come and they will not pay €5,000 to the people smuggler. The only way to get that deal is to have a sensible and pragmatic negotiation with the European Union based on quid pro quo—give and take. That is the fundamental reality of the situation in which we find ourselves, but unfortunately those on the Conservative Benches keep closing their ears to that reality.
Laura Farris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—I will not take long. Does he not accept that, in reality, there is no such thing as a returns deal with mainland Europe? The reason the Dublin convention was such a disaster and never resulted in us removing more people than we took in was that it was so incredibly difficult to get European countries to accept removals and make that happen. It is just an unworkable suggestion.
Stephen Kinnock
Surely the hon. Lady sees the direct connection between us crashing out of the Dublin regulation because of the utterly botched Brexit of the Government she speaks for, and the number of small boat crossings starting to skyrocket. There is a direct correlation between crashing out of the Dublin regulation and skyrocketing small boat crossings. I hope that she will look at the data and realise the truth of the matter.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
We have had this conversation before. The hon. Gentleman knows that when we were covered by Dublin—before we came out of it through Brexit—there were more than 8,000 requests for people to be deported back to an EU country, and only 108 of those requests, or about 1.5%, were actually granted. So there was not some golden era when it worked under Dublin; it was not working then, and it certainly will not work now.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is right, we have had this conversation before, and he consistently refuses to listen to the fact that the Dublin regulation acted as a deterrent, so the numbers that he talks about were small. The number of small boat crossings was small when we were part of the Dublin regulation. We left the Dublin regulation, and now the number is large—it is not rocket science. There is a clear connection, a correlation, a causal link between the two.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. The reason the small boats problem has grown exponentially is that we dealt with the lorries issue. We closed the loophole when it came to lorries and the channel tunnel in particular, and that is why people are now resorting to small boats. It is nothing to do with Dublin. Surely those are the facts.
Stephen Kinnock
I simply say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that last year, we had 45,000 people coming on small boats and goodness knows how many on lorries—of course, those coming by clandestine means in the back of a lorry are far more difficult to detect than those coming on small boats, so the small boats crisis is, by definition, far more visible. It is true that that juxtaposition and the new arrangements have had a positive impact, but we still do not know how many are coming. I have been to camps in Calais and spoken to many who are planning to come on lorries rather than on small boats—not least because it is a far cheaper alternative. The reality is that a very large number of people are coming to our country through irregular means, but it is also clear that that number was significantly smaller when we were part of the Dublin regulation. That is because it was a comprehensive deterrent, compared with the utterly insignificant power of the Rwanda programme as a deterrent.
Stephen Kinnock
I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
I will turn first to Lords amendment 1B, intended to ensure that the Bill is consistent with international law, which Labour fully supports. Last week, the Minister deemed the same amendment unnecessary, because:
“It goes without saying that the Government obey our international obligations, as we do with all pieces of legislation.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 198.]
That comment was typical of the Minister’s approach. He is constantly trying to calm his colleagues’ nerves by fobbing them off with that sort of soothing statement, but we all know that he does not really believe a word of it. He knows that the very first page of the Bill states that the Government are unable to confirm that it complies with our legal obligations. He also knows that the Government are more than happy to break international law—just look at how they played fast and loose with the Northern Ireland protocol. If the Minister really thinks that we will simply take his deeply misleading words at face value and trust him and his colleagues to uphold our legal obligations, he has another think coming.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to use the phrase “deeply misleading”. Knowing that he is an honourable gentleman, I suggest that he might want to use a slightly different phrase—“inadvertently misleading”, perhaps?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would “misleadingly soothing” work?
Stephen Kinnock
As always, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are very gracious.
The late, great Denis Healey famously advised that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. [Hon. Members: “Quite right!”] Hang on. He would certainly have approved of Lords amendment 9B, which goes right to the heart of the fundamental unworkability of this bigger backlog Bill and seeks to prevent it from becoming the indefinite limbo Bill.
Let us be clear: the current state of affairs represents both a mental health crisis for asylum seekers and a financial crisis for British taxpayers, who are already shouldering an asylum bill that is seven times higher than it was in 2010, at £3.6 billion a year. Indeed, the mid-range estimate for the hotels bill alone is greater than the latest round of levelling-up funding, and three times higher than the entire budget for tackling homelessness in this country. The only people who benefit from the inadmissibility provisions in the Bill are the people smugglers and human traffickers, who are laughing all the way to the bank. As such, it is essential that this House votes in favour of Lord German’s amendment, which seeks to ensure that inadmissibility can be applied to an asylum seeker only for a period of six months if they have not been removed to another country.
A major concern throughout the passage of the Bill has been its utter disregard for the mental wellbeing of unaccompanied children. Many of those children will have had to see their loved ones suffer unspeakable acts of violence, yet despite the Government’s concession, the Bill will mean that when they arrive in the UK, they will be detained like criminals for up to eight days before they can apply for bail. We are clear that that is unacceptable, and are in no doubt that the Government’s amendment is yet another example of their liking for performative cruelty. We urge the Minister to accept the compromise of 72 hours contained in Lords amendments 36C and 36D.
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The best thing for any person’s mental health, especially children, is to not put them on a dangerous small boat across the channel. Does the hon. Member agree that the best thing for any child’s mental health is for them to not make that dangerous journey, but instead use one of the many legal and safe routes? This Bill and its clauses will make sure that fewer children make that awful journey.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the only people who benefit from the small boat crossings are the people smugglers and human traffickers—that has to be brought to an end. Where we fundamentally disagree is about the means. Labour believes that the deterrence of the Rwanda scheme simply will not work, for the reasons I have already set out, and that the solution lies far more in pragmatism and quiet diplomacy, working with international partners to get the returns deal that I talked about, than in all the performative cruelty that is at the heart of this Bill.
Likewise, the Government should show some humility and support Lords amendment 33B, which states that accompanied children should be liable for detention only for up to 96 hours. This is a fair and reasonable compromise, given that Lords amendment 33 initially set the limit at 72 hours.
While we are on the subject of children, how utterly astonishing and deeply depressing it was to hear the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box last week and justifying the erasure of Disney cartoons on the basis of their not being age-appropriate. Quite apart from the fact that his nasty, bullying, performative cruelty will have absolutely no effect whatsoever in stopping the boats, it has since emerged that more than 9,000 of the children who passed through that building in the year to March 2023 were under the age of 14. Given that a significant proportion of those 9,000 would have been younger still, I just wonder whether the Minister would like to take this opportunity to withdraw his comments about the age-appropriateness of those cartoons.
Stephen Kinnock
No. Well, there we have it. This whole sorry episode really was a new low for this Minister and for the shameful, callous Government he represents.
We also support Lords amendment 23B, a compromise in lieu of Lords amendment 23, which seeks to protect LGBT asylum seekers from being removed to a country that persecutes them for their sexuality or gender. The Minister last week claimed that that was unnecessary because there is an appeals process, but why on earth would he put asylum seekers and the British taxpayer through an expensive and time-consuming appeals process when he could just rule out this scenario from the outset?
Nothing illustrates more clearly the indifference of this Government towards the most vulnerable people in society than their treatment of women being trafficked into our country for prostitution. I have already described this Bill as a traffickers charter—a gift to the slave drivers and the pimps—because it makes it harder for victims to come forward and therefore more difficult for the police to prosecute criminals. The Immigration Minister last week repeated the false claim that the UK Statistics Authority recently rebuked him for. It was his second rebuke this year by our national statistics watchdog for inaccurate claims made to this House. Thankfully, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her place today, called him out on it. She correctly pointed out that the proportion of small boats migrants claiming to be victims of modern slavery stands at just 7%. This was a profoundly embarrassing moment for the Minister, but I do hope he will now swallow his pride, listen to the wise counsel he is receiving from those on the Benches behind him and accept Lords amendment 56B in the name of Lord Randall.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Member is right that I misspoke when citing those statistics on an earlier occasion, but in fact the statistics were worse than I said to the House. What I said was that, of foreign national offenders who are in the detained estate on the eve of their departure, over 70% made use of modern slavery legislation to put in a last-minute claim and delay their removal. However, it was not just FNOs; it was also small boat arrivals. So the point I was making was even more pertinent, and it is one that he should try to answer. What would he do to stop 70% of people in the detained estate, who we are trying to get out of the country, putting in a frivolous claim at the last minute?
Stephen Kinnock
Sir Robert Chote of the UK Statistics Authority said clearly that the figure is only 20%, not 70%. I do not know whether we want to invite Sir Robert to clarify those points himself, but the rebuke the Minister received from the UK Statistics Authority was pretty clear.
It is vitally important that the Minister’s position on this is not used as the basis for a policy that could cause profound harm to vulnerable women while feeding criminality in the United Kingdom. I therefore urge him to reflect on what he is trying to achieve, the proportionality of his actions and the unintended consequences he may be facilitating. Lords amendment 56B states that victims of trafficking who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK should be protected from the automatic duty to remove and should continue to be able to access the support currently available to them, but only for the duration of the statutory recovery period, which was set by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 at 30 days.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead argued that the Bill as drafted would
“drive a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, denying support to those who have been exploited and enslaved and, in doing so, making it much harder to catch and stop the traffickers and slave drivers.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 886.]
We strongly agree with her concerns and wholeheartedly support Lords amendment 56B, which I remind the Minister goes no further than to maintain the status quo of the basic protections and support currently available to all victims of trafficking and exportation.
I will now turn to the amendments that are underpinned by Labour’s five-point plan: end the dangerous small-boat crossings, defeat the criminal gangs, clear the backlog, end extortionate hotel use, and fix the asylum system that the Conservatives have spent 13 years destroying.
Sir Edward Leigh
Presumably it is the hon. Gentleman’s most devout hope if he takes power in 15 months’ time, but charming as he is, it is a mystery to me why he thinks when he asks President Macron to take these people back, he will do so. Of course he won’t! Nothing will happen. May I gently suggest that, if there is a Labour Government, they will quietly adopt this Bill once it is an Act?
Stephen Kinnock
I will come to that in my comments, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, any negotiation requires give and take, quid pro quo. As I said in response to one of his hon. Friends, to get that deal with the European Union we of course have to do our bit and take our fair share, and that will be the negotiation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be leading on when he becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, following the next general election.
We are determined that the National Crime Agency will be strengthened so that it can tackle the criminal gangs upstream. Too much focus by this Government has been on slashing tents and puncturing dinghies along the French coastline, whereas Labour has set out its plan for an elite unit in the NCA to work directly with Europol and Interpol. The latest amendment from Lord Coaker, Lords amendment 103B, attempts to strengthen the NCA’s authority, and we support it without reservation. We are also clear that there is a direct link between gaining the returns agreement that we desperately need with the EU, and creating controlled and managed pathways to asylum, which would allow genuine refugees to reach the UK safely, particularly if they have family here. Conservative Members refuse to make that connection, but we know it is in the interests of the EU and France to strike a returns deal with the UK, and dissuade the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are flowing through Europe and ending up on the beaches of Calais. The EU and its member states will never do a deal with the UK unless it is based on a give-and-take arrangement, whereby every country involved does its bit and shares responsibility.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
On his visit to Calais, the hon. Gentleman will have met people who were trying to get to this country. Did it strike him how utterly desperate many of them were, and how they are fleeing from wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and other places? Does he think that we have to address the wider issue of the reasons why people are fleeing and searching for asylum, not just in Europe but all over the world?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. As he rightly points out, the key point is that these people are already fleeing desperate situations and have risked life and limb to get as far as they have. The idea that a 0.3% chance of being sent to Rwanda acts as a deterrent is clearly for the birds. In addition, he makes important points about the need for international co-operation, and finding solutions to these problems alongside our partners across the channel.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that the Rwanda plan will not work or be a deterrent, but why not give it a go? If he is so confident that it will not work, let it get through. It could have got through months ago, and he could have come back to the House and proved us wrong. At the moment it comes across as if the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are scared that it might work, and that is the problem.
Stephen Kinnock
I suppose the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, and the Rwanda plan is so clearly and utterly misconceived, misconstrued and counter-productive. Labour Members like to vote for things that are actually going to work, which is why we simply cannot support that hare-brained scheme.
With the Minister last week reiterating a deadline of December 2024—18 months from now—to lay out what safe and legal routes might look like, and by stating that those routes will not deal with the challenges facing Europe directly, he appears to be reducing the chances of getting the returns deal with the EU that we so urgently need. Let us not forget that this Government sent Britain tumbling out of the Dublin regulations during their botched Brexit negotiations, and it is no surprise that small boat crossings have skyrocketed since then. This Government must prioritise getting that returns deal. We therefore support Lords amendment 102B, which demands that the Government get on with setting out what these safe and legal routes might look like, not only to provide controlled and capped pathways to sanctuary for genuine refugees, but to break that deadlock in the negotiations with the EU over returns.
I note that the Minister loves to trot out his lines about the Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghan resettlement schemes, but he neglects to mention that there are now thousands of homeless Ukrainian families, and we have the travesty of thousands of loyal-to-Britain Afghans who are set to be thrown on the streets at the end of August. More than 2,000 Afghans are stuck in Pakistan with the right to come here, but they are not being allowed to do so. He simply must fix those resettlement schemes.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is an important point that all Members of the House should appreciate. The No. 1 reason why we are struggling to bring to the UK those people in Pakistan—we would like to bring them here, because we have a moral and historical obligation to them—is that illegal immigrants on small boats have taken all the capacity of local authorities to house them. If the hon. Gentleman truly wanted to support those people, he would back this Bill, he would stop the boats, and then he would help us to bring those much-needed people into the United Kingdom.
Stephen Kinnock
It beggars belief that the Immigration Minister says that, when he speaks for a party that has allowed our backlog to get to 180,000, costing £7 million a day in hotels. He should just get the processing system sorted out. The Conservatives downgraded the seniority of caseworkers and decision makers in 2013 and 2014. Surprise, surprise, productivity fell off a cliff, as did the quality of decisions. That is the fundamental problem, but we have to recognise that these Afghans have stood shoulder to shoulder with our defence, diplomacy and development effort in Afghanistan, and we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.
Robert Jenrick
Does the hon. Gentleman know how many asylum seekers are housed in his constituency, or would he like me to tell him? It is none. There are no asylum seekers accommodated in Aberavon. If he would like us to bring in more people, whether on safe and legal routes, or on schemes such as the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, he should get on the phone to his local council and the Welsh Government this afternoon.
Stephen Kinnock
The Minister is talking absolute nonsense. I am proud of the fact we have many Syrians in our constituency. We have Ukrainians in our welcome centre. Discussions are ongoing between the Home Office and the Welsh Government. The incompetence of his Government means that they are not managing to house them. Wales is ready to have that dialogue with the Home Office.
Rachael Maskell
I find it a shocking admission from the Minister—we are fighting for the relatives of people in Afghanistan whose lives are at risk—that these Afghans are being blocked by him because he is not making available those safe routes to bring them to constituencies such as York, where we welcome refugees.
Stephen Kinnock
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are real concerns about the safety and security of those Afghans now in Pakistan. It is possible that they will be sent back. It is up to the Home Office to facilitate their transfer to the United Kingdom under ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but like so many things with this Home Office, it is just a catastrophic failure of management.
In trotting out the lines about the schemes that I mentioned, the Minister conveniently ignores the fact that none of those schemes help those coming from other high grant-rate countries in the middle east and sub-Saharan Africa. Neither he nor the Home Secretary have been able to answer questions from their own Back Benchers on that precise point.
The final point of our plan is to tackle migration flows close to the conflict zones where they arise through targeting our aid spending. That is a longer-term mission, but it is no less important than any of the other steps we need to take to meet these migration challenges. I therefore see no reason for the Government not to support Lords amendment 107B in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which would instruct the Government to develop a 10-year plan to manage migration.
I have lost count of the number of times we have come to the Chamber to debate the Government’s latest madcap Bill or hare-brained scheme. Not one of those Bills has helped to stop a single boat, and the Government have sent more Home Secretaries to Rwanda than they have asylum seekers. They are wasting their own time and the time of the House, and they really are trying the patience of the British people. It really is desperate stuff, and it has to stop.
In stark contrast to the hopeless, aimless and utterly self-defeating thrashing around that has come to define the Government’s approach to the asylum crisis, Labour recognises that there is a way through: a route based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy. It comes in the form of the Labour party’s comprehensive plan, based on core principles, with a commitment to returning asylum processing to the well managed, efficient, smooth-running system we had prior to the catastrophic changes brought in by Conservative Ministers in 2013, which downgraded decision makers and caseworkers, leading to poorer results. With that, we have a commitment to go further in fast-tracking applications from low grant-rate countries so that we can return those with no right to be here, and fast-tracking applications from high grant-rate countries so that genuine refugees can get on with their lives and start contributing to our economy, enriching our society and culture. A third, key principle is the need for international co-operation, as I have set out.
This is not rocket science; it is just sensible, pragmatic, serious governance. It is working in the United States, where the Biden Administration are winning the battle. They have introduced a combination of swift consequences for those who cross the border illegally; orderly paths and controls on which migrants can apply for asylum and where they do so; sensible, legal pathways for high grant-rate nations; and strong co-operation with Mexico. The result is that they are bringing numbers down significantly and quickly. The challenge is not over yet, and we would not see President Biden being foolish enough to go boasting at the border, but that shows that progress can be made.
The Labour party is not interested in performative cruelty, chasing headlines or government by gimmick. We have a plan that will stop the boats, fix our broken asylum system and deliver for the British people. In contrast, the Conservative party has run out of ideas and run out of road. It should get out of the way so that we can get to work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have only one hour left for the remainder of the debate, so I have to impose an immediate time limit. I was going to say six minutes, but I will have to say five minutes.
Tim Loughton
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always an experience to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). It was once said that someone who had just met his father had just spent half an hour having a five-minute conversation with him. We have just had a half-hour speech, but I am afraid that we did not get five minutes of anything remotely new in that.
Stephen Kinnock
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to raise my father and what he might or might not have said when he is not in the Chamber to defend himself?
Madam Deputy Speaker
It would be better not to do so. There is no hard and fast rule, since the right hon. and noble Gentlemen is no longer a member of this Chamber.
Tim Loughton
I will happily withdraw that, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can have my minute back. I declare an interest as the chairman of a safeguarding board of a children’s company.
I was rather surprised to read in papers over the weekend that, according to the briefings, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and I are some sort of ringleaders against the Bill. May I make it absolutely clear that I support the Bill and want it to go through as quickly as possible, and that I support the Rwanda scheme? Objecting to some of the Bill’s trafficking measures is about protecting victims and prosecuting traffickers, not undermining the Bill. Greater safeguards on how we look after children who have arrived here would not undermine the Bill; they would strengthen it. Safeguards to ensure that safe and legal routes are in place for genuine asylum seekers would not undermine the Bill; they would strengthen and justify the measures against those who are gaming the system, to whom we do not have a duty of care.
In my limited time, I want to concentrate on the amendment tabled by Baroness Mobarik. I also thank Baroness Stroud and Lord Randall for the amendments on trafficking and safe and legal routes. The fact is that the Government’s amendments to clause 12 will give a child on their own in the UK the chance to apply to be bailed from detention after eight days, but that will apply only if they were detained to be removed, to be united with family or to be returned to their home country. That will not apply to all unaccompanied children when they first arrive in the UK; it will impact on only a small group of children. Other separated children not subject to removal will be detained for at least 28 days, and there is still no statutory limit on detention for any separated child.
Under the Government’s proposals, separated children affected by the Bill can still be indefinitely detained. That is the truth of the matter. It is imperative to include a time limit on child detention in the Bill. If the Government intend to detain children for the shortest possible time, they can reinforce that message by enshrining a time limit in the primary legislation, as we have asked for all along. Although the Minister has given some concessions, we are still not there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Stuart C. McDonald
We should oppose all nine Government motions, which is precisely what my SNP colleagues and I will do this evening. Let me say again that this Bill is so appalling that the House of Lords should stop it in its tracks. However, Baroness Jones was the one speaker who had the guts to say:
“we should be stubborn about not allowing the Bill to go through.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1814.]
As I asked last week, if the Lords will not consider halting this Bill, which Bill will it be? This Bill is about locking up kids, forcing trafficking victims back to their exploiters, mass detention, closure of the UK asylum system and the trashing of international laws. If the Lords will not use their powers to block this Bill—a Bill that also runs totally contrary to what was in the 2019 Conservative manifesto—what is the point of their powers, and what is the point of the House of Lords? Let us hope that we can salvage something from these final proceedings.
On Lords amendment 1B, if the Bill is consistent with our international obligations, the Government cannot have any objections to the amendment. On the other hand, if, as the Government have at other times argued, it wrecks the Bill to have to be read consistently with international law, then the problem is with the Bill, not the amendment. That is a good reason in itself for the whole Bill to be stopped in its tracks. The revisions to the amendment mean that arguments about allegedly incorporating international laws have been addressed, despite the completely unsubstantiated assertion from the Minister. We have heard lots of strong words about protecting a dualist system of law, but given that the Government could not even make the normal human rights compatibility statement, we need strong action to protect fundamental human rights and the rule of law.
The grouped amendments 7B and 90D are also important in upholding the rule of law. They preserve judicial oversight, so that illegal decisions by the Government can be properly challenged before they are implemented. It really is as simple and fundamental as that. The Government keep talking about loopholes, but access to courts, the rule of law and fundamental rights are not loopholes; they are fundamental principles that we should be upholding.
Lords amendment 9B is another crucial amendment. It now includes safeguards to assuage the usual Government concerns about gaming the system, but retains the vital protection that if a person cannot be removed to Rwanda even after six months, they will then have their case assessed here. It simply preserves the status quo and is an essential protection. It remains an appalling prospect that people who are refugees will be left in limbo forever by the Government; never allowed to have their claim heard here and never able to contribute, even if removal is a near impossible prospect.
Indeed, it is also ludicrous that there will be people with totally unfounded claims for asylum who will get to remain here in limbo, often at considerable taxpayer expense, because of the Bill. The Bill stops unfounded claims being dealt with, just as it stops well-founded claims being dealt with. The end result is that thousands of people will need to be detained and accommodated in perpetuity. Many more will disappear underground, as they will have no reason to stay in touch with the Home Office. It is the end of the UK’s contribution to the refugee convention. Again, if the Government are not willing to move on that, their lordships should hold up the whole Bill.
On mass and limitless detention of children in inappropriate accommodation, of course we continue to support all efforts to curtail the horrendous new powers and to limit the extraordinary harm that we know—and the Home Office knows—detention causes to them. We therefore support Lords amendments 36C, 36D and 33B. As I said last week, the Government’s amendments in lieu really represent a pathetic non-concession. A theoretical right for some kids detained for removal to seek bail after eight days is just not remotely acceptable. At the very least, we need short, hard and fast limits, and those limits should be automatic and not dependent on a child being able to navigate the bail system and accessing the legal support that would be required to do that. And the time limits should apply to all kids, whether accompanied or not, and regardless of which particular powers they were detained under. The Government make claims about creating incentives to play by the rules, but, as with most of their claims, they offer absolutely no evidence. There is no suggestion, for example, that the introduction of strict time limits by David Cameron’s Government had the impact suggested here. It is just another myth.
As Members on both sides have said, the Bill is a serious threat to victims of modern slavery and trafficking, and yet again it totally ignores devolved powers on this subject. Those being exploited are the ones who will suffer, not the traffickers, whose power over their victims will only be enhanced by the withdrawal of any route to safety for those they are exploiting. We therefore support Lords amendment 56B and anything that will undo some of the damage that the Bill will do to modern slavery and trafficking provisions. Without 56B, the damage the Bill will do to slavery and trafficking laws across the UK is yet again sufficient to justify holding up the whole Bill.
On Lords amendment 23B and protections for LGBT people, we fully support everything Lord Etherton said in support of his amendments. Put the fact that these countries are not safe for LGBT people on the face of the schedule. Anything that builds on the flimsy and almost certainly unworkable system of “suspensive claims” should be welcomed. LGBT people should not have to go through that process in the first place. If the Government are committed to safe legal routes, they should have no problem with Lords amendment 102B. On the archbishop’s amendments 107B and 107C, a 10-year strategy is utterly sensible—indeed, it is essential. Long-term thinking is as necessary for issues surrounding forced migration as other pivotal challenges such as climate change.
Ultimately, the amendments can only add a little polish to an odious Bill that is utterly beyond redemption. It should be stopped in its tracks entirely and any parties that still send people to the relic of a second Chamber should be using their influence to see that that happens. Otherwise, this is all just for a show and very vulnerable people will suffer as a result.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Edmund Burke said that what matters
“is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.”
In considering the Government’s response to the Lords amendments, it is important to re-emphasise that the Bill is about fairness; about affirming the integrity of our nation by defending our borders from those who seek to arrive here illegally. We must have the power to remove those entrants from our country. To do so is just and fair. It is what the British people expect, what they voted for in 2019, and what they chose in the Brexit referendum.
Considering the arguments made in the other place, I was struck by the absence of a credible alternative to the Government’s proposal; there seems little sense there of the need to control our borders, stop the boats, save lives, and to make our immigration system fairer, more reasonable and more just. Sadly, much of the debate on the amendments in the other place has been characterised by a combination of denial and detachment from the popular will—denial about the urgency of the problem, and detachment from the sentiments expressed by my constituents and the constituents of other Members on both sides of this Chamber. Those arriving in small boats must be detained securely and removed swiftly, and it must be a straightforward process, for only through that process will we deter more people from arriving.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Hayes
I will not, because of the time—I apologise to the hon. and learned Lady.
As the Minister has made clear, the Government’s response to Lords amendments 1B, 7B and 90D is rooted in the understanding that those amendments are unnecessary. The Government take our international obligations very seriously. Indeed, all three Appeal Court judges agreed that the Government’s commitments were in tune with and compatible with international law.
As for the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 23B, we must keep this matter in perspective. There is no evidence whatsoever that the vast majority of people coming to this country in small boats, or indeed a significant number of them, are seeking shelter from persecution because of their sexuality, and it is a distortion to pretend otherwise. In respect of the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B, this business of “safe and legal routes” is, again, a distraction, and a detachment from the urgency of this problem. The amendment is unnecessary and seems to constitute legislative grandstanding, for under section 1 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the functions of the National Crime Agency already extend to combating all types of organised crime, including organised immigration crime.
Finally, let me deal with the motion to disagree with Lords amendments 107B and 107C, which propose the Archbishop of Canterbury’s “ten-year strategy”. I approve of having the Lords Spiritual in the other place. They are otherworldly—the Lord Bishops understandably take a view about an infinite, eternal future. However, those of us who are elected and answerable to the people directly have to deal with this world, here and now; and in this world; people demand that we control our borders, and they do so justly and reasonably.
Sir John Hayes
I will not give way because I wish to finish promptly, as you would expect me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The great Tory Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said:
“The secret of success is constancy to purpose.”
This Minister and the Home Secretary have been constant in their purpose of controlling our borders. Let us have less sanctimony and more common sense; less self-righteousness and more selfless commitment to the people’s will; less soul-searching and more heartfelt advocacy of the interests of hard-working, law-abiding, decent, patriotic Britons who support this Bill and oppose the Lords amendments.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I regard the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) as a friend in the true sense of the word, but I say that it is a pleasure to follow him this evening—not least because it means that he has stopped talking.
There is a real sense of déjà vu about this debate, and not just because of the proceedings in relation to this Bill. We have heard all these arguments before, almost word for word. Everything that the Minister said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon had been heard in relation to what is now the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—and what progress has been made as a consequence of that? None.
I followed closely your exchange with the shadow Immigration Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the question of the Minister being misleading. I should say that I do not think for one second that the Minister was in any way misleading. I cannot speak for his intention, of course—only he knows about that—but I certainly was not misled. To any reasonable-minded person, it must surely be obvious what the Government are about today.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Minister can relax; I am not going to bang on about RAF Scampton—not least because I have put in for the Adjournment debate on Thursday when I can deal with it in more detail. I just ask the House to accept that my constituents are, more than any others in the country, victims of this farce—this debacle—of trying to house 2,000 people in one place. That is not good for the people and it will overwhelm our social services.
There is now an argument to be had about the future of the House of Lords. There is no point in our having these endless debates about whether it should be elected or not. It should be a proper revising Chamber. When it is given a Bill such as this, its attitude should be, “How can we improve it? How can we make it work better? How can we remove these legal glitches, which will have unintended consequences?” It seems to me that so much of the debate in the House of Lords and so many of the amendments have just been designed to drive a coach and horses through the Bill and to give human rights lawyers even greater chances to develop ever more legal arguments to stop anybody from being deported.
I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said. What is a bit of a mystery to me is that we went through this whole process last year. We had the ping-pong on the Nationality and Borders Bill. We got it through Parliament and were told that it would solve the problem—but we still have the same problem. I prophesise that, actually, this Bill will become law. The Labour party does not want to set a precedent for the unelected House of Lords to block legislation, so it will give in and the House of Lords will deliver the Bill. It will become an Act of Parliament, and I have a horrible feeling that, this time next year, we will be in exactly the same position. Can we rely on the Supreme Court to agree that people should be deported to Rwanda?
What are we going to do? Is it crueller to detain people as soon as they arrive or to do nothing and have a tragedy in the channel? Is it cruel to continue letting people smugglers get away with what they want? Of course, I have enormous sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) says about children, but the trouble is that so many of these people who claim to be children are not children—they have to be assessed. One of the problems we face at Scampton is that there are so many of these people, 20% of the population coming into the camp, which means there will have to be an army of social workers to determine whether they are children.
I have enormous sympathy for persecuted LGBT people, but the truth is that the moment we create an exception saying that we cannot deport a person to an African country with a dodgy record on LGBT, everyone will claim to be LGBT—of course they will. I would do the same. If I were coming from Iraq, I would say I am a Christian. If I were coming from Syria, I would say I am gay. This is the problem we face. Every time we try to do anything, human rights lawyers drive a coach and horses through all our efforts.
So what are we going to do? I have said for two or three years now that the only solution—I suspect the Government will be dragged into this within a year—is to have a derogation, if necessary a temporary derogation during a national crisis, from the refugee convention, which prevents us from detaining people who claim to be asylum seekers. We will also have to have a derogation from the European convention on human rights.
I am a member of the Council of Europe, and I value the work of the Council of Europe, but the European Court of Human Rights is not a supreme court like our Supreme Court. It is not a supreme court like the American Supreme Court. It is a fundamentally political body, appointed on political grounds.
Until we have freedom of manoeuvre to have a real deterrent that tells the world, “If you land illegally on our shores, you will be detained and, ultimately, you will either have to go back where you came from or be deported,” we will never stop this problem. It is all right for the Labour party to talk about safe and legal routes, and about what it will try to do, but we all know that that did not work for the Dublin convention and it will not work if Labour takes power. President Macron will not suddenly change his mind. He will not take anyone back. We will be in this exact position in 15 months’ time if there is a Labour Government, and I predict that, if there is a Labour Government, they will simply leave this Act on the statute book pretty well unamended.
My constituency is a victim of all this, so what is the House going to do? This is utterly debilitating. We cannot go on like this. Please, can we have a plan?
Caroline Lucas
It is sadly not a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Talking about leaving or having derogations from human rights law is exactly what is wrong with the Government’s approach to this issue and what is wrong with this vile Bill.
With overwhelming support from across the political spectrum, and backed by Conservative peers and by religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other place is absolutely right to have inflicted a string of defeats on this vile, illegal Bill.
Lords amendment 1B, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, should be easy for any decent Government to accept, because it simply asks for compliance with the rule of law, which is the bedrock of our democracy. But the Government are attacking that foundation, forced to admit on the face of this immoral Bill that they are unable to say it is compatible with the 1950 European convention on human rights. By moving a motion to disagree to Lords amendment 1B, the Government are seeking to deny UK judges the right to interpret this law and to check it against compliance with the UK’s obligations under no fewer than five international conventions that we should be defending, not undermining.
The Minister in the other place tried to argue that a previous version of this amendment was trying to incorporate international law into domestic law and that, in doing so, it was an unacceptable change to our legal framework. I do not think that that is what the previous version did, but, for the avoidance of doubt, in this version Lords amendment 1B is explicit in calling for the interpretation of international law to ensure compliance with our international obligations. Indeed, Ministers will be aware of the contribution from Lord Hope, who served as deputy president of the Supreme Court and last week said that this amendment is a
“pure interpretation provision…entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions….it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1817.]
Adhering to the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights, and other international laws we have signed up to should be non-negotiable. What a terrible state of affairs it is that the Government want to vote down an amendment seeking compliance with the rule of law.
The Government’s argument is that stripping vulnerable people of asylum and other human rights will stop other vulnerable people falling into the hands of the people traffickers. That is both morally bankrupt and utterly bogus. It is morally bankrupt because human rights are not earned or contingent on a person’s conduct or character, or on whether upholding those rights might affect someone else’s actions. Human rights are attached to a person by virtue of their humanity. Vulnerable people, including children, are being punished because of presumed future actions of adults. Furthermore, by disagreeing with Lords amendment 1B, Ministers face the charge of hypocrisy, as they disrespect international law and undermine migrants’ rights at a time of unprecedented international turmoil. Just last week, the Prime Minister was at a NATO summit absolutely saying that we need to uphold international law against the grotesque breaches by Putin in Ukraine. Yes, we do need to do that, but let us have a little moral consistency.
As well as being immoral, the Government’s argument about a deterrent effect is bogus and unevidenced. The Home Office’s own impact assessment, published just last month, is peppered with caveats about how undeliverable this policy is. It includes an admission that:
“The delivery plan is still being developed.”
The lack of evidence on deterrence in that document is glaring. It says that the Bill is “novel and untested”, so we do not know what impact it will have on deterrence. As I said earlier, a raft of children’s charities have pointed out that once routine child detention was ended in 2011, there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum. Beyond that, there is a strong evidence to show that it is the precisely the hostility towards refuges exemplified by this Bill and the Government’s rejection of Lords amendments to it that fuels the grim and terrible trade in small boats that they claim they are against.
So any Member who votes to block the Lords amendments should admit that in doing so, they degrade the rule of law, dehumanise vulnerable refugees, attack our modern slavery laws, put LGBT refugees at grave risk, and that their approach will lead to the unconscionable mass detention and treatment of children, with no stated time limit to that detention—it is sickening. I will be voting to uphold the Lords amendments, because this Bill shames and degrades our country, our democracy and this House.
Jeremy Corbyn
I want to speak mainly about Lords amendment 1B, and to follow up on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I heard him make exactly the same argument in the Council of Europe, when, to the consternation of most of its members, he argued that Britain had to criticise and walk away from the European court of human rights because one case was found against Britain. Many more cases have been found against almost every other country that signed up to the European convention on human rights and, therefore, the Court.
I support Lords amendment 1B because it gives some protection under the 1950 European convention, the 1951 UN convention and the conventions on statelessness, on the rights of the child and on action against trafficking. The Lords amendment will mean that any decision has to be taken in accordance with those conventions. If the Government are opposing those, what message are they giving, other than that they have no respect for international law and for the conventions we helped to write and sign up for, and that they want to walk away from them? Walking away from them will mean that we have no regard for the rights of people seeking asylum if the European Court of Human Rights finds us to be wanting in that respect. Therefore, should any other country want to walk away from the European convention on human rights, for example, Turkey, Poland or Hungary, all of which have issues with their legislation in respect of the convention, we will be in no position to criticise anybody ever again. The idea that this country is facing a crisis so severe and so serious that we have to walk away from conventions that were hard fought for and have served the human rights of people across Europe very well is simply ridiculous. On a global scale, the numbers of people involved are enormous, because of economic stress around the world, wars, environmental degradation and destruction, and human rights abuse. That is why people seek asylum.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
As we did not have the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and it is being pushed through Parliament very quickly, I am pleased that the Lords have sent back amendments so that we can look again and consider the unintended consequences of parts of the Bill.
I will speak to the amendments on modern slavery. Evidence presented to the Home Affairs Committee revealed the urgent need to open up more escape routes for trafficking victims, including ending the current industrial-scale sexual exploitation, with women advertised on pimping websites up and down the land, in every Member’s constituency, on websites such as Vivastreet, which allows women to be raped multiple times a day. Under this legislation, if those women come forward to the authorities, they will not be offered help and assistance but will be detained and removed. Removing those modern slavery protections will do nothing towards doing what we all want to happen: to bring the organised crime groups orchestrating that abuse to justice. So I support Lords amendment 56B to maintain the status quo.
Secondly, I am disappointed that the Lords amendments on children have not been accepted. Children constitute a small minority of those making the crossing in small boats, often arriving frightened, frequently traumatised and always vulnerable. Such were the concerns of the Home Affairs Committee about the current treatment and experience of children who claim asylum in the UK that we recommended the Government commission an independent end-to-end review of the asylum system as it applies to and is experienced by children. However, instead of that, the Government are hurrying through a Bill to reduce children’s rights. No one in this House would want such treatment for their own children, which is why I support Lords amendments 33B, 36C and 36B remaining in the Bill.
Thirdly, a year ago the Home Affairs Committee published the results of our inquiry into channel crossings and identified a slew of robust measures that the Government could deploy to stop small boat crossings and create a fair and efficient asylum system. They included the creation of safe and legal routes and international initiatives by the National Crime Agency to combat people smugglers, both of which are the subject of Lords amendments under discussion today.
Stopping the people smuggling gangs will require a raft of carefully crafted, costed and evidence-based strategies, such as the ones put forward by the Home Affairs Committee. It is for that reason that I firmly support Lords amendment 102B on safe and legal routes, Lords amendment 103B on the National Crime Agency, Lords amendments 107B and 107C on a 10-year strategy and Lords amendment 23B on removal destinations for LGBT people and other persons. These measures and the Bill as a whole must be implemented in accordance with our international obligations, as is set out in amendment 1B.
Patrick Grady
A constituent contacted me recently and said that I seemed to be speaking an awful lot in the Chamber about immigration and asylum issues. I suppose that that is correct, but then that is because the Government allocate so much time in the Chamber to immigration and asylum issues. This is the third major piece of primary legislation on immigration since 2015. However, the majority of constituents—hundreds of constituents—who get in touch with me on each of these pieces of legislation tell me just how disappointed, if not horrified, they are at the Tory UK Government’s attitude to people who come here seeking refuge.
In rejecting all the Lords amendments before us today, the Government are showing just how hostile an environment they want to create—not just for asylum seekers, but for almost anyone who wants to make their home here in the UK. The fact that they will not accept Lords amendment 1B, which is a considerably softer version of what we discussed last week, demonstrates that. If the Government are truly committed to the international conventions listed in the amendment—particularly the 1951 refugee convention—they really should have no problem agreeing that they will form part of the interpretation of the Act when it comes into force.
I have also heard from constituents who want to ensure that LGBTQ people who arrive here from places where they can face imprisonment for simply being who they are cannot be removed to those countries. That is what the Lords are seeking to achieve in Lords amendment 23B. Accepting that amendment would save time and public money because otherwise, by the Minister’s own admission, claimants would have to make suspensive claims against removal to their country of origin. That is what the Minister says he wants to avoid. He wants to avoid loopholes and needless court cases. In that case, he should support Lords amendment 23B.
The amendments that seek to protect children from indefinite detention and that maintain human trafficking protections speak for themselves, as does the Government’s insistence on rejecting those amendments. The Government keep asking those of us who are opposed to the Bill for alternative proposals for dealing with irregular arrivals, and these are clearly outlined in Lords amendment 102B and in the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s amendments 107B and 107C. The Minister keeps saying that he wants to establish safe and legal routes. Well, that is what Lords amendment 102B will require him to do. I have met many asylum seekers through the Maryhill Integration Network and elsewhere who would much prefer to have come here from Eritrea, Iran or other countries that have been mentioned today through a safe and legal route, rather than the risks, costs and desperation of coming on lorries and boats.
The archbishop’s proposals for the development of a strategy on refugees and human trafficking are perhaps the most straightforward and easily implementable of all the clauses and amendments so far. The Government regularly accept amendments requiring them to publish strategies and reviews on all kinds of legislation. Perhaps they do not want to support this one because the transparency and accountability that would come with requiring the Government to undertake a long-term analysis and make a long-term plan in response to global population flows would reveal the true hollowness of the rest of their proposals—the inhumanity and the self-defeating implications of the hostile environment.
Millions of people will be on the move in the coming years and decades. They will be fleeing wars that we have financed and climate change that we have helped to cause. Experiences in southern Europe and the American midwest this week suggests that they will not just be moving from the southern hemisphere either. Nobody is saying that the United Kingdom should have completely open borders and take unlimited numbers of migrants, but we have to be prepared to take our fair share, just as other countries welcomed refugees fleeing famine and clearances on these islands not that many generations ago.
If Government Ministers and Back Benchers truly respect the role that the House of Lords is supposed to play in the UK constitution, they really ought to listen to the messages that their lordships are sending today and will send in the days to come. As it stands, people in Glasgow North and across Scotland are listening to the rhetoric of the Conservative Government and deciding that they want no more of it. They will be seeking the safe and legal route to independence as soon as possible.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I will begin by putting on the record my complete opposition to this horrendous Bill in its entirety. It is cruel and inhumane. It will put people at serious risk of further exploitation. It is stoking division within our society, and it undermines constitutional principles and human rights.
We are here today to focus on amendments, so I will briefly say that I support all the Lords amendments before us, particularly Lords amendment 1B, which others have already spoken about, in the name of my friend Baroness Chakrabarti. The amendment sets out the Bill’s intention to comply with a host of human rights conventions, including those with regard to the protection of human rights and the rights of the child, and against trafficking human beings.
It is vital that we underline our commitment to human rights, and, to quote the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford,
“provide a warm welcome to all of those who seek sanctuary”.
That is particularly important as accommodation sites that have been identified by the Home Office for asylum seekers become targets for protests by the far right. That is happening in Wales at the moment. Amendment 1B is a modest and uncontroversial amendment. The Lords have backed it twice. More than 70 organisations have stated their support. The Government must yield and stop voting it down. If the Government are, as they say, confident that the Bill is compatible with the UK’s international law obligations, there is nothing to fear from the amendment.
I also support Lords amendment 102B in the name of Baroness Stroud, a Conservative peer, which provides for a duty to establish safe and legal routes. This is, again, a modest and uncontroversial amendment that could make an unsupportable Bill slightly better. We need to go much further. We need to expand safe routes, as organisations such as the Refugee Council, Care4Calais and the Public and Commercial Services Union have argued, in line with the amendment. We also need to tackle the backlog with a fair, humane and speedy processing system.
The Government have lost control over the asylum system. Their “stop the boats” rhetoric will not stop the boats because people are genuinely seeking asylum from war and poverty, and nobody would go on a boat, risking their life, unless they were desperate. We should be welcoming people to our country. What is contained in the Bill does not represent the type of country that I want to live in, or that I want my children or grandchildren to live in. What I and millions of others want is a country and society that is based on care, compassion, kindness, generosity, respect, inclusivity and, yes, solidarity.
I support today’s Lords amendments, which should be accepted, but if the Bill is passed this week, I and many others in this House—and, more importantly, outside it—will continue to oppose and campaign against this appalling piece of legislation at every opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to reduce the time limit to four minutes. I call Claudia Webbe.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The provisions of the Bill are inhumane and punitive. It has not improved with the Government’s amendments sent to the other place, which the other place has rightly rejected, proposing their own counter-amendments.
The Government remain determined to allow themselves to detain and deport even unaccompanied children; to disqualify many refugees from even attempting to apply for asylum or to appeal against unjust decisions; and to give the Home Secretary sweeping powers to make new rules or apply them as the Government see fit. Even if every amendment proposed by the Lords was passed, this would remain an odious Bill, and one that shames this House and shames this country, but the latest Lords amendments would at least mitigate some of the worst harms of the legislation—legislation that the Home Secretary cannot even say is legal under international law.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not think I indicated clearly enough that I wanted to speak. Thank you for your generous dexterity in finding time for me.
I want to say one simple thing about the assurances given so far on the detention of children: they are not sufficient. There are large numbers of children who will be detained. The definition of age-appropriate and child-appropriate accommodation is not clear enough.
I remind the House of my experience with Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency before 2014, when we legislated to prevent children being detained in detention centres. That detention centre was also meant to be age and child-appropriate, but what happened? It simply had a wing with a school and so on, and children were locked up in there for months on end. We saw the reports of individual civil society organisations that assessed the mental health implications of the detention of children at that stage.
So far, the Minister has told me that there is no Government intention to detain children in detention centres again, but, as I said to him before, intention is not good enough. We need legislation to prevent that from happening again. My fear is that, under pressure, Government Ministers will decide that there will be some appropriate decoration of some sections of Harmondsworth and it will be opened up for children again.
I was a house father at a children’s home in Hillingdon. It was one of the traditional children’s homes, run effectively as a family unit. I pursued my own career, and my wife was the house mother in charge and I was the house father. It was like a large fostering unit, basically, and we took in children who had been detained in Harmondsworth. Even before it was of the prison style that it is now, those children were, I believe, scarred for life. I did not think that we would ever return to locking children up in that way. The children we looked after often came to us after they had been lost within the system while their cases were being processed over a long time. They were often separated from their families, who came through other routes. I think the damage was a scandal of this country’s treatment of human beings.
That was why, from 2010 until 2012, we ran a campaign—across all religious groups, and with civil society organisations such as the Children’s Society—and published report after report. David Cameron came forward heroically and said, “We will never detain children again,” and we legislated for that in 2014. We are now going back to detaining children almost indefinitely for some categories. We have not got the assurances that we need about where they will be detained or about the care, comfort and succour that they will have to support them. As a result, if we allow this legislation to go through, it will be a stain upon this House and upon society overall for a long time to come.
I ask Members to think again. We now go back into ping-pong with the other House, which is calling simply for a realistic time limit on the detention of children so that they are not damaged beyond repair in the way they were 10 years ago. I do not think that a simple amendment to set a time limit on children suffering in detention when they arrive in this country is an awful lot to ask of the Government. They often come from countries where they have suffered enough; we should not impose even more suffering on them.
Robert Jenrick
With the leave of the House, let me say a few words to close this short debate.
As I said at the outset, when we met and voted 18 times last week, we supported the Bill time and again. In each of those 18 votes, we in this democratically elected Chamber voted to stop the boats, secure our borders and enable this important Bill to move forward. Now is the time for the other place, which is, at its heart, as a number of colleagues have said—
Robert Jenrick
I will not—we have heard from the hon. Gentleman a number of times.
The other place is ultimately a revising Chamber, and it is now time for it to support the Bill. Today’s debate has, like some of the others, been short on new arguments and completely short of any credible alternative. I go back to the arguments made in the other place by many distinguished Members of that House and former Members of this House, most notably the noble Lord Clarke, who said clearly that he was not able, having listened to the debate for hour after hour, to discern a single credible alternative to the Government’s plan. It is incumbent on those who want to vote against the Bill to bring forward alternatives, but we have not heard a single one.
I used to say that Labour Members do not have a plan to stop the boats, but that is not true. They do have a plan, but it is one that is so dangerously naive that it is a recipe for even more crossings and even greater misery. They would create a massive pull factor by giving economic migrants crossing the channel from a safe place such as France the ability to work sooner. They would attempt to grant their way out of the problem and sacrifice the remaining integrity of the system. They would create bespoke country-specific routes for every instance of instability in the world, which would impose more and more pressures on local communities.
Is it not the most telling fact in this debate that today, in the shadow Immigration Minister’s own town of Aberavon, there is not a single asylum seeker? If Members want more asylum seekers, they should have the honesty to have them in their own constituency. From the letters I receive from Labour MPs, I assume that they would house asylum seekers even more expensively than we do today, with no regard to the taxpayer. I am not clear how they would remove illegal migrants when their own leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), campaigned to close an immigration removal centre, tens of Labour MPs have opposed the reopening of two other centres, and the Labour party’s own membership recently voted to abolish them altogether.
The fact is that as its Members vote against the Bill today, Labour’s message to the law-abiding people of this country—from Stoke to Blackpool to Peterborough—when it comes to illegal migration is quite simply “Put up with it.” Its message to the British families who have to wait longer for social housing or GP appointments is “Tough luck”, and its message to the hard-working taxpayer faced with the ever-rising costs of the system is “Cough up.” It is only the Conservative party that can see the fundamental injustice of illegal migration—that it ultimately affects the poorest people in society the most—and has the determination to fix it. That is why the Bill is so important, and it is why the Lords now need to back it.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1B, 7B and 90D.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In Division No. 304, four Members nodded through the No Lobby were not included. So the result should have been: Ayes 284, and Noes 226.
After Clause 60
Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 107B and 107C.—(Robert Jenrick.)
Social Housing (Regulation) Bill [Lords]
Monday 17th July 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 View all Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 July 2023 - (17 Jul 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 13 to which the Lords have disagreed, and agrees with the Lords in their amendment 13B in lieu.
We are bringing the Bill back to the House for what I hope is the final time, to get this vital legislation on to the statute book. It seeks to enable the biggest change in social housing regulation in a decade and to drive the change that is so desperately needed in the social rented sector.
When the Bill was last before the House, we made important amendments to clauses on competency and conduct standards in relation to mandatory qualifications. They made provision to require senior housing managers and senior housing executives of registered providers to have, or be working towards, appropriate-level housing management qualifications. We subsequently tabled amendment 13B in the other place to ensure that relevant managers employed by organisations that deliver housing management services on behalf of a registered provider are also captured by the legislation, as was our original policy intention.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have no doubt that we all welcome and support professionalism from those who check the regulations. I am always perplexed that we do not have the same regulations in Northern Ireland. Is it the Minister’s intention to ensure with the appropriate body in Northern Ireland that professionalism can also be effective there?
Dehenna Davison
The hon. Gentleman is, as ever, a fantastic champion for Northern Ireland and its people. We will, of course, continue to have conversations with the relevant bodies in Northern Ireland, because it is important that social housing, wherever it is provided within the United Kingdom, is up to the appropriate standard. I know he will continue to champion that cause.
In closing, I would just like to put on record one final time my and my Department’s heartfelt thanks to Grenfell United and all other stakeholders for their strong constructive engagement on this critical legislation. I hope that, following today, we will see it on the statute book incredibly soon.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I intend to be brief, because the sole amendment we are considering is entirely uncontentious.
As you will no doubt recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Opposition welcomed the concession the Government made in the other place last year with regard to professional training and qualifications, and the resulting addition of clause 21 to the Bill. Having pressed in Committee for that clause to be strengthened, we also welcomed the Government’s amendment to it, which was tabled on Report earlier this year on the basis that it largely assuaged our concerns. We support Lords amendment 13B in lieu of Commons amendment 13, as do the relevant trade bodies and tenant groups including Grenfell United and Shelter, whom we once again commend for the role they played in convincing the Government to incorporate qualification requirements in the Bill.
Lords amendment 13B is a technical amendment that has three main effects. First, it will ensure that the qualification requirements in clause 21 capture relevant managers working for organisations which deliver housing management services on behalf of a registered provider. Secondly, it will ensure that contractual agreements between registered providers and delegated services providers and relevant sub-agreements contain terms stipulating that their relevant managers should have, or be working towards, a specified qualification in housing management, thus enabling registered providers to take action against delegated services providers that are not compliant. Thirdly, the amendment expands on definitions of services providers and specific roles, and provides for consultation before setting a standard and before giving a direction to set a standard.
We agree with their lordships that the changes are necessary if we are to ensure that the sector as a whole delivers high-quality professional services of the kind social tenants deserve and rightly expect. I want to put on record our thanks to my noble Friend, Lady Hayman of Ullock for bringing the need for this amendment to the Government’s attention and for her efforts more generally to improve the Bill in the other place.
It is our sincere hope that once the House has agreed this minor but necessary change today, this important and urgently needed piece of legislation can quickly receive Royal Assent so that we can overhaul the regulation of social housing and better protect the health, safety and wellbeing of social tenants across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Monday 17th July 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 July 2023 - (17 Jul 2023)
20:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 205 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2D.
This House has been asked these questions before and twice this House has said no with an overwhelming majority. We are asked to consider for a third time an amendment that significantly expands on previous versions that have already been rejected. Members of the other place referenced the report of the International Labour Organisation’s committee of experts as a reason to reconsider. However, I should note that this ground has already been well covered by both Houses. It was argued that Lords amendment 2D requires Ministers to do what the ILO is requesting: to undertake consultation when considering introducing regulations to implement minimum service levels. The Bill already requires Ministers to do just that, as they have done in undertaking public consultations on their intentions to bring forward minimum service levels to passenger rail services, ambulance services and fire and rescue services. Impact assessments were published alongside those consultations and final impact assessments will be published alongside the regulations the Government bring forward for approval in Parliament in due course.
My colleague Lord Callanan was right to say in the other place that the ILO did not say that the legislation was not compatible with ILO conventions. It simply said that it should be compatible and that we should ensure that it is. As stated in Parliament when introduced and throughout its passage, the Bill is compatible with the UK’s international obligations. The Government will continue to uphold their international obligations as the minimum service regulations are introduced.
Lords amendment 2D also seeks to ensure that the “reasonable steps” that unions should take to make sure that their members comply are considered as part of the consultations that are required before minimum service regulations are made. Members will recall that when this House last considered the Bill, I confirmed that the Government were willing to consider whether there was a case for providing further detail on the reasonable steps that unions must take under new section 234E to ensure that identified workers comply with a work notice given by an employer. In the light of the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and points raised in both Houses during the Bill’s passage, the Government accept that further detail would give unions more legal certainty and foresight with regard to their obligations than the Bill provides in its current form. The Government will therefore introduce a statutory code of practice on the reasonable steps that must be taken, using existing powers under section 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. These powers enable the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice to promote the improvement of industrial relations.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister spell out exactly how trade unions are to comply with and enforce a code that is outwith their jurisdictions in making workers go into work?
Kevin Hollinrake
The code of practice will be consulted on so that all parties are clear about what the obligations of the unions will be. We expect them to be quite straightforward. They have been debated at length, along with various ideas about how this might operate.
Kevin Hollinrake
I want to end my speech shortly, but I will give the hon. Lady one last chance to intervene.
Rachael Maskell
As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the measures that the Minister is trying to introduce are outside the jurisdictions of trade unions, which therefore do not have the powers to implement them.
Kevin Hollinrake
As I have said, we intend to consult with all parties to make sure that they have a chance to comment on what reasonable obligations a union might be required to take. I think that it is pretty straightforward, and, indeed, unions will be familiar with the code of practice on picketing that was issued under section 203 of the 1992 Act. This code will be subject to statutory consultation, including consultation with ACAS, and to the approval of Parliament. The consultation will give trade unions, employers and any other interested parties an opportunity to contribute to practical guidance on the steps that a union must take in order to make it as practicable, durable and effective as possible.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
If the Minister is so willing to consult, why is he rejecting an amendment which confirms that there should be a consultation?
Kevin Hollinrake
We are not happy with a number of other parts of the amendment. We are proposing a measure that we have already proposed in earlier debates. It is, of course, up to those in the other place to decide how they take their amendments forward, but we believe that this is fair. We are satisfied that it is an effective way to provide for clarity, and that the individual consultations for specific minimum service levels in relevant services required by Lords amendment 2D are not needed. The real impact of the amendment would be a delay in the implementation of minimum service levels, given the additional and lengthy consultation and parliamentary requirements which we strongly suspect are its purpose. Unnecessary delays in the protection of the lives and livelihoods of those whom we have been elected to represent cannot be justified.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let me repeat, at the outset, our opposition to the Bill and our intention to repeal the Act that it will become should we be in a position to do so in the future. It is one of the most illiberal, unconscionable and ultimately destructive pieces of legislation produced by any Government. We believe that the right to withdraw labour is a fundamental right, a human right, and one that should not be extinguished. Even if some Conservative Members cannot see past their hostility to trade unions and past the easy headlines, they should see that what they are asking their constituents to do is distinctly un-British, because it infringes on individual freedoms that ought to be—even for Conservative Members—a basic part of any open and democratic society.
Freedom matters, and valuing freedom sometimes means that we protect another person’s freedom to do something even if we do not personally agree with the particular course of action. But our objections are based not just on principles, but on practicalities. Ultimately, we do not think that the Bill will work. The Bill is counterproductive because it will not quell the concerns of many people in the sectors that have taken industrial action. Taking away the right to strike will not take away people’s concerns. We cannot legislate away people’s legitimate grievances about their working conditions. Because the Bill is so ill defined and poorly thought through, Parliament must have a proper opportunity to consider its ramifications.
The measures set out in Lords amendment 2D attempt to address some of those issues. The amendment also provides yet another opportunity for us to raise our concerns about the Government’s lax approach to proper scrutiny during the Bill’s progress so far. Let us go back to when the Bill was first published. It is surely a basic expectation of Government that they should provide an impact assessment before asking hon. Members to vote on a Bill. But no—we were asked to trust the Government that the matter was in hand and that all would be fine. We said it at the time and we say it again: that approach is completely unacceptable.
The Bill had been trailed in the press for months before it was published, so not to have the impact assessment ready at the same time was a failure of basic competence. When it finally appeared, we could see why the Government were so keen to keep it under wraps. The Regulatory Policy Committee said that it was not fit for purpose—it could just as easily have been talking about the Government—and no wonder, given that the assessment contains statements that undermine both the purpose and execution of the Bill.
The impact assessment states that the Bill
“could mean a general increase in tension between unions and employers. This may result in more adverse impacts in the long term, such as an increased frequency of strikes for each dispute.”
When Ministers told us on Second Reading that the Bill would reduce the disruption caused by strikes, what they apparently did not know was that the Government’s own impact assessment would say that it could, in fact, have the opposite effect. The impact assessment also says, on at least half a dozen occasions, that assumptions are being made about the level of service that would be required. That is the point of the Lords amendment: unless we have some idea about what these minimum service levels will be—in the six months since the Bill was published, Ministers have not come to the Dispatch Box and told us—we are legislating in a vacuum.
The point has not been lost on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which wrote in its assessment that
“there is nothing in the Bill saying what those minimum service levels are. We shall only know when Ministers make regulations after the Bill is enacted. This is small comfort to Parliament, which is considering the matter right now.”
The Committee’s recommendation was that the Government should publish indicative draft regulations alongside the Bill. As it rightly points out,
“the Government must have some idea how they propose to exercise these powers.”
It is no surprise that the impact assessment got a red rating. Of the 861 Bills assessed by the Regulatory Policy Committee since its creation, just 2.9% have been given a red rating. When legislation represents such a fundamental departure from past practice, the importance of impact assessments increases rather than decreases.
If this all sounds familiar to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is because it is. Only last week the High Court said, in relation to the consultation process for the regulations that allow agency workers to break strikes, that
“this is not a case in which the evidence is that the proposal had obvious and undisputed merit based on cogent evidence, and enjoyed strong support from representative bodies in the sector”.
It could have been talking about this Bill—no doubt, in time, it will be.
The pattern is familiar. The Government decide the policy, although “policy” is probably too strong a word. The Government decide the headline that they want to create, rush through ill-thought-out legislation and then ignore all the voices that point out principled and practical objections. That is to treat democracy with contempt. Parliament is not a rubber-stamping process to agree whatever the Government of the day decide. When Parliament is starved of its ability to properly scrutinise legislation, that impacts on fundamental human rights, as it does in this case. It should come as no surprise that there is pushback from the other place requiring that a robust process be followed.
The amendment is important because the International Labour Organisation’s conference committee on the application of standards called on the Government to ensure that existing and prospective legislation is in conformity with the convention that governs freedom of association and the protection of the right to organise. I would not have thought that is too much to ask of a modern liberal democracy. In fact, I am rather ashamed that the ILO has had to point it out at all.
All this amendment does is what the ILO is asking the Government to do anyway, which is to undertake genuine consultation before implementing minimum service regulations. This means that, when regulations are published, they would include an impact assessment and there should be genuine consultation on the regulations, including on the protection for workers named in work notices and the reasonable steps a trade union needs to take to ensure compliance.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend when he is in full flow but, as he is developing his argument on the need for consultation and impact assessments, has he been able to clarify with the Government what happens if an employer refuses to comply? In London, for example, the buses are contracted out, and individual bus companies have had individual disputes. If the Government instruct there to be a minimum service level but the employer does not want to sour industrial relations in the long term and therefore refuses to comply, what then happens?
Justin Madders
That is a very good question. My understanding—no doubt the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—is that it is still up to the employer to determine what work notices it issues, which makes the Bill a little ludicrous.
All these consultation papers, all these impact assessments, and we are still legislating in the dark.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend has just made a valid point, because when NHS Employers and the NHS Confederation came before the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, they said that they did not want any of this legislation. Presumably, following that logic, they will not have to issue minimum service level terms for a strike.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is why it would have been so interesting to see what the consultation responses were to the draft regulations, because those might have told us whether employers were saying, “Don’t do this; we don’t think it is going to work.” We know that a long list of employers’ organisations are opposed to this Bill, and I will come on to that in a moment. They understand that, ultimately, it is not going to help industrial relations but will sour them.
In summary, the Bill’s impact assessment turns up late and is inadequate; no pre-legislative scrutiny or evidence sessions for the Bill took place; the Committee stage is rushed through in one day; and subsequent consultations are incomplete and leave many questions unanswered. Yet the Government still say that this Lords amendment is not necessary. The evidence to date and the opinion of the ILO say otherwise. I referred to the fact that the ILO is not alone in expressing concerns about the Bill. Many organisations have expressed alarm, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, NHS Providers, the rail industry, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the TUC, and the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The Transport Secretary and the Education Secretary have also done so, and I could give more names, but I have only an hour for this debate and so I will leave it there.
When we have the shameful spectacle of the ILO calling this Bill out, Members need to think again. By rejecting this Lords amendment, the Government are, in effect, saying one of two things: either they do not know whether they break international law; or they do know but they just do not care. We ought to care, we ought not to be trailing behind in workplace protections, and we ought not to be mentioned in the same breath as Turkmenistan. We ought to be leading from the front, as an exemplar for other countries to follow and a leader on the international stage that says, “Yes, good workplace rights and strong trade unions are a key component in any prospering modem economy, and the right to withdraw your labour is a fundamental one.” However, this Bill is the hallmark of a weak Government who have run out of steam, have nothing left to offer but division and want to silence the very people who keep this country going—shame on them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson
Alan Brown
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I agree with all his comments, but I hope that Labour stays resolute on this. If it comes into government, we do not want to see another U-turn, given what we heard at the weekend.
The Minister put forward the myths again about how this Bill is about saving lives and livelihoods. I do not know how he can talk about saving livelihoods, as he is bringing forward a Bill that is going to allow workers to be sacked more easily. Workers’ livelihoods are at stake because of the Bill and the intentions behind it. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Lords for the fight they have brought on this, but I am a wee bit disappointed that the Lords amendment is only about the consultation. Even if we manage to defeat the Government tonight, the Lords amendment does not provide any additional proper protections for the unions or the workers, because it is all about consulting. At least consulting would draw out some transparency, because the Government would need to publish responses and allow the House or a Joint Committee to debate those. In itself, however, the amendment does not provide any additional protections.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does it not speak volumes about the way in which this Government conduct their business that they go through a consultation process and are not prepared to publish the results of that consultation? What have they got to hide?
Alan Brown
That is a fair point. Obviously, I cannot answer on what the Government have to hide, other than to say that we know about a raft of answers that show how unworkable and prejudiced this Bill is.
Subsection 5(b) in the amendment is about consulting the ILO. The Government keep telling us that this Bill brings the legislation in the UK into line with international norms, but it clearly does not; the ILO has said that the UK already has some of the most draconian strike legislation, even before this Bill. So there is no doubt that the Government are frightened to consult the ILO because they are frightened about the answers that will come back and the evidence about how draconian this really is that will be put into the public domain when it is published.
As I say, it looks as if the Lords are going to back down after this. There is no more scheduled business to allow further consideration of the Lords message, which suggests they are not going to push the amendment beyond that. That is disappointing, especially given that the Government have tried to argue before that this is a manifesto commitment. The actual manifesto commitment was to require a minimum service for transport. That commitment is not as wide ranging, so the Lords would be completely justified in continuing to resist for as long as possible.
As the shadow Minister said, because the amendment is to consult, as opposed to what was set out in previous amendments, unions are still at risk of facing big fines. Unions are still going to comply, effectively helping employers disrupt strikes and single out workers. Worst of all, workers can now get sacked for not complying with a work notice that they have not received.
Why the Government would not even consult and publish an impact assessment on that is beyond me. Again, they know that it allows employers to unfairly discriminate, pick out the awkward squad, then discipline and sack them, with no recourse to a tribunal. Welcome, Madam Deputy Speaker, to 21st century authoritarian Britain, where sacking workers like that brings the UK in line with Russia and Hungary, not the international norms, although the Minister and Government try to tell us otherwise.
I will be voting against the Government motion to disagree with the Lords. I hope the Lords do not give up the fight, but I am frightened they will. That is why we want away from this Union, because it is certainly not working for anybody.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister has let the cat out of the bag in relation to the Government’s attitude to this dreadful Bill and to amendment 2D from the other place. The Minister objected to Lords amendment 2D because it would delay the implementation of the Bill. Let us be clear: the Bill makes history for all the wrong reasons. It is the biggest attack on the role of our trade unions in our democracy for many a long year. Why are the Government so desperate to rush the Bill through? One almost thinks they cannot stomach the idea of even a small delay because they want it to be presented at the Conservative party conference as a bit of red meat to the party faithful—classic anti-trade union politics and trade union bashing.
Let us think about where we are in terms of industrial relations. The Bill, which the Government do not want to consult on properly, comes shortly after over 100,000 nurses in this country voted to take strike action—the result in that recent ballot was that 84% of nurses who cast a vote did so to take strike action. However, because of the Government’s dreadful Trade Union Act 2016, an 84% vote in favour of strike action does not count, is worthless and does not result in strike action, because the turnout was 43%.
The Government helped drive down the turnout by not allowing people to vote by electronic ballot. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who made such a mess of this country in her short tenure, was elected by electronic ballot of Conservative party members. Not allowing people to vote by electronic means reveals the contempt the Government have for the biggest voluntary organisations in our society—the trade union movement. They will not even give workers in our country the modern dignity of being allowed to vote online or in the workplace.
The Government object to Lords amendment 2D and do not want to consult on it. Is that any wonder? The greater the consultation that takes place in relation to this abhorrent Bill, the more it becomes clear that the Bill is a complete offence. Let us be clear: the Bill, which the Government do not want to have a proper consultation on, requires trade unions to take reasonable steps to get their own members to break trade union picket lines. This Bill requires trade unions to completely change their function in our democratic society. It is the job of a trade union to persuade trade union members to honour a strike vote, not to break a strike. We see the hand of this authoritarian Government attempting to extend into our trade unions, trying to try to use them as a tool of the state to do the bidding of a Conservative Government, or the bidding of employers. The Bill is rotten and it is no wonder that the Government do not want to consult on it. Any fair-minded person, whatever their politics, would realise that that is not the function of trade unions in our society. We have heard Ministers boasting about how this will result in people being sacked if they do not comply with the requirement to go to work.
Richard Burgon
The Minister shakes his head. If what I am saying is not true, why does he not take that measure out of the Bill, so that workers cannot be sacked for not complying with work notices? That is in the legislation. I shall be charitable to the Minister. Having listened to him in a number of debates, I sometimes thought that he did not realise quite how pernicious the Bill was, but I think that others in the Conservative party do; they know exactly what they are doing.
This anti-trade union Bill, which the Government do not wish to consult on properly, comes hot on the heels of the criminalisation of peaceful protest, which is a democratic right in our society, and hot on the heels of voter ID, when what we should be doing is making it easier for people to vote in our society, not harder. This is an anti-trade union piece of legislation that shames the Government. People can see through it.
The Government cannot even pretend to be up for proper consultation by accepting Lords amendment 2D. They know what the ILO thinks of it, they know what our colleagues in the other place think of it, and they know what the British people think of it. That is why the next Labour Government will repeal this rotten piece of legislation, if indeed it passes, and bring in an important suite of workers’ rights, because workers and trade unions in this country have had enough of being treated like dirt for the past 13 years. Let us stop this race to the bottom in workers’ rights, and instead build a democratic system—a democratic system where we can be proud of the workers’ rights in our country.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests?
The Lords have been set an unenviable task in attempting to amend a piece of legislation as ill-conceived as this one. As a lifelong opponent of the principle of an unelected second Chamber, I am surprised to find myself now commending the thoughtfulness and diligence that the other place has demonstrated in its many sittings concerning this legislation. It has been a breath of fresh air when compared with this Government’s recklessness in attempting to rush the Bill through Parliament.
I rise in support of Lords amendment 2D. Its purpose is simple: to ensure that perhaps the most significant piece of trade union legislation to be considered by this House in more than a century is subject to appropriate scrutiny before it is added to the statute book. I wish to repeat the comments that I made when we considered the Lords amendments on 22 May. I said that no number of amendments could ever salvage this Bill. It is rotten to the core. It targets a right that should be sacrosanct in any democracy—the right to withdraw our labour.
In sectors such as education and health, the provisions of the Bill will hobble the ability of working people to fight for the dignity and fairness that we all deserve in the workplace, and make the trade unions themselves unwilling accomplices in undermining the effectiveness of their own industrial action.
Worse still, in sectors such as air traffic control or nuclear decommissioning, minimum service regulations will, in effect, amount to a ban on taking any strike action at all. Ministers have repeatedly insisted that their policies towards the trade union movement conform with international standards and our treaty obligations. That was not the view taken by the High Court last week when it quashed the Government’s law allowing employers to bring in scab labour to break strikes. The court’s verdict was damning: that the Government’s approach was so unfair as to be “unlawful” and, indeed, “irrational”.
Despite the claims made by this Government that the International Labour Organisation supports minimum service standards, the director general of the ILO has made an unprecedented intervention in voicing his concern about the effects of the Bill on workers and of the Government’s strategy of imposing minimum service requirements on workers instead of encouraging them to be negotiated between unions and management.
Most embarrassingly of all for the Government, the Bill has been slammed by their own independent Regulatory Policy Committee as being not fit for purpose. The question that all of us should be asking is why the Bill was not withdrawn the moment the RPC slapped it with a red rating in February. Why are we still debating proposals that have been condemned by not only my friends in the trade union movement but a vast swathe of trade associations and the business community? Their verdict is astoundingly clear: they do not think the Bill will work. They are concerned, with good cause, that it will make industrial relations in this country worse. They simply do not want the Bill.
The answer is simple. The Government are aware of their impending electoral oblivion. They are intent on driving through reforms that will realise their decades-long dream of a world in which workers are stripped of all their rights and left helpless at the whims of their employers. It is about time for a little more candour from those on the Government Benches.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. I think that it is time to agree to disagree with some of the points that have been made by Opposition Members. The Bill is compatible with our international obligations, which the Government will continue to uphold. We have announced a new code of practice, which will provide the clarity that Opposition Members have been asking for throughout the Bill’s passage. I encourage the other place to take note of the strong view of this House, and that its will should be respected.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2D.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I will put motions 5, 6 and 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Northern Ireland)
That the draft Equipment and Protective Systems Intended for Use in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 6 June, be approved.
Employment and Training
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 7 June, be approved.
Immigration
That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 6 June, be approved.—(Stuart Anderson.)
Question agreed to.
Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will appoint Dame Laura Cox to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority with effect from 1 August 2023 for the period ending on 31 July 2028.
The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has produced a report—its first report of 2023—in relation to the motion. I have no doubt that Members will have studied that report closely and will know of Dame Laura’s background. I note that the recruitment panel considered Dame Laura an eminently appointable candidate.
IPSA is quite rightly independent of Parliament and Government, but as all Members will know and understand, it has an incredibly important role in regulating and administering the business costs of hon. Members and deciding their pay and pensions. I hope that the House will support this appointment and wish Dame Laura well in this important role, and I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I rise to support the motion in the name of the Leader of the House, and to say that Dame Laura Cox has brought a great deal to this House. She has challenged us; she has worked with us; she has reviewed the independent complaints and grievance system, thereby strengthening our system of accountability for bullying and sexual harassment; and she has come to know us well. I believe she will be a good critical friend. She has been duly well appointed, and I support the motion.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The SNP pays tribute to Sir Robert Owen, who left the IPSA board in April, and wishes him the best for the future. We welcome the appointment of Dame Laura Cox to fill the vacancy: with her extensive and esteemed judicial career and dedication to equality and human rights, she will bring invaluable experience to the role.
In 2018, as has been mentioned, Dame Laura led the independent inquiry into bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff, and was involved in selecting the chair and members of the Independent Expert Panel, so she has an in-depth knowledge of this place. I note that the appointments panel recognised her “strong understanding” of IPSA, its challenges, and the political landscape in which it operates. The panel also highlighted Dame Laura’s proven track record of making “difficult decisions” under “intense public scrutiny”. I have no doubt that she will be an exceptional addition to the IPSA board, and the SNP supports the motion.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
As regularly on these occasions, I say to the House that I have no particular knowledge of the individual concerned or any animus towards them, but I have huge concerns about the process.
I hope that, when the Leader of the House is looking at rigorous analysis and making tough decisions about IPSA, she looks, for example, at why it has expensive offices in the Strand in London when nearly all the staff seem to be working from home, and why the experience of individual Members in dealing with IPSA staff is that they are not facilitators of the work of hard-pressed and hard-worked Members of Parliament, but most of the time—with one or two individual exceptions, but certainly as an institution—are just incredibly obstructive. It creates a huge amount of unnecessary and bureaucratic work not just for Members of Parliament, but for our members of staff. I know that this is echoed across the Chamber from the number of Members who come up to me after speeches such as this to say so, many of whom may even have been watching in their offices while grinding through their IPSA returns.
I very much object to the process. The Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, which was brought in in haste and in response to a crisis—and in a panic, I would argue—specifies that at least one of the members of IPSA
“must be a person who has held (but no longer holds) high judicial office”.
Why? What does the requirement to have held high judicial office or to have been an eminent barrister have to do with deciding how efficiently to deal with people’s expenses? I would argue that somebody from one of the big corporations, who actually understands something about running a salaries and expenses scheme, might be a lot better at doing that, but such a person is not specified. I suspect that someone who has been a trade union official or a convener in a major company would have a much better idea about how to run such a system efficiently and effectively than someone who has never had such responsibility. I note that this individual has been a head of chambers, which would give them some understanding, but not of dealing with several hundred people in the way that IPSA has to do.
One of the problems we seem to have at the moment—this is what I want to highlight to the House—is that we have now erected a new priesthood. I find it very interesting that people complain about having bishops of the Church of England in the House of Lords, but almost everything now has to be allocated to a senior judge. These people have a lot of training and many of them are extremely intelligent, but that does not make them the only people in this country who have good judgment, are able to assess a case or are able to run something. Almost everything now seems to be delegated to the lawyers and to the judiciary. I find it really rather amusing, entertaining and slightly surprising from the Conservative party, given that its supporting newspapers are regularly castigating the judiciary on their front pages, that for everything that relates to this House, it somehow seems to allocate them a special place and a special privilege.
When we look through appointments not just to this board, but to the boards of so many public bodies that come before this House, time and again the only people who are chosen are the great and the good from various non-governmental organisations that get awards—that is another tick in a box—or those who have served on a number of quangos. It is not someone who is actually running a business day to day, someone who is doing the real job of working as a nurse or a doctor in a hospital, or a figure from the car industry, for example. None of those people gets a look in, because we hand over this process to search consultants who keep fishing in the same pool. We need to call that out and say that there is a great wealth of talent in this country. Our class system, time and again, ignores that pool of talent in all walks of life, and we have even institutionalised it in the legislation setting up the IPSA board.
So I end as I began—had we been closer to 10 o’clock, I might have felt the need to expand further, but we are not—by saying that this is nothing to do with the individual concerned. It is really to do with a self-perpetuating system that is basically about looking after chums, and it is about time we changed it.
Question put and agreed to.
Liaison Committee
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Since I objected to this motion going through on the nod the other night, I am surprised that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is moving it formally instead of trying to explain the background to this move. We have always had the system in this House that the Liaison Committee comprises those Members who have been appointed by the House to be Chairs of Select Committees, and those Chairs meet together to comprise the Liaison Committee.
The Liaison Committee is set up under Standing Order No. 145. An appointment was made in this Parliament by the former Member for Uxbridge, Boris Johnson, who as Prime Minister listened sympathetically to representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), saying that he had not been appointed successfully to be elected to a Select Committee, and would it not be wonderful to break with precedent and create a new post for somebody who was not already a Select Committee Chair, but who would become Chair of the Liaison Committee.
I have no objection to the decision that the former Prime Minister took in appointing my hon. Friend as Chair of the Liaison Committee, but I am concerned that now, with his having been appointed to that Committee, we are engaged in a bit of mission creep. Standing Order No. 145 specifies:
“A select committee shall be appointed, to be called the Liaison Committee”,
and its role shall be
“to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees, to give such advice relating to the work of select committees as may be sought by the House of Commons Commission, and to report to the House its choice of select committee reports to be debated on such days as may be appointed by the Speaker in pursuance of paragraph (15) of Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall).
The committee may also hear evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy.”
We know that that is essentially the high-profile role of the Liaison Committee—to try to hold the Prime Minister to account. My hon. Friend, as Chair of that Committee, played a significant role in trying to hold the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, to account.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me. Is it right that we have a joint strategic Committee—I cannot remember its exact name, but if I had known this subject was coming up I would have looked it up—which I think is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett)? Surely strategic issues, and strategic security and so on, should be within the remit of that Committee under our current structure.
Sir Christopher Chope
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are not short of Committees in this House, and the purpose of Standing Order No. 145 was to set up a Liaison Committee—whether that is a useful exercise is for others to judge. It was approved and set up in the Standing Orders, but now, without vigilance on our part, we will find that that Liaison Committee is becoming almost like a Select Committee in its own right, and carrying out its own inquiries—inquiries that could be carried out by any of the other individual Select Committees. Now, in the motion on the Order Paper, it is seeking funding for the appointment of special advisers to facilitate its work. It seems to me that the case for this measure has not been made. I am sorry, as I said earlier, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did not make the case at the beginning of this debate, instead of waiting to respond to the debate later.
Referring again to Standing Order No. 145, it states:
“The committee shall report its recommendations as to the allocation of time for consideration by the House of the estimates on any day or half day which may be allotted for that purpose; and upon a motion being made that the House do agree with any such report the question shall be put forthwith and, if that question is agreed to, the recommendations shall have effect as if they were orders of the House.
Proceedings in pursuance of this paragraph, though opposed, may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business.”
Sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) of that Standing Order state:
“The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House…and to report from time to time.
Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
The committee shall have power to appoint two sub-committees, one of which shall be a National Policy Statements sub-committee.”
The Standing Order then sets out what that sub-committee could be comprised of and what it would do. I am not aware of any such sub-committee on national policy statements having yet been appointed, but if I am wrong about that, I am sure I will be corrected by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Liaison Committee also has the power to set up another sub-committee if it so wishes. Each sub-committee has requirements about a quorum and the fact that it needs to report minutes of evidence and so on.
It is clear from reading that Standing Order that the Liaison Committee has a limited remit. It is particularly designed to ensure that, because the Prime Minister does not answer and will not give evidence to other Select Committees, he comes along regularly to the Liaison Committee and he is held to account there.
That is all very well, so why have we ended up where we are today? On the Order Paper, the motion states:
“notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 145”—
the one to which I have been referring—
“the Liaison Committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers”—
in the plural—
“in relation to its inquiry on Strategic thinking in Government.”
It may well be that there is a shortage of strategic thinking in government and that that inquiry into the shortage of strategic thinking is required, but I am surprised that that inquiry is being conducted by the Liaison Committee, when any of the other Select Committees would be able to inquire into that issue in relation to their remits.
The Liaison Committee has set up that inquiry on strategic thinking in government, and it wants to have special advisers appointed, and I imagine paid out of the public purse, to provide advice to the Committee, which is, as I emphasise, a Select Committee in name, but not by nature. This is an example of mission creep.
I had the privilege of speaking earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, who drew to my attention the press release issued by the Liaison Committee on 22 June this year. It states:
“The Liaison Committee is launching an inquiry into select committee scrutiny of strategic thinking across Whitehall.”
In other words, it is trying to find out whether Select Committees are up to the task of scrutinising strategic thinking across government. That would be fair enough, one might think. However, when one looks at the small print, the Chair’s comments and the terms of reference, one finds that, far from being an inquiry into Select Committee scrutiny of strategic thinking across Whitehall, this is an inquiry into strategic thinking across Whitehall—nothing to do with the Select Committees, for which the Liaison Committee has been specifically established.
John Spellar
The hon Gentleman is generous in giving way once again. I have been listening to him expand on that point. Would it not be more appropriate for such an inquiry to be conducted by the Public Accounts Committee, which has inevitably undertaken similar studies into thinking because of the resource consequences that arise from strategic thinking, or the lack thereof? Was that not the appropriate route?
Sir Christopher Chope
That, in my view, would be wholly appropriate. Why does the National Audit Office, which feeds into much of the Public Accounts Committee’s work, not get involved if it thinks that this is a big issue? Incidentally, today, the National Audit Office reported on the Government’s hospital building programme, and I found in the small print that Christchurch hospital is no longer part of the 40 hospitals being built—it has been withdrawn from the programme and will be added to a future programme. That is rightly criticised by the National Audit Office, and that is a current example of why we need proper scrutiny.
To return to what the Liaison Committee says it wants to do in this new inquiry, the Chair’s comments are:
“Major events such as Brexit, covid-19 and Ukraine demonstrate the need for long-term planning and delivery across multiple departments and across the duration of several Parliaments, as well as the importance of successful collaboration with our international partners. As the pace of events over recent years have shown, the Government needs to be more agile in its ambition—and it should also be coordinated across departments and sustainable over time.
Select committees provide a mirror to Government policy and practice. Their work has demonstrated the value of cross-party checks and balances on departmental strategic thinking. This inquiry by the Liaison Committee will consider how select committees can improve scrutiny of strategic thinking in government as the UK confronts the major questions we face in the near and longer-term future. Better scrutiny of strategic thinking by Parliament will contribute to better strategic thinking within Government.”
I am sorry that I was not able to précis that, Madam Deputy Speaker; that is one of the issues we have, as a Parliament and with the Government—there is too much verbosity in these sorts of announcements—but be that as it may.
I then looked at the terms of reference, expecting that they would be exclusively directed to strategic thinking in Select Committees and the Select Committee’s control over strategic thinking in government, but the call for evidence—Members and others are told that they must send in written evidence by Friday 15 September—states:
“The Committee is looking for evidence on: Examples of best practice of strategic thinking in Government, including: how well Government identifies strategic opportunities as well as strategic risks and threats; how effectively Government uses internal and external challenge; how feedback loops”—
whatever those are—
“are used to ensure that lessons from delivery are fully considered when developing future strategic plans;”
and
“how No. 10 and the Cabinet Office should best lead on these issues across government”.
That is one item. The second item is:
“What government should publish or explain about its overall strategic concept.”
John Spellar
Surely, the section that the hon. Gentleman has just read out—there may be more of it—is in the remit of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely. I do not know—perhaps we will find out later—the extent to which the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has been consulted on this and has agreed that, on Government strategic thinking, it will have its role usurped by the Liaison Committee. I am sure that all will be revealed in due course. If my hon. Friends want to intervene on these issues, I will be happy to take interventions.
The next item of the terms of reference is:
“What additional machinery of Government, knowledge and skills are necessary to support strategic thinking and effective strategy and delivery, both within individual departments, and across two or more departments, and how strategy and strategic thinking can be sustained by building consensus between the main parties”.
The fourth item on which evidence can be given is:
“Which governments around the world demonstrate best practice in strategic thinking”.
That is an opportunity for some overseas visits, no doubt, to go and see which Governments across the world are demonstrating best practice in strategic thinking.
The next item of the terms of reference—the sixth—contains the first reference to Select Committees:
“How Select Committees consider strategic questions, including any recent examples of scrutiny of Government strategic plans and/or their delivery; and elements of Government strategy- and delivery that are repeatedly identified by Select Committees as effective or as deficient”.
At least that item on which evidence is sought is relevant to the purported nature of the inquiry. The next item in the terms of reference is:
“The engagement of individual departments, and Whitehall as a whole, with Select Committees on strategic challenges, including through the provision of information necessary for effective scrutiny.”
The next one is:
“What additional resources”—
more taxpayer’s money is going into this, I can see—
“parliamentary procedure, knowledge and skills are necessary to support effective Select Committee scrutiny of strategic thinking and effective strategy-making, as well as monitoring implementation of any Government action in response”.
This is a great one:
“How other parliaments around the world are engaging with the strategic thinking of their respective governments.”
Well, what an inquiry. It could take years, could it not? Woe betide whoever is appointed a special adviser under the terms of the motion before us. They will need to be handsomely remunerated, will they not, for the time and effort they put into the inquiry? They will have a global remit.
I speak as a member of two Select Committees—the Procedure Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. The Environmental Audit Committee is cross-cutting and looks at the effect of the Government’s environmental policies across a whole range of areas. The Liaison Committee seems to be creating a new cross- cutting Select Committee covering public administration, strategic thinking, oversees democracy and so on. I want to hear the justification for that, what the cost is likely to be and how this idea ever got a start. Was it discussed by the Liaison Committee? Did it agree those very wide terms of reference? Did it think through the implications? In supporting the motion, has the Leader of the House thought through exactly what that strategic thinking is all about?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the start of the debate, but I have been listening to my hon. Friend carefully on the television.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Can I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is absolutely customary to be in at the start of a speech if the right hon. Gentleman is going to intervene?
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
This is such an important debate and my hon. Friend is raising such an important point about the fundamentals of the Liaison Committee. Do I understand from what he is saying that the Committee would need to change its name if it takes on those responsibilities, because its job is simply liaison, not to go further than that?
Sir Christopher Chope
Absolutely. That is why I am worried about the mission creep. We have the Liaison Committee proposal set out in the press release to which I have been referring, but it bears little resemblance to the motion on the Order Paper, which states that
“the Liaison Committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers in relation to its inquiry on Strategic thinking in Government.”
Its inquiry purports to be on the ability of Select Committees to scrutinise strategic thinking across Government, which is completely different. As anybody who has been listening to the terms of reference will know, it is not limited to strategic thinking across our Government, but restricted to strategic thinking across all Governments that are members of the United Nations. So it has an enormously wide remit.
I must say that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, the Chair of the Committee, on his imagination and breadth of vision. He could have a job for life fulfilling this important role. But our job in questioning matters like this, which are put on the Order Paper and would otherwise go through on the nod, is to say, “Well, hang on a minute, what are we about? Have the members of the rest of the Select Committees thought about the implications, the costs and the dangerous precedent that is being set?” It is only in this Parliament that we got the exception to have a Chair of the Liaison Committee who is not already a Chair of another Select Committee, but how will the members of the Liaison Committee be able to give their time and devotion to this particular subject?
John Spellar
For example, I am a member of one of the Committees that very much deals with strategy and strategic thinking: the Defence Committee. I am not aware—I may have missed it—that there has been any reference to that Committee on whether it thinks this move is appropriate or not.
Sir Christopher Chope
Well, there we have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. And I see my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, the Chair of the Liaison Committee, at the Bar of the House. I do not know whether he intends to participate in this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The hon. Gentleman ought to know that it is very difficult for the Member who has just come in to participate in the debate, when he has already been speaking for nearly 25 minutes. I had assumed that he had informed the hon. Member that he was going to refer to him.
Sir Christopher Chope
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was talking to my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee earlier on today and he gave me—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am not sure that quite counts as informing him that you were going to mention him in a debate, but I assume that that is what you are indicating.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am indicating that I am referring to him in the debate, because he indeed gave me the Liaison Committee terms of reference and the press release, including the quote from himself. Since he is the Chair of the Liaison Committee, I am rather surprised that he has not made himself available to participate in this debate, particularly given that it is all about a much more important role for that Committee, which he has the privilege of chairing. I had not realised, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I rose to my feet at the beginning of this debate, that my hon. Friend was not actually in his place. I now see that he is not in his place but at the Bar of the House. But because of what you said—the debate perhaps started earlier than he expected —he will not now be able to participate in it and will have to rely on the Leader of the House to put the case, which he would otherwise be able to put himself, as to why this proposal does not amount to an expensive and unnecessary mission creep on the part of the Liaison Committee.
It is, in my view, probably unique to this Parliament that we have a Chair of the Liaison Committee who is not already the Chair of another Committee. I wonder how the members of the Liaison Committee, all of whom are Chairs of other Committees, will physically be able to get to grips with the enormous subject of the quality of strategic thinking across the world, because that is what we are talking about.
Sir Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
The House will know that I am second to none in my admiration for my hon. Friend, but I actually am a member of the Liaison Committee, and I think that—in drawing his comments to a close—he will, like me, welcome any progress in strategic thinking in Government, and particularly in this Government.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am all in favour of more strategic thinking, and I know that my hon. Friend is a great exemplar of it. He has deployed that talent over many years in the House, and continues so to do. But I am disappointed, in a sense, that in his intervention he did not address the issue of mission creep, and why this subject cannot be dealt with by the Public Administration Committee or by other Select Committees that have already been set up under the rules of the House. He did disclose to us that he is a member of the Liaison Committee, although he did not say how enthusiastic he is about being able to participate in the evidence gathering and the consideration of the evidence that is gathered in conjunction with this particular remit of setting out the inquiry on strategic thinking in Government.
It often happens that towards the end of a Parliament the Government are trying to think beyond the next general election, and perhaps, in proposing this motion, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Liaison Committee is thinking beyond this Parliament to the next. Perhaps he is thinking that the Liaison Committee in that Parliament may have some unfinished business in relation to its inquiry on strategic thinking, and that the specialist advisers will be champing at the bit, wanting their remuneration to be extended to an inquiry that will continue—dare one say, ad infinitum? Maybe; I do not know. But I think that something like this should not go through the House without Members having been alerted to its potential consequences and implications, which is why I have spoken about the motion in this way.
John Spellar
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again; he is being very generous. According to his reading on the background of the Committee, does it intend to hold hearings and evidence sessions, and would that mean that all the Select Committee Chairs would have to attend weekly sessions in order to hear the evidence and then prepare the report?
Sir Christopher Chope
That is a very good point. The Committee is specifically calling for written evidence. Normally, when Select Committees call for written evidence and that evidence comes in, they decide that the most compelling evidence should probably be supplemented by oral evidence from those who have submitted the written evidence. It is, I presume, implicit in the fact that the Committee has invited written evidence that it will also receive oral evidence and will cross-examine, or question, some of the people who have submitted that written evidence, whether it be from Members of the Australian Parliament, the Canadian Parliament or the Hungarian Parliament. Who knows, but I imagine that they will be holding oral evidence sessions. As the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) implies, if an oral evidence session is not within the remit of the one of the specific Sub-Committees of the Liaison Committee, to which I referred earlier, there will be a need for a quorum and for people to be there paying close attention to the evidence.
Where are we going? This is essentially a new Select Committee that is being expanded to cover everybody else’s areas of responsibility so that it can have a grandiose role. It is not sufficient for it to be able to hold the Prime Minister to account and allocate questions to the Prime Minister among Liaison Committee members—now we are getting into the whole area not of the role of Select Committees in holding the Government to account on their strategic challenges, but of the strategic challenges in toto.
In summary, what I am really saying is that I despair. I despair that this proposal has reached the stage it has. I look forward to hearing an explanation from the Leader of the House about why she thinks this is a good move. I hope that she will be able to explain how our fears and concerns about dangerous precedents can be allayed. Strategic thinking is perhaps just the start of a takeover bid by the Liaison Committee of almost all the other subjects that are the remit of individual Select Committees at the moment. Who knows? In the absence of any contribution from the Chair of the Liaison Committee himself, we depend on the knowledge that the Leader of the House has gained from the briefing that she has no doubt received, as I did, from the Liaison Committee.
I am all in favour of strategic thinking and of scrutinising the Government’s strategic thinking, but I do not think that this is the right way forward.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I, through you, apologise for not having been present from the start of these proceedings? I was not expecting this business to be debated this evening; I should have been more alert, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has been, to the possibility that it would be.
I would not consider it appropriate to try to catch your eye to make a contribution to this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker—unless you deemed it appropriate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I did say that if the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make a contribution, he should have been here at the beginning. May I clarify whether he was told that he would be referred to in the debate?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I do not think we need to make an issue of that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I was going to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had not been told, it would be perfectly reasonable for him to make a contribution. In the circumstances, I am prepared to allow him to make a one-minute contribution.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate the courtesy being extended to me.
First, I should reiterate that there is support among all the Select Committee Chairs for the inquiry. Secondly, the issue is about the effectiveness of Select Committee scrutiny. Many Select Committees find it difficult to obtain information about long-term challenges facing this country, particularly if they are cross-departmental issues. The Select Committee’s inquiry will be concentrating on that. Thirdly, there is ample precedent for Liaison Committee inquiries into the effectiveness of the Select Committee system. That is what the Liaison Committee exists to do and it is firmly within its remit. We are confining ourselves to that.
Sir Christopher Chope
I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that the Liaison Committee will confine itself to that but, in that case, why are the terms of reference calling for written evidence by 15 September so widely set that they cover—I will not repeat all those points, Madam Deputy Speaker—which Governments around the world demonstrate best practice in strategic thinking? There are also references to strategic thinking about Select Committees—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I want to call the Leader of the House, so I do not want the hon. Gentleman to read out a list.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is talking about the context of the inquiry. How can we conduct the inquiry in a vacuum, without reference to what happens in other countries, what other Parliaments are doing to scrutinise long-term strategic thinking, and what other Governments are doing in response? There is a strong public interest in this, and I have held a very close interest in the subject matter, which he generously acknowledges.
This is not a threat to Select Committees. The Chairman of the Defence Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) sits, has supported this inquiry, and I hope he will take part. We do not imagine that we will have a great number of oral evidence sessions, because Select Committee Chairs are so busy. Much of this will be conducted on a desktop basis through written evidence, rather than through oral evidence sessions.
I hope that clarifies it for the House, and I am most grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a contribution under these circumstances.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate.
I tabled today’s motion following a request from the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, with the blessing of the Liaison Committee. I am facilitating that request.
On mission creep, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee has set out why the inquiry is taking place, but hon. Members should note that the change we are making limits the appointment of special advisers to this particular inquiry. The appointment will be made within the current budget envelope.
Members may be interested to know that, as the shadow Leader of the House will verify, the Commission discussed the work of Select Committees at its last meeting—those minutes have been published—and the Finance Committee is taking a greater role in scrutinising the work of Select Committees and ensuring value for money.
We are not here to debate the merits of this particular inquiry, although hon. Members will know the previous work of the Chairman of the Liaison Committee in this area. What we are here to decide is whether the Committee should have a special adviser to assist it in this particular inquiry.
I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Covid-19 Pandemic: Fiscal Policies
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The austerity programme has been one of the most damaging policies our country has seen in decades, and one statistic demonstrates its complete failure: there were more than 300,000 excess deaths between 2012 and 2019. More than 300,000 people died as a result of austerity—they were human beings, with families and friends. Like us, they had aspirations and dreams, but now they are gone, perhaps because of decisions made in Departments and in this House. That is an injustice; after all, the first duty of the British Government is to keep their citizens safe and the country secure. Were those 300,000 people kept safe? Evidently, they were not. That is the sort of statistic that future generations will read and wonder how on earth we could have allowed it to happen.
The subject of my debate is fiscal policies and the covid-19 pandemic, but what I want to get at is the extent to which austerity left us unprepared for the pandemic. I started with that statistic to present the situation in Britain prior to the outbreak of the virus. My speech will discuss healthcare, and the Minister may think, “What’s this got to do with the Treasury?”. I hope that I can convince him on that by saying that our health services require money from his Department, because what matters about cuts is their effects.
It is clear that the austerity programme hollowed out our welfare state, including the NHS. To be ready for a pandemic, we need a strong healthcare system, but we just did not have that in 2020. I was outraged by former Prime Minister David Cameron and former Chancellor George Osborne at the covid inquiry. They denied that their austerity programme had any impact on the pandemic, and it was especially chilling watching George Osborne. Their justification for austerity is at odds with scientific evidence and opinion, which I shall outline.
In their expert evidence to the covid-19 inquiry last month, Professor Clare Bambra and Professor Sir Michael Marmot stated that austerity policies post-2010 had an adverse effect on health inequalities; that health inequalities narrowed in the period of higher public expenditure, from about 2000 to 2010, but widened again post 2010—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. She is right to say that covid has affected health, but it has also affected finance. Does she agree that covid-19 will have rippling effects upon finances for years to come, and that many people are now grappling with the reality of prices increasing at a greater rate than wages? Does she also agree that the Government must take hold of the financial market once again with a firm grasp and with a strategy to help families in my constituency and hers, and indeed across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will come on to that issue in my speech. He is completely right that there will be an ongoing impact on future generations not only from covid, but from the impact on the public purse.
The scientific research also found that between 2000 and 2010, geographical inequalities such as infant mortality rates and life expectancy were reduced, but they then increased after 2010. Why did that happen? It was about money. By 2019-20, after a series of austerity Budgets, health spending was about £50 billion below what it should have been had it matched previous Government commitments. This far surpasses the much-vaunted cash injection of £20 billion between 2019 and 2024 as part of the NHS long-term plan. That level was too little, too late for what was to come.
The results of austerity are not hard to find right across the NHS, with one of the more tangible measures being bed capacity. Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, the average daily total of available beds contracted by 8.3%—nearly 13,000 beds. Britain had less than half the number of critical care beds relative to its population than the average in OECD European Union nations.
Austerity also meant years of pay caps and pay freezes. In other words, there were pay cuts, in real terms, for NHS workers. They were earning thousands of pounds less in real terms in 2019 than in 2010.
Mary Kelly Foy
Look at the situation with the Nightingale hospitals. They were a good idea in theory, but there were not enough workers available. It was like a sketch in “Yes Minister”—a hospital with no patients, only in this case there were no workers either.
Since the coalition Government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012, which threw all the pieces of the NHS up into the air, no single entity has been responsible for workforce planning. Consequently, staffing over the past decade has been poor and disjointed, and there has been a lack of the staffing projections needed to ensure we have enough health workers to meet demand. So work became more intense, with more turnover and more burnout. This was before the pandemic and should have been a warning signal to the Government.
Let us not forget the removal of the nurses’ bursaries in 2016, which led to a decline in nursing applications in the ensuing years. That has contributed to nursing numbers not keeping pace with demand. In the first quarter of 2019-20, the number of nursing vacancies increased to over 40,000. I know the Government U-turned on that, but why did it happen in the first place?
Staff shortages put enormous pressure on NHS workers. I do not want to be too sentimental, but I do not know how they did it during the pandemic. The demands put on those workers were enormous and the fortitude and resilience of NHS workers was remarkable. In addition, a lack of personal protective equipment caused them huge levels of stress, risking their mental and physical health. How about we start showing a bit of gratitude by giving them the pay rise they have asked for?
Public health, which is such a vital part of our defences, has been the victim of a toxic combination of austerity and ill thought through structural change. As a result, we went into the pandemic with public health services that were ill equipped to handle the arrival of covid.
As part of the coalition Government’s 2012 reforms, public health functions were separated from the NHS and put into local authorities, which I and other members of the health system welcomed. Between 2015 and 2020, the local authority public health grant fell by around a quarter in real terms. Between 2016 and 2019, Public Health England’s budget was cut by 12%. Restructuring of the workforce resulted in experience bleeding away. The number of people working in public health was not enough to meet demand. By 2021, England needed almost 60% more public health specialists to reach levels recommended by the Faculty of Public Health. The voice and influence of public health specialists has been increasingly stifled, and the value placed in their expertise diminished.
Britain was severely on the back foot when the pandemic hit us in early 2020. The NHS was operating without enough staff, there were not enough beds and our buildings were outdated. The failure to ensure that the NHS was properly staffed and resourced in the decade leading up to the pandemic meant that when the pandemic arrived, there was no capacity to meet the increase in demand.
Sickness absence from covid shrunk an already depleted workforce, and the need to separate groups of patients limited capacity further. That meant drastic measures such as pausing nearly all routine care in hospitals, redeploying staff and registering medical students early. There is no doubt that both staff and patients were put in harm’s way because of the historic underfunding, under-resourcing and austerity.
Can the Government say that they were not warned? No, they cannot. MPs, trade unions and even the United Nations all warned the Government. When the UN said that the results of the austerity experiment were “crystal clear”—that our social security net had been torn asunder by austerity—the Government said that they regretted the “overtly political tone” of the UN’s report. Cameron and Osborne’s project failed on its own terms: the books were not, as they often told us, balanced. In fact, we are all worse off because of their actions. History will not absolve them, because, with austerity, there is always a price to pay. Thousands of people are dead, and our welfare state was pushed to the brink. Austerity severely impacted our response to the pandemic, and it must never happen again. The Government have several fiscal events until the next election, and they can change things if they want to.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)
I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this evening’s debate.
In debating the Government’s fiscal policies, as in so many things, it is all important to set out the context. When the Government were first elected, it was in the immediate wake of the global financial crisis. It was also after we inherited a situation that had led to the Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury leaving a note—we all remember that note—that said, “There is, I am afraid, no money left.”
In the years preceding the covid-19 pandemic, the Government’s fiscal strategy—the only fiscal strategy—was to reduce the deficit and debt that Labour had left us. As a long-standing finance director myself before coming to this place, I know that Government need to live within their means and show responsibility when entrusted with people’s hard-earned money. That was the time to repair the nation’s finances—before a storm would strike. When the deficit reached 7.5% of GDP in 2008-09, Government decisions supported its reduction to 2.7% of GDP by 2019-20. That approach developed the financial buffers to help absorb the impact of future economic shocks, such as we saw in the pandemic. Yet despite that period, and rather belying what the hon. Lady said, we have still been able to provide departmental spending today that will be around £75 billion a year more, in real terms, by 2027 than in 2010.
It is no wonder, then, that at the time when we took that approach, it received the support of Parliament. It was in line with the recommendations then for best practice. For example, the 2017 fiscal risks report of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility said that
“the public finances need to be managed prudently during more favourable times to ensure that when these shocks do crystallise they do not put the public finances onto an unsustainable path.”
That was why, when the pandemic hit, we were well placed to borrow to provide quick, decisive and consistent support to households and businesses throughout the country, which at that time had significant support from Members on both sides of the House. Estimates from the International Monetary Fund showed that the UK’s discretionary fiscal expansion in response to covid-19—the support that we gave households—was one of the largest and most comprehensive financial support packages globally.
To fund that response, we had to borrow an additional £313 billion—a huge amount of money—across 2021 and 2022, but we could not have done that had we not made the difficult decisions. Had we not acted, the cost to the country would have been far higher. Members will remember the support that we provided, including the furlough scheme, which supported nearly 12 million jobs in total, holding our economy together in incredibly tough times. I note that some 420,000 of those jobs were in the north-east, and that since the pandemic has ended the north-east has had the third-highest increase in employee numbers relative to pre-pandemic levels. The economy in the north-east has been one of the fastest growing.
I also note that, as is sadly so often the case on such occasions, the hon. Member for City of Durham had no alternative plans to lay out. I do not know whether she agrees with the North of Tyne Mayor, Jamie Driscoll, who today said, in respect of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer):
“You’ve U-turned on so many promises…in fact, a list of broken promises too long to repeat in this letter.”
I do not know whether she has seen the letter from Jamie Driscoll, or whether she agrees with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) or the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras on an issue like the two child policy. Our policy is clear. I do not think that it is appropriate for the Opposition to hold two policies simultaneously in respect of the two child policy.
When we look back on the pandemic, and on our fiscal approaches both during and in the run-up to it, the Government believe that we can be confident that we acted responsibly. We took difficult decisions on the back of the financial situation that we inherited, allowing us, when that terrible pandemic broke above our heads, to protect livelihoods up and down the country, and ensuring that we could afford to do so and could bounce back afterwards, as we have done subsequently. That was, and remains, sound, responsible fiscal policy.
I understand that not every Member of this House will agree with the decisions taken. I hope that the hon. Member for City of Durham will recognise that many people on both sides of this House did their best in those most difficult times.
Mary Kelly Foy
I am quite surprised and confused. I gave statistics about how many deaths there were, and specialists across the board, including the United Nations, have pointed out the damage done by the austerity programme. I have no idea why you mentioned the two child limit. It would have been really helpful if you had stuck to the point of my debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady knows that she must not address the Minister directly.
Andrew Griffith
I will not delay us on the two child policy—the Labour party’s two-policy policy. Perhaps it was a detour too far for the hon. Lady. I made that point just to illustrate that these are difficult decisions for those on both sides of the House, as it turns out.
I recognise the hon. Lady’s passion and congratulate her again on securing the debate. It is clearly a topic that she rightly feels strongly about, and I apologise if I have not fully addressed all her concerns. It is of course a topic that the independent inquiry is addressing, and I, and I expect the House, look forward to hearing the outcome of that inquiry in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections etc.) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections etc.) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The draft regulations amend the existing leaseholder protection regulations made under the Building Safety Act 2022 to clarify and simplify some provisions in the light of experience and to address points made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and in the two stayed judicial review applications. I will start by providing some context and background to the draft regulations.
As hon. Members know, the Government introduced the leaseholder protections to protect many leaseholders from the cost of remedying historical safety defects in their building, either entirely or with liability firmly capped. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported the 2022 affirmative regulations for cases of suspected defective drafting and doubtful vires. Notwithstanding the Committee’s concerns, the Government were satisfied that no issues with the regulations would prevent the process from operating successfully.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), committed to introduce changes if it became apparent that they were necessary. I therefore laid the regulations before us to address the issues that I have mentioned, and they were engaged in two rounds of correspondence with the Joint Committee, culminating in a memorandum of response set out in the appendix to the Joint Committee’s 44th report of the 2023 Session, published last Friday.
To summarise, the Joint Committee reported the regulations for one case of defective drafting in relation to a lack of consequence for failure to notify the landlord associated with the developer of their liability. The Government are grateful to the Joint Committee for its careful scrutiny of the regulations and have considered the issue carefully. As set out in the memorandum published by the Committee, the Government are satisfied that no issue with the regulations will prevent the process from operating successfully.
It is imperative that the regulations come into force before the summer recess so as to alleviate the issues facing named managers and landlords. We will of course monitor closely the progress of future cases and, if it becomes apparent that further changes are necessary, we will come back to Parliament with proposals.
The regulations can be considered in three parts. First, they address points made in the Joint Committee’s report of July 2022. They make it clear that to recover the remediation amount, L—the body responsible for managing the building—must issue a notice to the landlord with the liability to pay. The notice must include the prescribed information on both the amount to be recovered and the appeals process. The regulations clarify the powers of the first-tier tribunal in determining the outcome of an appeal: if the appeal is unsuccessful, the appellant has to pay the amount set out in the notice; if the appeal is successful, the appellant has to pay either nothing or an alternative amount determined by the tribunal.
The Joint Committee considered regulation 6(1) of SI 2022/859, which purports to allow a leaseholder voluntarily to provide a leaseholder deed of certificate to their landlord, to be ultra vires, so the draft regulations remove that provision. I should make it clear, however, that nothing prevents a leaseholder from providing a certificate to their landlord at a time of their choosing. The regulations clarify that the prescribed evidence is required as part of the leaseholder deed of certificate and that failure to provide a completed leaseholder deed of certificate and the required evidence will result in the lease being treated as if it were not a qualifying lease. The regulations also provide that “shared ownership lease” has the same meaning as that used in schedule 8 to the 2022 Act.
Secondly, the regulations address points made in the two stayed judicial review applications. They provide for named managers to recover the cost of relevant measures in relation to relevant defects from landlords in the same way as resident management companies and right-to-manage companies. They also provide for L to be able to recover notified amounts from landlords as a civil debt and for L to be able to pursue a remediation contribution order against the landlord to recover costs. The regulations also provide that a landlord who is associated with the developer must be notified of its liability to pay for relevant measures or relevant defects. However, nothing in the regulations prevents L from instead pursuing another liable landlord if, for example, they feel that funds are more likely to be recovered in that way.
Thirdly, the regulations deliver additional detail to clarify and simplify some of the provisions in the 2022 regulations. They enable Homes England—the Department’s delivery partner for remediation work outside London—to apply for a remediation order or a remediation contribution order. They provide that a landlord may apply to the first-tier tribunal for a 30-day extension to the appeal process, to give time for out-of-court engagement. They also provide that the landlord must update the landlord certificate to reflect a lease’s qualifying status within four weeks of receiving a leaseholder deed of certificate.
Finally, amendments are made to the 2022 regulations so that the current landlord does not need to provide certain evidence where they accept liability for a relevant defect, and the existing landlord certificate is replaced by the schedule to these regulations to reflect that. This change reduces the information-sharing requirement to that which is essential for a leaseholder and L to determine liability. The regulations also provide that current landlords must provide L with copies of the landlord and leaseholder certificates within a week of completion or receipt, to enable L to apportion costs in line with the 2022 regulations. Where the current landlord fails to comply, the regulations provide that their share of costs cannot be passed on to leaseholders.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that many landlords have sold or gone into liquidation and referred on, and the current landlord may now be in a very different jurisdiction and may often be difficult to get at. Has the Minister considered the effect of that on these regulations, and how the notifications and periods she has set out will impact on leaseholders if, as she has just said, it will be possible for the cost to be passed on to them in this situation?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He will be aware that this is a very specific provision in the regulations, which serve the specific purpose of providing the detail needed to clarify and simplify some of the provisions in the existing leaseholder protection regulations.
To continue—
Rachel Maclean
No, I am not going to give way again, if that is okay, Mrs Murray.
The regulations also address concerns raised by the Joint Committee last July and the two stayed judicial review applications. That will enable landlords to complete a shortened landlord certificate and enable L to take civil action against non-compliant landlords.
I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Murray. I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation she has just read into the record.
The Opposition welcome this instrument and do not intend to oppose it, although we do bemoan the fact that it has proven necessary for the Government to bring it forward. After all, these regulations consist mostly of technical amendments to regulations previously made under the Building Safety Act after it came into force. For example, regulation 10 amends the definition of resident management companies to ensure consistency across the relevant regulations. Surely, the need for such basic definitional alignment could have been anticipated in the drafting of the previous regulations. We appreciate fully that these are not simple matters, but the fact that this Committee is having to meet this afternoon to rectify what are largely obvious deficiencies and omissions in the drafting of the previously approved regulations does not exactly inspire confidence in the Government’s approach to leaseholder protections and the building safety crisis more generally.
During the passage of Building Safety Bill, we warned about the consequences of rapidly overhauling what was already a complex and technical piece of legislation in order to reflect the Government’s belated change of approach. Indeed, I remember arguing when we considered Lords amendments to the Bill in April last year that it was deeply problematic that this House had so little time to carefully consider or properly scrutinise substantial changes to the legislation. As I said at the time,
“this is no way to make good law”—[Official Report, 20 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 191.]
Our concerns persist when it comes to the regulations before us. What assurances can the Minister give us that, in rectifying the deficiencies and omissions in previously approved regulations, the same errors will not recur in respect of the many other building safety instruments that we still need to consider?
While the bulk of this instrument concerns technical amendments to recently approved regulations made under the Building Safety Act, there are some noteworthy new provisions. I would like to press the Minister for specific information on one in particular: regulation 4, which adds Homes England to the list of interested persons who may seek remediation orders and remediation contribution orders under sections 123 and 124 of the Act. Leaving aside the obvious question of why it was not included from the outset, particularly given that it administers the building safety fund outside London, the addition of Homes England to the list of persons who can seek an RO and an RCO raises several questions.
First, is it the Government’s intention that, following the passage of this instrument, Homes England will largely or wholly take over the Department’s functions when it comes to applying to the first-tier tribunal for ROs and RCOs? Secondly, if that is the intention, do the Government expect this transfer of responsibility to lead to an increase in the number of such orders being applied for, beyond the extremely small number of orders that the Department is presently taking forward? Thirdly, will Homes England be provided with any further funding in order to fulfil this new responsibility—perhaps some of the £1.9 billion of allocated funding that the Department recently returned unspent to the Treasury?
As I have suggested, while there is good reason to believe that the need for them could and should have been anticipated, the instrument contains a series of perfectly sensible refinements to previous regulations, the effect of which should be to streamline the landlord certificate and leaseholder deed of certificate process. As the Minister has made clear, the draft regulations include provisions specifically requiring a landlord certificate to be served within four weeks of a landlord becoming aware of a new leaseholder deed of certificate containing information not included in a previous landlord certificate; changes to the information required to be included in a landlord certificate; and changes to the time period within which a landlord must share a copy of a received leaseholder deed to any RMC, RTM or named manager or else be prevented from recovering costs.
We take no issue with any of these measures. However, we regret that, although the instrument makes these necessary changes, it is a missed opportunity to resolve a number of other glaring deficiencies in the Building Safety Act that the Government really should have resolved by now. Let me give the Committee two brief examples.
The first example concerns the gap in the Building Safety Act that exists for those leaseholders who need to extend or vary their lease on or after 14 February 2022. The Minister and her officials are well aware that any leaseholder granted a lease extension or variation in a block of flats after that date does not benefit from the protections provided for under schedule 8 to the Act, even if the surrendered lease had the benefit, with the effect that leaseholders are being advised by the Government to try to persuade their landlord to apply those protections as contractual terms. The Government have stated on the record that they are
“looking to legislate to resolve this issue as soon as parliamentary time allows.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 May 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1392.]
Why are the Government not using this instrument to address that shortcoming?
The other example concerns the circumstances in which the costs of remediating relevant defects in relevant buildings can be charged back to leaseholders. As the Minister will know, in the recent case of Adriatic Land 3 Ltd v. Leaseholders of Waterside Apartments, St James Court West, Accrington, the first-tier tribunal held that the service charge protections under schedule 8 to the Act were not retrospective. As a result, those landlords who, seeing the writing on the wall, quickly sent out demands for service charges to cover the cost of remedial works before the Act came into force on 28 June last year have seemingly got away with passing on significant costs to leaseholders. The Government are surely not expecting individual leaseholders or groups of leaseholders to fund litigation to settle the law, so why are they not using this instrument to clarify that the provisions of schedule 8 are retrospective?
In addition to the specific questions that I have put to the Minister about regulation 4, I would be grateful if she explained why these and many other unresolved issues are not being addressed in this instrument, and if she provided further detail on whether and when they will finally be addressed.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and will address his points. He asked why we are amending leaseholder protections again. He is right that mistakes were raised by the JCSI last July, with correcting regulations in February and now these draft regulations. The Government committed in the House last summer to making any necessary amendments to the leaseholder protection regulations, and that is exactly what we are doing.
The Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which came into force in February, corrected an error in the definition of “associated persons” to ensure that complex corporate structures cannot avoid liability. That was always the Government’s intention. Those regulations were able to be dealt with under the negative procedure, which is why we were able to bring them into force the day after laying them. It was important to do that to ensure that landlords could not avoid the new requirements. Today’s draft regulations, considered under the affirmative procedure, do the opposite: they minimise information-sharing requirements for landlords and provide clarity to ensure the protections have effect in the way originally intended.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Homes England. It will not be taking over from the Department, but it will be able to apply, where it thinks it appropriate to do so, and we constantly review the enforcement arrangements and resourcing. I put it on the record that no money has been handed back to the Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman stated incorrectly. Homes England funding is being reprofiled, which is a normal process of Government funding and a responsible way to account for public money, and all the money will be spent on affordable housing. I hope that sets hon. Members’ concerns straight on that point.
As I said earlier, these draft regulations deliver additional detail to clarify and simplify some provisions in the existing leaseholder protection regulations. There is of course more to do in this area, some of which will require primary legislation, and the Government will come back to the House with further proposals in due course. I hope the Committee will welcome these important and necessary regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we start proceedings, I will give some preamble. It may be helpful for all Members to know that, as clearly explained by Mr Speaker in the House earlier today, Members who have not been nominated to a Delegated Legislation Committee are able to attend and speak.
I understand that some Members may want to make points of order. For the orderliness of the proceedings, it may be helpful to have those points of order now, not precluding later points of order perhaps on other issues or even the same ones. There are many experienced Members in this Committee today, and for the orderliness of getting through business, I will take points of order now if Members so wish, before I call the Minister.
Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. I was nominated to this Committee and I was prepared to be part of it. I was asked to absent myself from the Committee, and I refused because I had points and queries to make. When I suggested that I might vote against the legislation, I was subsequently removed from the Committee. That is an outrage to the House. I believe that this legislation does require scrutiny. I will listen to the debate but I do not think that 90 minutes will be sufficient time to hear all the contributions, let alone conclude all the issues.
More importantly, if it is the feeling of the Committee, Mr Pritchard, can you go back to Mr Speaker and review the process? Never in my 18 years of Parliament have I known of a single Member who has been removed from a Committee list without asking to be removed. In this case, it happened four or five times. I suspect that there is an element of incompetence rather than an attack on Members’ rights to debate, but this needs to be looked into. I seek your guidance on whether, if we do not finish the debate here, more time can be allocated on the Floor to discuss the principle and the content of this legislation. I am sure it is something that the Chief Whip would want to know more about, alongside fishing interests.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. As the papers for this meeting are not ready and not sufficiently supplied for all the Members who are attending, I suggest that the meeting be adjourned until they can be provided.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard. I think that point of order is fundamental because without the papers, how can people consider this legislation properly? All that was available when I came in was the explanatory memorandum. The list of members is not available, which seems to be a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs when the names of the members have changed so rapidly during the course of the day. When we are playing the hokey-cokey with members of the Committee, the House at least ought to be informed of who those members are. I suggest a brief adjournment while the papers are provided, and then we should come to the other points of order.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard. I have two quick points.
First, I understand that the knife on the Illegal Migration Bill will fall at 6.26 pm. If you were a cynic, you would believe that the Government deliberately timed this debate for this evening, knowing that it would be ripped up by all those votes, bearing in mind we had 18 votes on the Bill last week. If you are a cynic, it is perfectly obvious to see what the Government have done; they have timed the debate now so it will be interrupted by the votes. However, can you confirm, Mr Pritchard, that if these proceedings are interrupted, there will be injury time so the debate will begin again quite a long while later, after the votes have taken place?
Secondly, for the record, the Committee of Selection nominated Members to this SI Committee last week in the normal way, including my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor, for Rochford and Southend East, for Devizes, for Dudley North and for Don Valley. I understand that some or all of those people indicated to the Whips in conversations over the weekend that they had what theologians might call “doubts” about the Government’s approach. Some even threatened to vote against the legislation, whereupon they were summarily removed from the Committee by the Whips, using a procedure that is normally used only for last-minute substitutions and very special circumstances—for instance, if a family member is ill.
In 22 years in this House, I have never known the Whips, from either side, to do this. This is beyond sixth-form politics. This is manipulating the parliamentary process because the Windsor framework is clearly a failure, and it is such a failure that the Whips have to rig Committees to get it through, so they have found a bunch of other Members, at short notice, who perhaps, shall we say, are not quite as inquisitive as the five who were nobbled. You have been here a long while, Mr Pritchard; have you, in your time in this House, ever known anything quite as shameful as this?
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard, I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford have said. I have been here nearly 40 years, and I have never seen anything like this. I really do deeply resent the fact that this has been done in the manner in which it has been done. Already, comments are being made on the Floor of the House, which are part of the record, and it is an extraordinary situation. I have never seen anything like it and I think that it is outrageous.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard, it seems to me that these issues raise serious matters of privilege, which obviously have to be referred to Mr Speaker confidentially and are not a matter for this Committee to consider. However, if Members are obstructed from carrying out their duties as Members, that is a molestation of a Member.
A Member has been appointed to the Committee and summarily removed from it, without the Chairman of the Selection Committee being informed, or indeed the Member concerned being informed. That seems to me to raise, prima facie, matters of privilege, which should referred to Mr Speaker. Therefore, I would again suggest that this Committee be adjourned. We still do not have the papers, so I think that there are now two good reasons for adjourning this Committee.
The Chair
Well, thank you. I would just say that I think, with the Government Whip here, that the strong feelings of some Members of this Committee have been noted by the Government Whips.
On the point on the membership and the paperwork being available, that paperwork is en route. In fairness to the Committee staff, I suspect that they did not anticipate the level of turnout that we have this evening. We could suspend the sitting, but I think that it might be more helpful if we perhaps encouraged the concept of sharing Committee papers, and I am happy to lead by example—exemplo ducemus, as the former Leader of the House might know—and I am very happy for him to have my Committee membership paperwork. I will take that decision; the paperwork is on its way; it will be here shortly, and if the right hon. Gentleman really does need to see the latest list, I am happy to provide it to him personally, or he can share with other Committee Members. I am sure that other comments will be made in a moment, but—
The Chair
Forgive me, Sir James, but I will go through these points if I may. On the Committee membership, I think that Mr Speaker made it clear earlier today that that can be done. In fact, just to give a little more detail, the Committee membership of any Committee can be decided up to 10 minutes before the Committee actually sits, but I actually have the latest list, which I think was completed just shortly—50 minutes—before.
On the general point on Committee selection and changes, that is perfectly within order, and the convention is that changes can be made up to 10 minutes before the Committee sits.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Just one moment. I would like to finish with these points of order, then I am very happy to take others. On the point on the votes, this business was timetabled, as indeed the business in the main Chamber was, many days ago, before, I think, some of the concerns about this Committee were raised on the Floor of the House.
A comment was made about further time to debate this. I think that that was raised on the Floor of the House earlier today. I am sure that that was noted by Mr Speaker, and obviously Members will have an opportunity to potentially bring this up as a Backbench Business debate, or to raise it in business questions, as a matter perhaps for the House to look at on another occasion in more detail.
However, I know that the substantive point of concern for some Members has been noted by the Government Whips. I hear you as well; I will pass back to the Speaker’s Office the concern expressed by Members. It is right that Members should have their voices heard on behalf of their constituents, but I make the point again that although it may not have happened many times in 40, 20 or 10 years, it is perfectly within order, as Mr Speaker confirmed earlier today.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. I am slightly confused by what is going on. I came here as I have been selected to attend the debate on the Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023. May I check that that is what we are discussing, and not the “death throes of the Conservative party” regulations 2023?
The Chair
I am grateful for that point of order, and I can say to you that the Clerk very ably read out why we are here. We are definitely going to move on to it as some point.
Sir William Cash
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. So many of our arrangements are exercised by virtue of conventions. The question of what the precision of a particular rule is has to be weighed against the conventions, against which the debate is being conducted on this occasion. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East made clear, the bottom line is that there are occasions when the conventions are bypassed for good reasons. But under the precept that convention is about the reason for the rule, I can say only that this is a gross breach of the convention, because it is perfectly apparent that the reason for making the changes that have been made in this Committee has nothing to do with the question of whether the people who are being substituted on the Committee were there in the first place. It is precisely because it is quite clear that the Government would lose the vote in Committee—that is where the problem lies. That is the constitutional problem with which you and we are faced, Mr Pritchard.
The Chair
On the point about convention, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but he will know, probably more than anybody else on the Committee, that this House, apart from “Erskine May”—parallel to that—runs very much on convention. I refer him to the most recent ruling on such an occurrence happening, which was from Mr Speaker in the main Chamber this afternoon. That is the very latest ruling from the Speaker, drawing on convention. I am just a minor Member of the Panel of Chairs: the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to take a different view from that of Mr Speaker, given all the advice he received.
Sir James Duddridge
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. Members have quite rightly asked for information, and additional information has been put out, but I received additional information when I was first nominated to the Committee. I was hoping to pick up a hard copy, and it is absolutely essential that such information is circulated to everyone else before we make decisions. Although I believe that there was not a consultation specifically on the regulations, I received about six consultation submissions to the Committee when I was appointed to it, including from the Democratic Unionist party. All disagreed and had substantive comments to make. I looked at it a little—I did not do all the work —in the full knowledge that the information would be here and that the whole Committee would be able to probe that information and probe the Minister on those submissions. From memory, they were all against.
The information was not here at the beginning, and I do not believe that copies have been brought in, so I have to defer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset: this Committee cannot continue. Either the Minister should now withdraw the motion or, as a defender of the House, you should refuse to go forward, Mr Pritchard, because it is a principle of the House that if we do not have the information in front of us, we cannot decide. Either the Minister or you must bring this thing to a halt. We can always come back. This does not need to happen until 27 September 2024, so it is not an urgent matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Let me answer that point of order, because I want to try to give as full and comprehensive answers as possible. Regardless of whether the right hon. Member for North East Somerset felt that it was here or not, all the paperwork has been available online—that is the first thing. For people who might not want to read Committee papers online, they have been available all the time in the Vote Office, which I have just had confirmed by the Clerk.
Sir James Duddridge
Not true. Mr Pritchard, you clearly would not intentionally mislead the House or the Committee, but I was at the Vote Office to get all the paperwork. They asked me: “Would you like us to get it for you here?” That was at 24 minutes past 5 o’clock. I looked, knowing that I had something else to go to quickly, and said: “No, that’s okay. I don’t need you to print it off. It doesn’t matter that you haven’t got it for Members, because it will be in the Committee Room.” I had not realised that no one had the paperwork—it is needed.
The Chair
The advice that I have received is that it is and was available. As the hon. Member suggests, that might not be the case, but at this moment, we are checking, emailing the Vote Office directly as well as other Clerks, to see what the reality is. If I may, I will take the other points of order and, when I get a response, I will give a fuller answer. I am basing my answer now on the advice I have received so far; that advice might change in the next few minutes. We are seeking clarification, which I suspect the hon. Member would want us to do, rather than speaking in part.
Mr Francois
Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard. As we all know, “Erskine May”, the bible of parliamentary procedure, cannot account for every possible circumstance under the sun. Therefore, Members of Parliament are used to operating within a number of well understood conventions—we might call them our traditions, for want of a better phrase. If Back Benchers see those conventions being deliberately abused, they rightly get very upset, which is exactly what is happening before your eyes.
For some years, I served on the Committee of Selection, so I know well how the procedure works. If someone is nominated to the Committee, but unfortunately cannot attend, the convention is that they try to find a substitute. If a family member is ill or there is some other pressing reason why they cannot be there, they basically ask a friend or a colleague to substitute for them. There is a procedure whereby the Whips can facilitate that, without having to reconvene the whole Committee of Selection. Everybody understands that; that is the norm.
What is not the norm is for people to be taken off a Committee against their will. That is completely irregular. That is what has happened here—five times over, for the same Committee. That is not in order; that is not a convention; that is the Government trying to rig a Committee and to get rid of people whom they thought might have the moral courage to vote the wrong way. It is bent, and that is what they have done.
You, Mr Pritchard, should not be facilitating that. You yourself, sir, admitted that the final membership of this Committee was finalised only 50 minutes before it was due to begin. That is extraordinary. Why? Because so many shenanigans were going on behind the scenes.
I offer the Whip on duty, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle—who, for the record, I happen to respect—and the Minister some genuine advice: do not move the motion, because everyone can see that this has become a farce. Accept that this has gone wrong—it was a mistake—so do not move it and bring it back another time. That is by far the best thing to do in the circumstances. Do not move the motion, allow the dust to settle and let us discuss the draft regulations, which are not due to come into force until 2024, in the proper way when we have more time. However, do not force the Committee to go ahead on a basis that is blatantly and obviously rigged.
The Chair
I will make a few points in response. As I said in my preamble, all Members who attend may speak; they just cannot vote. I know that does not address all the right hon. Gentleman’s points. So that I am not misunderstood, let me say I received the latest copy 50 minutes before the Committee began; that was not when the last submission of changes was made, which was 10.50 am this morning—to be absolutely clear—but I get his wider point.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises conventions, because in my fourth and final point in response I will mention a convention to him. It is for the Committee of Selection to decide its own rules. If the Committee or the House decides that more comprehensive review is needed, the Procedure Committee may look at it, but that is not a suggestion from the Chair. It is just a matter of fact.
On a point of order back to the right hon. Gentleman, he used a very unparliamentary term. He will have to withdraw the word “bent”. Before I call the former Leader of the House—[Interruption.] Order. I can only deal with one point of order at a time.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
The Chair does not have the authority to order my right hon. Friend to withdraw in Committee. The Speaker has that authority on the Floor of the House; the Chairman of a Committee does not have that authority. He may ask, but he cannot insist.
Mr Francois
For the avoidance of doubt, I will withdraw it anyway. You and I have known each other for many years, Mr Pritchard; if you think that word was disorderly, out of respect for you and mindful of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I will withdraw it. I will replace “bent” with “rigged”.
The Chair
It is not a matter of my opinion of what is orderly or disorderly; it is a matter of what the House thinks. I have heard a lot worse over those many years.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. As you know perfectly well, the rules in Committee are very different from the rules of the House. If you as Chairman are not happy with the order, you may suspend the Committee, but my right hon. Friend does not have any obligation to withdraw. You may make a report to Mr Speaker, but the only power you have is to suspend the Committee. That is very important because there is a fundamental difference between Committee and the Floor of the House.
The Chair
I am grateful for that point of order, which comes from possibly the master of civility himself. He will recognise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has put the record straight, even if he did not have to in the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, and I am grateful for his doing so.
Sir William Cash
On a point of information as well as a point of order, Mr Pritchard. If I heard you correctly, I think you said that the decision was taken by the Committee of Selection. I do not think that is necessarily the case, but I would be grateful to know whether the changes were made by the Committee of Selection or by other persons.
The Chair
No, I said that the Committee sets its own rules. I was not referring specifically to whether the Committee of Selection was involved in any of the changes. I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave some moments ago on convention—whether it is popular or not, it is convention. If the House wants to change the rules, the House and hon. and right hon. Members in this place might want to raise it elsewhere. If they want to raise this debate more comprehensively over a wider expanse of time, they can do so, as I set out earlier.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. The statutory instrument we are debating may seem very flimsy, but it is important in so far as it is part of the jigsaw that has now been devised to rewrite the map of this country and to remove Northern Ireland from it. The way in which the Windsor framework has gone through to date has caused immense anger and political instability back in Northern Ireland. We have had a 90-minute debate in the House on one part of it, which we were then told accepted the whole framework, and now we have this today. We have seen the Government so anxious to push it through because, as we will see once we start examining it, this statutory instrument puts another block in the barrier—the border—between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government’s way of making sure it goes through is to carry out a purge of their own party. I am glad to see that those who were purged escaped the gulag and are here tonight to raise their voice in defiance.
Mr Pritchard, given the enormity of the issue, the way in which it has been handled and the perception that it will create of the democratic process in this House—the depths to which the Government will stoop—I believe that it is important that you pay heed to the points that have been made: the papers were not available; Members feel that they have been harassed out and removed from their positions because they wish to express a point of view; and the legislation will be given the most cursory scrutiny. I believe that it is important, and it is a heavy burden on your shoulders to ask yourself: given what has happened, can this Committee proceed and have any integrity at the end of it?
The Chair
Mr Wilson, your point has been noted by the Chair and will be fed back to Mr Speaker, and the Government Whips are listening. You refer to me. When it comes to this position of Chair and whoever sits in the Chair, the House convention, “Erskine May” and the rules and procedures of this House are greater than one individual, however flawed or not flawed the person who sits here, so this is not a matter for me. Whoever sits in the Chair is rightly guided and protected, as Members are, by those who have gone before us.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. First, may I say how well I think you are doing in this very difficult position? I just want to try to take some of the heat out of this. Although I agree fully with what my colleagues have so far said and their points of order, the fact is that a mistake has been made on the part of the Whips Office. I do not understand entirely the procedure by which this happened. Nevertheless, what clearly happened is that by accident—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. Will Members please listen? For the first Division, it will be 15 minutes and thereafter 10 minutes. Be aware that as soon as the Minister and shadow Minister are here, we can proceed, so if colleagues want to come and contribute through points of order or through the substantive debate, they should please come back as quickly as possible—[Interruption.] After all of the votes, of course. We are expecting nine.
The Chair
Before we proceed any further, I would like to make two things clear for the Committee. First, the membership of the Committee is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Committee of Selection, as I set out earlier. The Government Whip is in his place and will have heard the strength of feeling among right hon. and hon. Members on that point. Secondly, Standing Order No. 118(5) requires that the Committee debate the motion
“That the committee has considered”
the draft regulations.
I will now call the Minister to move the motion. I will take no further points of order at this point, but if necessary I will take them later, when she has moved the motion.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard? May I also thank hon. Members, including right hon. and hon. Friends, for coming to this Committee today? I hope that they are able to hear me. I thank them for coming to this Committee. I do understand the sensitivities—
Sir James Duddridge
No, I am asking Mr Pritchard to take a point of order. I am not asking to intervene on the Minister; I am making a point of order.
Sir James Duddridge
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. My understanding is that I probed you on when we would restart, and you said it would be after the Divisions. A Division is still continuing. The Whips were instructing people who were put on the Committee subsequently to rush here early. I was operating on the instruction that you gave to the Committee—[Interruption.] Sorry, but at least one Member was being rushed here. I saw it; I was standing next—[Interruption.] It was not my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton; it was another hon. Member who is here. And other people are waiting; they are still in the Division Lobby, wanting to contribute here. They are people who might not be on this Committee.
It is wholly inappropriate that the Committee has restarted. When I saw that person rushing, I tried to push my way through the Lobby to get through, to rush up here, which I did, and we had already started. We were in the middle of points of order. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, who was in the middle of a point of order, was suggesting to you that there was a solution. He was in the middle of a point, and you quite rightly stopped him, but he had the floor.
This Committee is being duped. I hope that as I am speaking to you, someone is messaging my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes to come back to his place to continue that point of order. It is most disorderly that this is happening. Yet again, the Government Whips are breaking convention and are undermining this House. It is absolutely disgusting, and it should not be tolerated.
The Chair
Although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, may I just say that the hon. Member for Devizes could have been here—
Sir James Duddridge
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is here, Mr Pritchard. He had the floor when we closed. You said, Mr Pritchard, that we would restart when things finished. I apologise for intervening on you.
The Chair
You are not intervening on me; I called you. You will not intervene on me, ever; I will call you on a point of order. Let us be clear about that.
I have been very tolerant on points of order. Let me make it absolutely clear: if there are to be other points of order, they will have to be different points of order. We are not going to go around the same procedural route with points of order that I have answered; I will not tolerate additional points of order that are just repetitions of previous points of order.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Let me finish answering this point of order first, please. Let me be absolutely clear: when the Division was called, I set out that it would be 15 minutes for the first vote and 10 minutes thereafter. I said that if the Minister and the shadow Minister were back, proceedings would continue. I was the first person back from the vote. If I can get to the front of the queue at my age, other people who are younger than me can get to the front of the queue.
It is not for the Chair to determine who gets back to the Committee Room first in order that they can carry on their previous point of order or make new points of order. I made it absolutely clear that the first vote, as set out procedurally, is always 15 minutes, followed by 10 minutes thereafter. However, on the last vote, if the Minister or the shadow Minister is in attendance, proceedings can continue. It is not for me to encourage Members to run or sidestep people in the Lobby to be here before the Minister and the shadow Minister or, indeed, the Chair.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. I was here earlier and, if I may correct you, you did say that this session would start at the end of the Divisions. We can check in Hansard, but I am pretty certain that that is what you said. If that is true, this session has started prematurely.
The Chair
I am grateful for that point of order, but I do not believe that that is the case. It would have been “or when the Minister and shadow Minister are in attendance”. I have been on the Panel of Chairs for only 10 years, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman is right, but I am pretty sure, having called many Divisions in many situations over those years, that I know we can proceed when the Minister and shadow Minister are in attendance.
Danny Kruger
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. I apologise for not being back as fast as everybody else. The point I was trying to make before we broke is that it is a great shame that this situation has arisen, and I regret the hard words that have been passed.
Although I agree with the sentiment of my right hon. and hon. Friends that, in a sense, there has been an irregularity in the attempt to withdraw names from the Committee, I understand what the Government are doing. Fundamentally, a mistake was made on the part of the Whips—let us be frank about this—in appointing to the Committee a series of people who, on record, have voted against the Windsor framework, which we are implementing today. I understand that the Whips wanted to change the plan, and I have great respect for my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been appointed to the Committee today, but I do not think it is fair for them to be asked to fulfil the duties of the Committee at such late notice.
My simple suggestion is that, given the mistake that has been made by the Whips on our side and the frankly bad blood that is now in evidence across the Committee Room, it is not appropriate to try to continue. On your part, Mr Pritchard, and on the part of the Front Benchers, surely it should be recognised that the Committee has to be reconstituted, no doubt with Members who are more amenable to the Government than some of us, and to continue on another occasion.
The Chair
I am grateful for that point of order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my comments earlier about Mr Speaker’s ruling. It is not a one-off. Colleagues may not like it, but Mr Speaker has made his ruling.
As I set out just before the hon. Gentleman joined the Committee again, Standing Order No. 118(5) requires that the Committee debate the motion
“That the committee has considered”
the draft regulations. The Clerk read out the title earlier; I have already called the Minister, and the motion is already in progress. As I said earlier, colleagues, who have clearly been moved to make points of order with such strength, will have other opportunities to raise their concerns with the Government on the Floor of the House about the procedural events, shall we say, of the past few hours.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. You were quite entitled not to take the points of order that I tried to make earlier or when we got back, although I would have liked to hear your consideration of them. It is a great pity that the Committee started in such a hurry when people were not back from the Division, including the representatives from Northern Ireland. Surely they, above all, should be here, given that this is such a fundamental measure for them.
I would like, in this point of order, to seek your guidance on how much time, according to your planning of this Committee, we now have left, because presumably the clock has been ticking for a little while during the Divisions. How could you regard that as at all adequate, given the intensity and range of views on what is a fundamental constitutional measure, as well as a very big economic measure, of great interest on both sides of the Irish sea?
The Chair
In answer to the right hon. Member’s question, this Committee sitting will end at 9.10 pm. On his wider point, I will say again that I said that when the Minister and shadow Minister were in attendance, we would proceed. The only caveat to that, which the right hon. Member will know—having been here longer than I have, as a distinguished parliamentarian—is that the Committee has to be quorate.
I am agnostic: I am not looking around at who is here, who is not, and who is supporting the Government. I am completely neutral in this. I am looking, procedurally, at whether the Minister and shadow Minister are here, and whether the Committee is quorate. I cannot just make up the rules as we go along. Otherwise, we would have chaos. I call the Minister.
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. To reiterate, I beg to move the motion. Before I start, I do recognise the concerns of right hon. and hon. Members and the care with which they have made their points. I hope that I can answer some of their questions in my speech. As ever, I hope that colleagues from across the House who know me know that I will always do my absolute best to answer questions. Whether I am able to do that in Committee or outside Committee, I will always, always endeavour to help with colleagues’ careful scrutiny of Government legislation.
The statutory instrument before us will provide United Kingdom authorities with powers in relation to postal packets or parcels moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. It does nothing more or less than that. It does not, itself, put in place the wider Windsor framework arrangements.
The powers are part of delivering what we promised for consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland. They are necessary to ensure that we can implement the Windsor framework and remove the burdensome regime that the old Northern Ireland protocol would ultimately have required. As I say, I am very aware of the sensitivities and the concerns; indeed, I hope that I can help to clarify what the framework itself requires in respect of parcel movements, so I will try to deal with that now.
If I may just take us back a moment, I think it is important to remember that the Northern Ireland protocol was negotiated in good faith and under extreme pressure. If we cast our minds back to the circumstances in 2019, it was negotiated in good faith, as I say, in an effort to provide solutions to the issues raised about trade, on the island of Ireland and within the United Kingdom, following our exit from the single market.
As the protocol began to be implemented, however, practical issues came to the fore. I know that there are right hon. and hon. Members present who were absolutely forthright, and I think very persuasive, in highlighting the problems that businesses in particular were facing. Our concern has always been that, had it been fully implemented, the Northern Ireland protocol would have required international customs processes for all parcel movements from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Nobody wants that. Indeed, that is why the Prime Minister, assisted by the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and—I will give him a shout-out in due course—the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), negotiated a deal with the EU that, frankly, few at the time dared to hope would be possible.
Victoria Atkins
If I may, I just want to set out the circumstances, because I very much hope that that will help with some of the concerns that have been raised. I know that there is a great deal of interest in these arrangements, so I am going to be absolutely clear with the Committee what these measures entail and, importantly, what impact they will have not just for our constituents, but for the United Kingdom family.
In short, someone in Great Britain sending a parcel to their friends or family in Northern Ireland will not need to engage with any customs processes. Nothing will change for those movements compared with today. Similarly, Northern Ireland recipients of parcels sent by their friends or family in Great Britain will not need to engage with any customs processes. Nothing changes compared with today. A grandchild in Blackpool—I pick Blackpool because that was where I went to school, and there is a wonderfully rich Irish community in and around Blackpool and Preston—sending a package to his grandparents in Belfast will not need to do anything new to send it and, importantly, the grandparents will not need to do anything new to receive it.
Businesses in Great Britain selling to consumers in Northern Ireland will not need to complete customs declarations, international or otherwise. Nothing changes. Northern Irish consumers buying from British sellers, including—hon. Members have raised this point with me—the likes of Amazon and other online shops, will not need to engage with any customs processes. Nothing changes. They will buy from the British seller and receive their goods without doing anything new; I say that very clearly for the sake of colleagues here today and for others outside this Committee Room who may be listening. Those facts are now recorded in Hansard and can be scrutinised. I say that very deliberately, so that those who have concerns understand exactly what we have set out in the framework.
The Windsor framework explicitly removes those requirements on goods being sold to Northern Ireland consumers and, of course, on goods being sent to friends and family. There will be no routine checks or controls applied to parcels. There will be interventions only on the basis of a risk-based, intelligence-led approach. That means that the overwhelming majority of parcels will not be subject to checks.
Parcels sent from a business in Great Britain to a business in Northern Ireland will be treated the same as equivalent freight movements. They can be moved through the new green lane when eligible, when it is introduced from October 2024.
Victoria Atkins
I promise I will give way to hon. Friends and Members.
As will be the case for freight movements, the green lane will ensure that eligible goods will no longer require international customs processes; they will instead require only the provision of routine commercial information.
Victoria Atkins
I must give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim.
John Redwood
The form of this statutory instrument is to amend regulations relating to foreign postal packets. It includes GB-NI postal packets alongside foreign postal packets in important matters in the regulations specified. How can the Government defend that? They are effectively treating Northern Ireland and GB as foreign countries to each other, accepting a form of regulation designed for a true international border and clearly violating the terms of the internal market legislation governing the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]
Victoria Atkins
If I may, I will address that point, and then I promise I will come to the hon. Member for North Antrim in due course. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham used that language, so that I can make it clear for the purposes of Hansard that this is not about trying to differentiate or draw lines around our precious Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Victoria Atkins
If I may, I will continue. In relation to the overwhelming majority of parcels, there will be no changes. The one instance in which there will be a requirement to go through green lane processes is where businesses are selling to business from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I accept that this is—in the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—a hard compromise. I accept that, and I say that with great respect, but we have to make the framework work because we have no alternative. I am not in the business—
Victoria Atkins
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment; I am still answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. Had the Prime Minister not negotiated the new Windsor framework, we would still be bound by the Northern Ireland protocol, and we know the many problems that that posed for both private residents and businesses, so this framework is a real step forward. This SI—which is a very, very small SI in the context of the framework, dealing as it does only with parcel movements—is a step forwards in ensuring that we protect the Union. However, I very much acknowledge and appreciate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has, that for people who are committed to the Union and to leaving the EU, it is a hard compromise, but I am afraid that it is one we must take.
Ian Paisley
The Minister has come to the nub of this matter, because this is about business-to-business trade. I want to know the statistics on which she has based the claim that the vast majority of parcels will be private trade; perhaps she could share those. Secondly, could she outline who will ultimately pay the additional cost that will be put on business to do these things and how long any support will be in place?
Thirdly, the Minister must accept that this measure has the potential to lead to a diversion of trade, forcing businesses in England that really cannot be bothered with the burden of filling in forms to send a very small amount of their overall trade parcel to Northern Ireland. That will force businesses in Northern Ireland to divert trade and do their business elsewhere. Does the Minister accept that that is the likely outcome of this two, three or four years down the line from now?
Fourthly, does the Minister accept that the green lane she has outlined is the safety valve for all of this, in terms of most businesses being able to operate in it? The fact of the matter is that most businesses cannot operate in the green lane—that the green lane is there for only a very few high-class businesses. The vast majority of businesses in Northern Ireland—about 20,000—will not be able to operate in the green lane structure.
Finally, can the Minister—
The Chair
Order. Interventions need to be short. The hon. Gentleman indicated to me earlier that he may wish to speak. He might have an opportunity to put his other points when he is called to speak. Interventions need to be short, as he well knows.
Ian Paisley
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is just because this is such a detailed business-to-business issue that I wanted to put those questions. To be fair to the Minister, I think she will actually try to answer them, which I hope will be helpful. Finally—
The Chair
Order. On that point, I have given latitude for four points of intervention rather than one. The hon. Gentleman will be called to speak if he rises from his chair later, and he will have another opportunity. I know that he is an experienced Member and will respect the view and ruling of the Chair.
Victoria Atkins
I will certainly answer the first of the points the hon. Gentleman made in his intervention—I was not able to catch them all, so I very much hope that he will be able to speak in due course. I will absolutely undertake to write to him if I am not able to deal with them in my speech.
I am told that about 5% of GB to NI parcel movements —please forgive the acronyms—are to Northern Ireland businesses. Within that 5%, the level of checks will be minimal, because we are applying this risk-based and intelligence-led approach to checks. We have not put a percentage on it, other than that it would be within that 5%, but we expect this to be minimal, because the very thing we want to encourage is trade between a thriving GB economy and a thriving Northern Irish economy.
In relation to the green lane and whether only a few businesses will be able to benefit, the answer is no. We expect the use of the green lane to be widespread. We are working to ensure that businesses in Northern Ireland and Great Britain know how to be eligible. Indeed, if there are any observations that the hon. Gentleman and others have as to the challenges that businesses face, or representations that they would like to make, will they please continue to work with us? We genuinely want to make this work for people and businesses—of course we do. As I said, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to continue his speech in due course.
To return to my own speech, I was trying to set out the requirements on businesses and, importantly, the lack of requirements on individuals, families, friends and so on. Movements via the red lane, including those goods destined for the EU, will be subject to the customs processes required by the EU, as I hope colleagues will understand.The Prime Minister negotiated the Windsor framework to ensure that consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, British businesses selling into Northern Ireland—could benefit by protecting internal trade within the UK.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I have a concern when it comes to the integrity of our United Kingdom, because the final sentence of paragraph 7.6 on page 3 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“This means that prior to this instrument coming into force, postal packets moving within the UK cannot be searched, seized or intercepted by HMRC or Border Force.”
This instrument will therefore change the internal integrity of our United Kingdom and is a huge giveaway of our country’s sovereignty.
Victoria Atkins
I am really pleased that my hon. Friend has brought that up, because it touches on the timing point that colleagues have raised. Understandably, colleagues have asked, “Why is this happening now? Why can’t it wait until October next year?” Of course, the Windsor framework arrangements will come into force in October next year, but there is a limited range of prohibited or restricted goods that are supposed to comply with EU customs rules today—for example, hazardous chemicals and chemicals that can deplete the ozone, and blood diamonds have also been mentioned to me. We do not have those powers at the moment, so we need to fill the gap as quickly as we can, so that in respect of those goods—
Victoria Atkins
May I finish the point, please? We need to ensure that Northern Ireland is not being used as a back door into the EU. I am coming at this matter not necessarily from the perspective of being particularly mindful of what may or may not happen in the single market—I do not know whether I am allowed to say that, but there we go—but because I do not want communities in Northern Ireland to be facing these pressures. I look across the room to those who know far better than I, but I am very conscious and have some small understanding of just how those pressures have been withstood valiantly in the past by communities in Northern Ireland. We want to do everything we can to support them in that and to ensure that they can continue to thrive.
Sammy Wilson
I am bemused by the Minister’s explanation. If she is concerned about hazardous substances, invasive species and the other things that are mentioned in the explanatory memorandum being transferred by post from GB to Northern Ireland, is she not also concerned about them being transferred in parcels from London to Scotland and London to Wales? If the regulations are all about protecting markets, why are the Government singling out Northern Ireland?
Victoria Atkins
I remind the Committee that we are looking at parcels, not at freight—although of course there are extensions in that regard. Of course, if items are being imported into Great Britain via Dover, Harwich, Immingham or wherever, there are separate powers on those goods to protect communities in Great Britain and, I would argue, further afield. I acknowledge the difficulties, particularly for those representing Unionist interests in Northern Ireland, but we wish to move these issues forward, and the Windsor framework is a good deal for the United Kingdom as a whole.
We need powers now to stop non-Northern Irish recipients using Northern Ireland as a back door, which is why we are so keen to pass this provision quickly and to make progress. I imagine that businesses in Northern Ireland, and businesses in Great Britain that wish to conduct business with Northern Ireland, will want to ensure that we can do this as quickly as we can. This was a significant deal for the Government, and I absolutely understand and respect the wish to scrutinise it, but we have to move forwards with this.
Sir James Duddridge
The list of goods seems quite general, and I was wondering whether there were more specifics. It refers to
“restricted goods, for example invasive alien species or ozone depleting substances”.
In particular, I am mindful of a company in Shoeburyness that exports seeds. It has already stopped exporting to some EU countries because of problems as a result of Brexit, but I could see it giving up unless there is a definitive list. Is there a list, or will one come out through a further SI?
Victoria Atkins
I want to ensure that I can provide the list to my hon. Friend now. However, just on that wider subject, the situation that he has described is exactly what we want to try to avoid in the future. He will know that there was uncertainty about how the protocol would apply. I think it was the chairman of Marks & Spencer at the time who came on to the radio at some point and talked about the 50 or so checks that M&S had to go through to send products to its stores in Northern Ireland. We want to cut through all of that, and I hope the Windsor framework will help the businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I also hope that he will know that we are putting a great deal of effort into the trader support service to help businesses to navigate these new customs duties. Of course, that is in the freight space as well. The Government want to grow the economy and our relationship with businesses. I am very helpfully reminded that there is published guidance on gov.uk already, but I am happy to provide it separately to my hon. Friend if he wishes to see the complete list. It is published on there already.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I congratulate her on the clarity with which she is explaining the issue. I will stress that there are people in Northern Ireland who support the Windsor framework and appreciate that it is a good deal. Obviously, with Brexit, there are no perfect solutions to these situations.
Just building on the answer that the Minister has just given about the trader support service, does she recognise that there is a potential role for the Government beyond that to try to promote to GB-based businesses the requirements in terms of selling into Northern Ireland? I think that is an area where more work can be done without impinging directly upon the legal framework that has been agreed.
Victoria Atkins
I am very open to ideas and suggestions, particularly from those parliamentarians who represent Northern Ireland, as to how we can improve that understanding within the Northern Irish business community but also, importantly, here in Great Britain, because I want businesses to continue trading, and indeed to grow their trade, with Northern Ireland.
There are experts in this room who know just how ambitious and powerful the messages of support were from the international community when the Windsor framework was signed about the opportunities available for this corner of the United Kingdom, so I very much hope that this measure is seen as part of that drive and that ambition to help Northern Irish businesses to grow.
Ian Paisley
I would like to come back to the point where the Minister indicated, essentially, that there will be discrimination between businesses, business dealings and trade. The Minister claims that this issue has been addressed and that this measure is compliant with the European convention on human rights. How does it comply with article 14 of the ECHR, which prevents discrimination between businesses and individuals?
Victoria Atkins
Again, I just remind the Committee that we are dealing with parcel movements here; we are not litigating the entirety of the Windsor framework. As I say, we think it is a really positive step forward for the whole of the United Kingdom. Of course the hon. Gentleman is looking at it—quite rightly—very particularly through the lens of his constituents and Northern Ireland. However, in terms of the whole United Kingdom, and of all our businesses being able to have that certainty about how to deal with the EU, both in relation to Northern Ireland and in our wider relations with the EU, it is a good thing. After years of discussion, we now have an agreement that really gives us all, I hope, some clarity and certainty as to how we will conduct trade with the EU in the future.
As I say, I appreciate that hon. Members have rightly been scrutinising some parts of the agreement, but on the article 14 point, I am required as a Minister to satisfy myself as to the measures. I gently point to the fact that, in terms of individuals to individuals, nothing changes and, in relation to businesses—GB to NI only—nothing changes. It is simply where there may be onward traffic to the EU—as indeed, would be the case if there were onward traffic to the US—that that duty may be payable. I am veering into freight; I am conscious that, in relation to the small group of transactions we are talking about, there is a certain amount of overlap or mirroring, but we are, again, looking just at parcel movements for this SI.
Ian Paisley
The Minister talks about business to business, but who does business? It is people; people do business. Business to business is about people, and their rights—the company rights and the individual rights of the people doing business—are being trampled upon. Where businesses are doing that business on behalf of other people and consumers, those people are being discriminated against in terms of cost and the diversion of trade, and there will be general discrimination because we in Northern Ireland will be treated differently from the rest of the UK, or the rest of the UK will be treated differently from Northern Ireland—the point the Minister made to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim.
Victoria Atkins
Again, I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention as fully as I can. The Windsor framework does not introduce any discrimination against anyone. Businesses do not have human rights in the same way that individuals do. Articles 6, 2 and 8 do not apply to businesses. On his point about the business treatment, the Windsor framework is a positive step forward from what would have happened under the Northern Irish protocol. We have to operate under what would have been because I cannot pretend that the protocol did not exist or that those strictures would not come in in due course. As I say, that is not a commentary on what was negotiated at the time under those extremely difficult circumstances, but the United Kingdom and the EU have got around the table, acknowledged the significant difficulties that have been identified and come up with the Windsor framework, which answers all those concerns and does so, I would say, in a way that really moves our relationship with the EU forward.
Victoria Atkins
If I may, I will make a little progress, but I hope that colleagues feel that I have been generous with interventions.
The Government need to ensure that the powers of HMRC and Border Force are sufficient to allow them to monitor the rules for movements of parcels and that, where certain requirements are in place—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East made—for movements intended ultimately for the EU, they can be enforced. We need to be able to determine that parcels destined for the EU can be detected and to ensure that they follow the requirements of the red lane.
I know from conversations outside the Committee Room that some colleagues have read the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report into the rationale for bringing the instrument into force on 31 August. As I have said, some existing rules apply to prevent illicit movements of certain categories of goods, such as invasive species or ozone-depleting chemicals, which is why we are bringing these powers forward to HMRC and Border Force at this time, rather than waiting over a year.
The Committee’s report also noted the arguments submitted to it that the regulations would contravene the principle of unfettered access within the UK by introducing a customs border. Indeed, I have carefully noted the submission by the Democratic Unionist party about its concerns relating to the Good Friday agreement. We acknowledge, as I have said throughout, that there are a range of views on the Windsor framework itself, but these regulations are discrete and relate solely to the powers available to HMRC and Border Force. That said, I hope that I have been able to clarify for hon. Members and hon. Friends what the framework does and does not do, and therefore what the powers granted by the regulations will monitor and enforce.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Pritchard, for bringing us to a meaningful debate on this matter. I also thank the Minister; she has been dealt a difficult hand here and she is handling it very well.
The Minister has referred several times to smallness and how this is about small packets, but these are actually big principles. I want to be reassured by what she is saying, but I have a question. It relates specifically to business and the package of information that was brought into the Committee room containing submissions, including the DUP’s submission. I will quote one submission from the Road Haulage Association, on page 15, by way of example. It gives several examples of where the regulations will be changed by this provision:
“after ‘foreign postal packets’ insert ‘and all GB-NI postal packets’”.
So the revised version will read
“foreign postal packets and all GB-NI postal packets”.
In other words,
“movements from GB to NI are no longer considered on the same domestic terms as movements between England, Wales and Scotland”.
Does the Minister understand why there is confusion about this? Does she understand how it causes me and others to have concerns about the introduction of a border within the United Kingdom? Perhaps she can explain why that treatment, in that way, does not constitute an internal border within the United Kingdom.
Victoria Atkins
I genuinely thank my hon. Friend and acknowledge the spirit in which he asked those questions.
Historically, the role of postal parcels has not necessarily been defined in freight. As I said before, with that precise wording we are trying to ensure mirroring for this small cohort—so not between individuals or between businesses to Northern Irish individuals; that does not change. However, we do want to ensure that the mirroring in relation to green lanes and red lanes of freight is clear when it comes to those parcels.
We have been dreaming up interesting examples today in preparation for this, but I have used the example of lace. A business in Great Britain may produce lace and send it to a business in Belfast that makes dresses. If that business sells the dresses within Northern Ireland or back to GB, it will not be affected; it will not see any changes. This kicks in only if some of the dresses are sold to Dublin or further afield. We have tried to ensure that the regulations mirror each other, whether one sends a parcel by post or in a great big container.
I reiterate that the vast majority of parcels will move without any additional requirements on parcel recipients in Northern Ireland. We have pushed genuinely very hard to ensure that the interests of Northern Irish consumers, and of GB businesses selling to Northern Ireland, are protected. There are huge improvements compared with the previous protocol, but we need to manage the risk in relation to movements across the Irish border in order to avoid EU tariffs and regulatory controls. We fully accept that this is a trade-off, but we have put protecting people and businesses in Northern Ireland at the very forefront of our efforts, to try to ensure that we get to a proportioned approach in this mechanism. I hope that answers my hon Friend’s question.
John Redwood
I thought that, in law, and certainly politically, the Good Friday agreement took precedence over other agreements, given its importance. How is this measure in any way compatible with the Good Friday agreement when it does not have the consent of the Unionist community—an important underlying principle of the whole agreement? I would also like to assure the Minister that I do not use the phrase “hard compromise”, and I have not been recommending these kinds of proposals.
Victoria Atkins
I am sorry; I did not catch my right hon. Friend’s last point. Would he repeat it?
John Redwood
I thought the Minister implied earlier that I thought that this was a hard compromise. I do not; I think it is bad policy.
Victoria Atkins
I think my right hon. Friend misheard me. I was referring to the Northern Ireland Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I would not dream of putting words in the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.
A point was made about the Road Haulage Association. The answer to that intervention is that the powers were available to Border Force in respect of international movements. We understand the sensitivities and the concerns raised about making powers available for GB to NI movements, but we would say that that is not the same as making these international movements.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham asked a very important question about the Good Friday agreement. We do not accept that this is contrary to the Good Friday agreement. These regulations are in fact an enabler to the agreement that we have negotiated. As I said, we have ensured that consumer interests in Northern Ireland and the interests of British businesses selling to Northern Ireland are protected, but that means that an incentive now exists to move goods into Northern Ireland and take them across the Irish border to avoid EU tariffs. If we are to manage that risk—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. So that we are absolutely clear, we will return here after 15 minutes if there is one Division. For subsequent Divisions, 10 minutes will be allowed. If the Minister and shadow Minister are present and we are quorate, the proceedings will resume.
Victoria Atkins
I am conscious of the interest in the room, so to give others a chance to speak I propose to sum up very quickly by simply saying that the parcels arrangements are a significant improvement for UK citizens compared with the requirements under the old Northern Ireland protocol. However, it is vital to understand how little will change compared to the status quo for the vast majority of Northern Irish parcel recipients and those in Great Britain sending goods to them. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
The new time for the end of the proceedings will be 21 minutes past 9. I ask colleagues to rise if they wish to speak, in order to help the Clerks and the Chair. There is no time limit on speeches, but speakers may want to be mindful of allowing the shadow Minister and the Minister to respond to the debate.
Sammy Wilson
This appears rather a flimsy instrument, but when one reads through it, it is clear that it is dynamite. It blows apart the promise made that the Windsor framework ensures we remove any sense of a border in the Irish sea. In fact, this legislation will ensure that the border is deepened, made higher and cemented in place, and some of the temporary arrangements in the protocol will now be made permanent. Any change to them will be made not by legislation in this House but on the basis of whether the EU is prepared to change its legislation. In effect, once these regulations are passed, we become totally subject to the EU, amending article 7 and changing the rules about what are legal and what are illegal goods going into Northern Ireland and being obliged then to put in place the necessary border provisions. This does not protect the Union. I know that the Minister had a hard job today, and she repeated almost ad nauseam “Oh, the Windsor framework is better than the protocol.” The fact of the matter is that the instrument is only one piece of the jigsaw that will further remove Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Let us just look at the draft regulations. Why are they necessary? Because there are things that cannot be done by HMRC and Border Force under existing legislation. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that certain things that currently cannot be done need to be done. Why do they need to be done, and how do we ensure that they will be done? The draft regulations make it quite clear that Border Force and HMRC need to be able to carry out searches and interference on goods moving from GB into Northern Ireland, which they currently cannot do for movements within the United Kingdom.
The way in which we do that is by treating Northern Ireland as a foreign country. That is why not once, but six times in this short piece of legislation, we read that “GB to Northern Ireland” is added to regulations that currently refer only to foreign goods. Northern Ireland is effectively being treated as if it were a country that is foreign to the rest of the UK, and therefore the requirements and arrangements can be put in place for HMRC and Border Force to interfere with postal arrangements, which previously they could not do. Of course, you cannot import or export within your own country, so you change the definition in order to ensure that goods moving from GB to Northern Ireland are regarded as exports. We are now lumped in with foreign countries; indeed, references to the UK have now been changed to GB. I do not care what the Minister says about protecting the Union and not trying to redraw lines. In anybody’s definition, it amounts to Northern Ireland now being treated as a foreign country.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
This is the first time that I have seen Northern Ireland treated separately from the rest of the United Kingdom in UK legislation. Is that the right hon. Gentleman’s understanding as well? It is quite an alarming signal.
Sammy Wilson
That is one of the reasons why I say this is dynamite, because it exposes the lie being peddled at present that the Windsor framework actually cements us into the United Kingdom. It does not; it pushes us further out.
The second point I want to make is that businesses have been kept in the dark. In fact, the scrutiny Committee pointed out that many businesses do not know what the arrangements are, and the Government have not even been able to give an answer on what the new arrangements are going to be. What will they entail? What provision will there be? The Minister argues that there will be no effect and that, if anything, be better for person-to-person parcels. She says that there will be no effect on business to consumers and that there will be some effect on business to business. The truth of the matter, though, is that once this legislation is passed, the EU will have total control over what movements need to be checked, and our Government will have no say about what happens in Northern Ireland.
John Redwood
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has already been diversion of trade away from GB into Northern Ireland, and is he worried that the draft regulations will create a lot more diversion of trade away from GB?
Sammy Wilson
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: that is the problem. In the absence of detailed knowledge about what the new arrangements will be, businesses will simply turn their back on Northern Ireland. I spoke to a constituent today who wanted to buy a mattress from Argos. Although Argos clearly brings goods into Northern Ireland, that was obviously inconvenient for it and it simply said, “We don’t sell mattresses to Northern Ireland any longer.” That is exactly what is happening. Even if the Minister is correct, the threat that there will be different arrangements for taking goods and postal packages into Northern Ireland will discourage businesses from entering into those kinds of arrangements. We are already seeing the diversion of trade.
The Government’s argument is that the draft regulations improve the situation, but actually, they do not. If we had stopped even with the provisions of the protocol, the grace periods would have prevented this from happening. It does not happen at present. If the Government really want there to be no interference, why not stick with the grace periods? Why not make it clear that the regulations are not needed? There has been no leakage during the grace periods, and there is no evidence that hazardous goods and so on are moving into the EU. Why did the Government not take that stance? Why are the Government still not taking that stance? There would then be no need for the regulations.
Sir James Duddridge
I did not really understand the grace period, although I read about it. Does it refer to Brexit and the pre-protocol period, or is it something slightly more technical dealing with parcels?
Sammy Wilson
It was recognised that not even the infrastructure was in place to deal with all the parcels that come from GB to Northern Ireland. It was also known that, politically, this would create a huge storm, so a concession was made. The Government simply said, “It is impossible for us to implement the protocol, so we’re not going to implement that bit of it,” and the EU accepted that, so why has that situation not been left to pertain? The protection of the grace periods has now been removed, and we are introducing legislation that gives the EU the ability to say what are licit and illicit goods.
The Minister said that we do not need to worry, but we are told that one of the reasons this legislation is necessary now is that there are concerns about goods that affect the ozone layer, and that invasive species might be transferred, so we need protections. What happens if, in the future, the EU says, “People have found a way around this. They have decided that they can send those things from Sammy Wilson to somebody else in Northern Ireland”? Can the EU then use that as an argument for expanding the parcels regulations and demanding that parcels that go from one person to another be inspected too?
I asked a businessperson today, “How many of your goods do you expect to go through the green lane and be exempt? How many are business-to-business goods that are exclusively for consumption in Northern Ireland?” He said, “We don’t even know, because there has been no assessment of the kinds of parcels that are being sent at present. We have to assume that about 75% of parcels will have to go through the red lane.” I asked him, “What does that mean in terms of delays and costs?” I was told that, currently, the costs for goods that go through the full process from England through Dublin are higher than the freight costs themselves; the process used to take two days, but it now takes five days. We can see immediately how businesses in Northern Ireland will be affected by this change.
The Minister cannot run away from the arguments. First, this legislation undermines the Union; secondly, it will be costly to business; thirdly, even now the Government cannot tell businesses what new arrangements will be put in place; and, fourthly, there is no guarantee that the EU, when it has control through these regulations, will not use them in a way that the Government do not expect. That is why I believe that these regulations are flawed. They are not needed, they are a surrender to the demands of the EU, and they change the nature of the relationship between Northern Ireland and the UK.
Adam Afriyie
I am very much enjoying listening to the right hon. Gentleman,, and I thank him for allowing me one last intervention. Does he have any concerns about the power of the European Union to change these regulations—going way back to the Act of Union, not just the current regulations?
Sammy Wilson
They do. Even the explanatory notes make it quite clear that this will be subject to the EU still abiding by article 7 of the protocol. If the EU decides to say, “Look, article 7 isn’t working”—for whatever reason, maybe people are bypassing it—they can change it, and we do not have any say at that stage. We have handed control over the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland to a foreign entity.
The Chair
Order. I remind colleagues that we have six minutes left, and I am sure they want to hear the response of the Minister and shadow Minister. No? Okay, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East does not want to speak now. Shadow Minister—
Sir James Duddridge
No, Mr Pritchard. There are four or five people standing. When you said “want to hear the shadow Minister”, I was shaking my head, because I did not want to hear the shadow Minister until there had been proper debate. I have a number of points to make, and there are four or five people on this side who want to speak. I thought that the right hon. Member for East Antrim was taking an intervention. He was taking an intervention and had sat down, so it was not the right point for me to rise. The Government have not provided enough time. We are not going to get through the speakers. We are not going to go through the normal protocols here. It is not my fault, Mr Pritchard. It is the Government’s fault.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman, as a former Whip, knows that the timetable is set in another place, not by me as the Chair. I made it quite clear what time these proceedings would conclude. Sammy Wilson, if you want to continue, that is fine, and you can use the whole time, but if Members of the Committee want to hear from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, briefly, and then from the Government Minister responding to some of the points raised in the debate, that is entirely up to them. The question will be put at 21 minutes past.
Sammy Wilson
I was just giving way, Mr Pritchard, and then once I have, I will sit down.
Jonathan Gullis
The right hon. Gentleman was outlining the fact that this will be subject to EU regulations—article 7 of the protocol. Would the celebrated brake in the Windsor framework be able to be applied to the legislation, in his understanding?
Sammy Wilson
No, it would not, because the brake itself is totally ineffective. We have already had a huge debate on that in the past. With that, I will sit down, as I understand that there are people who wish to speak.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. As we have seen, there has been a meaningful debate today. I welcome the opportunity to address the measures laid out in the draft statutory instrument on behalf of the Opposition.
Sir James Duddridge
No, I rose to make a speech, and I believe that at least four other individuals behind me also rose to make a speech.
The Chair
I will say to the hon. Gentleman that he is on the speaking list. Every time he does these interventions and points of order, he is just eating into the time. I know the Minister will want to respond to some of the points that he and others have raised. If he wants to continue, that is fine—
The Chair
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat if he is not intervening on the shadow Minister. Unless she has accepted the intervention, he has to resume his seat. As I said at the beginning and in the proceedings after the votes, points of order that have previously been made will not be taken. I ask the hon. Gentleman again to please resume his seat.
Abena Oppong-Asare
As the Minister knows, the Opposition support the Windsor framework, and, as the Leader of the Opposition said in response to the Prime Minister’s statement on the Northern Ireland protocol in February, the red and green lanes proposal is a good one. I just have a few questions for the Minister about the explanatory memorandum, which makes clear the introduction of new powers that will be important both to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and UK Border Force to manage the risks of circumvention of the UK’s new obligations. Given the staffing pressures at HMRC in recent years, will she confirm that analysis has been done as to whether there is sufficient capacity in HMRC and Border Force to implement the regulations effectively? I have a number of other questions but intend to make interventions on those points.
Victoria Atkins
We acknowledge the range of views on the framework, but I emphasise that the SI is solely concerned with the powers available to HMRC and Border Force to ensure that the improvements in respect of policies that we have secured through the Windsor framework are implemented.
Victoria Atkins
I would like to answer the shadow Minister’s questions and then I will happily give way.
In terms of HMRC, we are fully confident that we have the staff and resources to meet the expectations of not just this element, but the whole Windsor framework.
Victoria Atkins
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East.
Sir James Duddridge
I was standing to be called in the debate to make my 18 points; I was not asking the Minister to give way—apologies.
The Chair
Order. I must now put the question.
Question put:—
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. Would you confirm that you will be asking only those who are officially on the Committee to vote?
The Chair
Before I finalise proceedings this evening, may I say to right hon. and hon. Members that the strength of feeling has been heard by the Chair? I have been in the Chair 10 years and have never seen such a strong objection to some of what has gone on. As a neutral Chair, I cannot rule or take a view on that, but I can say to colleagues that the Clerks and I have heard them and we will pass back that strength of feeling to Mr Speaker.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Women and Equalities
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Ferrier
Current legislation requires all public facilities to have sanitary bins in female and gender-neutral toilets. However, as highlighted by the Boys Need Bins campaign, hygiene bins need to be provided in men’s toilets. What steps is the Minister taking to introduce legislation that addresses that issue?
Maria Caulfield
I reassure the hon. Lady that work is going on in that space. My ministerial colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions are looking at this, and will be updating the House shortly.
[Official Report, 12 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 338.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier).
The correct response should have been:
Maria Caulfield
I reassure the hon. Lady that work is going on in that space. My ministerial colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are looking into this.
Transport
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Can I ask the roads Minister about the lower Thames crossing project? In particular, what steps is the DFT taking to ensure that companies such as Murphy Group respect basic workers’ rights to join a trade union when bidding for major transport contracts?
Mr Holden
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who is the Minister for the future of transport, met Murphy Group this week.
[Official Report, 13 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 491.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris).
The correct response should have been:
Mr Holden
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who is the Minister for the future of transport, met with Matt Palmer, executive director of lower Thames crossing, to discuss LTC this week.
Treasury
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am a little concerned about the £1.425 billion to be found from within the Department for Education’s existing budget between now and 2025, with £525 million this financial year and a further £900 million in the next financial year. Will the Minister be a bit more specific about exactly where that will be taken from within the Department’s budget to meet the teachers’ pay increase? While of course we welcome the fact that the Government are honouring the teachers’ pay review body recommendations, let us not forget that the envelope for the review bodies is set by the Government in the first place. There is something else going on in this situation: we currently have a recruitment and retention crisis among our teaching workforce, with something like 20% of newly qualified teachers leaving after three years and 40% leaving after five years. Nobody goes into teaching because of the money, but it always helps, and a rise in line with inflation would certainly help.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I think he welcomes what we have decided to do with the 6.5% pay increase, which leaves a typical teacher with £44,300. We are reprioritising within the Department for Education’s existing budget to deliver the additional funding to schools, but we are protecting core schools funding and frontline services. We have put in additional sums of money through the spending review and subsequent fiscal events: £330 million in 2023-24 and £550 million in 2024-25. The numbers add up, and he will recognise that.
[Official Report, 13 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 533.]
Letter of correction from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).
The correct response should have been:
John Glen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I think he welcomes what we have decided to do with the 6.5% pay increase, which leaves a typical teacher with £44,300. We are reprioritising within the Department for Education’s existing budget to deliver the additional funding to schools, but we are protecting core schools funding and frontline services. We have put in additional sums of money to fully fund this pay award: £525 million in 2023-24 and £900 million in 2024-25. The numbers add up, and he will recognise that.
Education
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon
I also think that it is important that we do not paint just a partial picture. We should look at the 10% uplift in T-level funding, the £300 million that we are spending on institutes of technology, the £115 million spending on higher technical qualifications, which are now being taught in more than 70 institutions, the £2.7 billion that we will be spending on apprenticeships by 2025, the up to £500 million that is being spent on Multiply, and the many millions of pounds being spent on boot camps. Billions and billions of pounds are being spent on skills, which is absolutely right.
[Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol. 735, c. 893.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). The correct response should have been:
Robert Halfon
I also think that it is important that we do not paint just a partial picture. We should look at the 10% uplift in T-level funding, the £300 million that we are spending on institutes of technology, the £115 million spending on higher technical qualifications, which are now being taught in more than 70 institutions, the £2.7 billion that we will be investing in apprenticeships by 2025, the up to £500 million that is being spent on Multiply, and the many millions of pounds being spent on boot camps. Billions and billions of pounds are being spent on skills, which is absolutely right.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the apprenticeship budget. We spent 99% of the apprenticeship budget, and let us not forget that we send hundreds of millions to the devolved authority, so the levy is being used.
[Official Report, 5 July 2023, Vol. 735, c. 896.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The correct response should have been:
Robert Halfon
The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the apprenticeship budget. We spent 99% of the apprenticeship budget, and let us not forget that we send hundreds of millions to the devolved Administrations, so the levy is being used.
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
Teaching Assistant Pay
(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
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 620264, relating to pay for teaching assistants.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. Some 88,410 people signed this petition, including 178 in my constituency. The Petitions Committee received 22,506 responses to its survey, of which 84% were teaching assistants and 3% were former teaching assistants. Some 5% were teachers or headteachers, while 4% were other staff who work in a school. Some 2% were close friends or family members of a teaching assistant, and 1% were parents or guardians of a school-age child.
This issue is particularly close to my heart, because before I was elected as the Member of Parliament for Gower, I was a secondary school teacher, and I have worked with dozens of teaching assistants over my career, which also included eight years working in the north-west of England in four different schools. I know at first hand how invaluable the support that they provide is in not just running a classroom, but supporting pupils to achieve their full potential. I have also seen how their roles over the years have been dismissed and devalued—the last in the list when it comes to progression and development, but the first roles to be cut when budgets are. There is an expectation of unpaid after-hours work just to fill the gaps left by schools when they are cutting budgets and when public services are being cut more broadly, and they provide key pastoral care and wellbeing support. In far too many cases, they must provide physical support when they are neither trained nor remunerated for that work.
The petition calls for the work that teaching assistants do to be reflected in their pay. Before I discuss the issue specifically, I will tell hon. Members more about the work that teaching assistants do, as it is clear that the role they play in our schools is not fully understood. In fact, the Government’s own “Opportunity for all: strong schools with great teachers for your child” White Paper published in March 2022 used the phrase “teaching assistant” only twice, and it failed to mention their pay or progression. Teaching assistants take on a variety of roles, from ensuring that students have nutritious meals in school to delivering structured interventions to help pupils to progress, working and planning closely with classroom teachers and senior leaders. They play a key role in tackling inequalities and improving attainment, especially for those pupils who are falling behind, or who have additional special learning or mental health needs or behavioural issues.
Research by the Education Endowment Foundation found that teaching assistants who provide one-to-one or small, group-targeted interventions can result in pupils achieving between four and six additional months’ progress on average. A 2019 research project for the Department for Education found that senior leaders placed a high value on the capacity of teaching assistants to improve classroom management and other staff workload pressures. Those same senior managers reported that budget restraints saw teaching assistants being forced to do more and more without corresponding increases in pay.
Teaching assistants are doing that work in an increasingly challenging environment. The impact of the pandemic is still being felt strongly in schools and across communities, with the crisis in children’s mental health and wellbeing being one of the starkest reminders to us all. There has been a 77% rise in the number of children needing specialist treatment for a severe mental health crisis from April to October 2021, compared with April to October 2019; in that context, the care and attention provided by teaching assistants is more vital than ever before.
Research by the University of Portsmouth, commissioned by Unison, found that the covid period “remade” the teaching assistant role, and that the changes are likely to be long lasting. The role has become even more varied, intense and emotionally demanding, with more support being given to parents and carers, and more backfilling for specialist staff; add to that the fact that there is a desperate lack of places in specialist schools, and the role of a teaching assistant has become more and more complex. There are also many parents who wish for their child to have mainstream education and not be put in a specialist educational environment. Therefore, the role of a teaching assistant, as I have seen at first hand, is key for inclusivity in all classrooms and schools across the United Kingdom.
A Unison survey found that many teaching assistants were expected to provide medical as well as educational support. Twenty seven per cent reported providing physical therapy, 65% reported supporting pupils with toileting and soiling incidents—and that was not just in primary schools—and 7% were providing assistance with both catheters and colostomy bags. While they provide that essential support, the survey found that 48% of teaching assistants do not feel valued as a member of staff by their school. There is a real concern about the experiences of teaching assistants that we cannot ignore.
A study by the University of Roehampton found that teaching assistants were kicked, punched and spat at by pupils, with one interviewee experiencing a spinal injury and forced to take early retirement; that is not the first such case that I have heard of throughout my career. Some teaching assistants reported that violent students were given lesser sanctions for attacking them than they would receive for attacking teachers or senior managers. The prevalence of physical violence against teaching assistants, many of whom are women, risks normalising violence against women to children who are present, as well as being entirely unacceptable to classroom staff. One teaching assistant responding to the Committee’s survey said:
“The amount of children coming into mainstream schools with behavioural problems is increasing and some are very violent which is hard to cope with physically and mentally. It also has an impact on the rest of the children in the class as it disrupts their learning, and they also get very distressed. It falls on TAs to work with these children without any training. It’s unfair on staff and children as there is no support for us.”
Working in such conditions, it cannot be surprising that nearly 50% of those surveyed by Unison are actively looking for better paid work. I know from my own experience that many of the women I worked with who were teaching assistants moved on to other work or had numerous jobs. Teaching assistants are some of the lowest paid public sector workers, sitting at the bottom of local government pay scales. The majority of local authorities use the National Joint Council pay spine, and although academy trusts are not obligated to use that scale, some do. The bottom end of the NJC pay spine is lower than the living wage. The mean salary of full-time and part-time teaching assistants in state-funded schools in England from 2020 to 2021 was only £19,000. One respondent to the Committee’s survey highlighted the reality of the pay for teaching assistants:
“Poor pay is now a real concern. Due to my hours being term time only and this is pro rata over the year. I actually only bring home around £14k which is a very poor salary in today’s situation.”
The average take-home salary for a teaching assistant is £14,211.
It is an issue that depends on the person’s sex. Many women who are mothers find that working as a teaching assistant will fit in with their children and be convenient. But we do not want it to be a job of convenience; it has to be a job with pay progression that also offers the right work environment. As I said, 92% of teaching assistants are women, and the chronic undervaluing of what is perceived as women’s work has created a situation where key workers find themselves below the poverty line. Is it any wonder that, along with nearly half of teaching assistants looking for new roles with better pay, 28% are having to take on second or third jobs to make ends meet, and 43% have had to borrow money from family?
The impact of low pay is amplified by the cost of living crisis, particularly where we find ourselves today. In response to a 2022 survey by the GMB, one teaching assistant said:
“It is very stressful trying to manage bills and food costs. We now wear extra layers and use hot water bottles as we are extremely worried about finding the money to pay the bills and not get into debt.”
Members of the GMB report that they regularly pay for essential items such as food and toilet paper for their schools and pupils out of their own pockets. I saw that happening in all my teaching jobs—before covid and before I was in this place.
Only 4% of respondents to the survey agreed with the statement “my pay is keeping up with the cost of living,” because it is not. Sixty-six per cent said that they could not afford necessities for themselves each month, and 73% said they could not afford necessities for their families. This response from one teaching assistant really sums up the issue:
“We work at home unpaid to prepare resources, do research and training. We often stay late and arrive early also unpaid. I would like our pay to reflect the role we do. I am a mother of three. Myself and my husband work full time... I eat less to feed my children, I go without clothes, haircuts and non-essentials to make sure my children have all they need.”
Low wages do not only impact current teaching assistants. The disparity between these wages and other comparable work means that schools are struggling to attract and retain new teaching assistants. The Education Research, Innovation and Consultancy Unit has warned that there is a
“new emergency over TA recruitment and retention”,
which the Minister will be aware of. In 2020, it was reported that vacancy rates were higher for teaching assistants than for any other occupation, and 90% of teaching assistants who responded to the Committee’s survey said that they had considered leaving the role. One respondent, who is a headteacher, said:
“Teaching assistants are one of the most important resources in my school. I am losing highly skilled, trained, experienced TAs who are leaving to take up posts in supermarkets and other work which is paid better.”
That is not to undermine the value of retail work, but it does highlight the impact of low wages on retaining—as another respondent said—“amazing teaching assistants”.
Recent research by SchoolDash found that support staff vacancies are up by 85% compared with before the pandemic. Numerous other employers, from supermarkets to warehouses, are now offering variations on term-time only contracts in a direct attempt to recruit school support staff on more competitive terms than schools can offer. It should not be a competition. In addition to low pay, school support staff are cut off from career development opportunities as they are ineligible for careers programmes, scholarships and the new national professional qualifications, which currently apply only to teachers, school leaders and special educational needs co-ordinators.
The decisions we make about our education system should be driven by what is best for pupils, and teaching assistants have an enormous positive impact on their attainment and experience. Teaching assistants are proven to improve classroom behaviour, which is especially true for children who are all too often let down by mainstream education. Teaching assistants are reported to be effective at lowering exclusion rates for particular groups where they are often deployed to provide personal learning support, including pupils identified with special educational needs and disabilities, those with poor mental health, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children. Despite that, teaching assistants are not eligible for the SEN allowance afforded to teachers. According to the Department for Education’s own review of academic evidence, 91% of primary school teachers and 75% of secondary school teachers were very or fairly confident about the positive impact of support staff on pupils’ learning, and other studies have found that teaching assistants can have a positive effect on children in their care.
Our schooling system is severely underfunded, with real-terms pay cuts, the closing of services and crumbling buildings; this is what we have to show for a decade of under-investment in the future of our children. In the long term, our education system needs a radical new approach to funding, but as a first step towards that much-needed reform I can think of no better place to start than improving the salary and recognition of teaching assistants.
I close my remarks with a quote from a teacher in response to the Committee’s survey:
“[Teaching assistants] are all too often the only reason a student will stay in school. Their nurturing nature and patience is priceless, their ability to break down work so a student can understand is phenomenal. Pay them what they deserve!”
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I do not plan to speak at length but am happy to speak briefly. I very much welcome the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) making the case for teaching assistants, and I should declare a family interest: I am the brother of a teaching assistant who works in special educational needs setting. I recognise the incredibly important work that teaching assistants do, which the hon. Lady has encapsulated well.
We would all like to see everyone in the education system better paid for what they do and their activities recognised, but I want to highlight the specific challenge, particularly for our special educational needs schools, when it comes to funding teaching assistants. In the recently announced pay offer, which I strongly welcome, we saw an improvement to the usual situation in that the offer covers not just schools, but further education; that is very welcome. The challenge, though, is that when successive Governments have funded teachers’ pay, they have not provided the same support for schools when it comes to teaching assistants’ pay. Even the lower increases that we have seen through the local authority pay bands have not been funded by the Treasury and the Department for Education in the same way that the teachers’ pay increases have over the years. That has increased the pressure on schools, particularly special educational needs schools, such as Fort Royal Primary School in my constituency, which have to—quite rightly, in order to meet need—employ a large number of teaching assistants.
I know that the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), will quite rightly point out that the Government have more than doubled high needs funding—I welcome that and know there is significantly more money going into the area—but that doubling of funding is in response to demand and to what the Children’s Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has acknowledged is a rising level of need in our schools. I speak in this debate to urge my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister to consider how, particularly with our special educational needs schools, but also with our mainstream schools that are supporting more and more children with SEN, we can ensure that pay awards reach teaching assistants and, crucially, that they are fully and properly funded; otherwise, we will have a situation where, in order for schools to meet their commitments to teachers’ pay and other areas they want to support through investment, they unfortunately have to cut back on the very important work of teaching assistants.
I join the hon. Member for Gower in recognising the quality, quantity and range of teaching assistants’ work, and the important role they play in supporting inclusion. The Education Committee has looked at the issue of persistent absence in school, and we have found that inclusion is crucial. Making sure that children’s needs are met is a crucial part of ensuring they can continue to attend school. I do not pretend that this is an easy area; on one small point of defence—the White Paper, which I co-wrote, did mention the work of teaching assistants in a couple of areas, as hon. Lady pointed out, but it also talked about apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships, which are a real opportunity to build a route of progression for teaching assistants. I have seen some very interesting schools that have found teaching assistants, sports assistants and meal assistants who are able and excited to move up into the teaching profession, and those schools have provided support for them to do so and a route for further progression. I would love the Government to look at what further routes of progression could be built for teaching assistants so that more of them can go on—perhaps when the children have grown up and flown the nest, as is the case for my sister—into a career in teaching.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on an excellent speech, and I thank the people who signed the petition. Some 1,000 or more in Cumbria signed the petition, which might reflect the fact that we are a community of many schools, not least because of the rural nature of much of Cumbria, which means that many of those schools are very small. In my visits around Westmorland in recent weeks and months, I have been to primary schools with as many as 450 children, as few as 13 and all points in between. The value of teaching assistants in each of those schools—a primary school, a high school and a special educational needs school—is immense, and it is important that we recognise that.
One thing I hope we can achieve in this debate—I hope that we can achieve much more—is to put on record the collective gratitude of Members on both sides of the House to people who choose to enter this profession. The value of teaching assistants is immense. They assist—as one might expect from the title of the profession—teachers to teach. If a teacher is dealing with, say, 30 children of a range of abilities, teaching assistants allow them to focus on the delivery of the subject matter, and teaching assistants get alongside those children, whether they are ahead, behind or in the middle of the pack. As we have heard, that is of enormous and transformational value in terms of children’s ability to succeed later in life. Particularly at primary school level, teaching assistants help children to get a love of learning and understand how to learn independently, at least to some small degree, so they can go on to learn with a greater level of maturity once they get to higher education.
Teaching assistants’ qualities are immense, their value is immense and they are not well paid, as we have heard. The hon. Member for Gower read out a number of powerful statistics, and I hope that people pay attention to them. Perhaps the most powerful is that although the median or average wage of a teaching assistant is around £19,000 a year, many of them are term time only—some of them by their own choice and some of them because of the school’s budgetary constraints—which means that their average income is just over £14,000.
That will have an ever bigger impact in the more expensive places to stay, so I want to make a particular case for the Minister to bear in mind how things are for us in Westmorland and Furness. In our community, the average house price is more than 12 and a half times the average household income. In the last three years, the long-term private rented sector has almost evaporated into Airbnb. Along with the steady rise of second home ownership, which has gobbled up the housing market in much of the lakes and the dales, that means that there is basically no housing that is even remotely affordable or available for people on anything other than a staggering salary.
That affects not just teaching assistants but people working in care, hospitality and tourism, and every other profession. We have a massive workforce crisis, which is seen very clearly, school by school, when it comes to teaching assistants. Westmorland and Furness Council receives no provision, and neither do other councils similar to ours, to acknowledge the vast gap between average wages and average house prices and rental prices. That means that we are starved of a workforce, so we are very grateful for every person who chooses to work in the profession.
We have also heard, rightly, about the issue of career progression. If someone does not feel that there is a way through their profession into a higher level of qualification —potentially even becoming a qualified teacher at some point—their morale and the ability to retain those people in the profession will be affected. We see that school by school and, I am sure, constituency by constituency: people who have great qualities and the ability to add even more value to their communities are being stymied, reaching a glass ceiling and therefore leaving the profession altogether.
We of course see people leaving education because of salaries. In particular, in my community that is because there is great pressure on our workforce for a variety of reasons—I have mentioned housing, but there are others. Nearly two thirds of the hospitality and tourism businesses in my patch are operating below capacity, because they do not have enough staff. That means that those who have the wherewithal can therefore increase their terms and conditions and salaries—that is great—but teaching assistants, care workers and others are the pool of labour that is being redistributed into the private sector away from teaching assistant and care assistant roles, and we are suffering as a consequence.
I have been to lots of schools recently. In the past few weeks, I have been to many of the schools in Kendal, Brough, Tebay, Kirkby Stephen, Appleby, Great Asby, Clifton, Witherslack, Shap, Windermere, Crosby Ravensworth, Kirby Lonsdale and Crosthwaite. The No. 1 issue that they raise—and I think that this will be obvious to most Members present—is that of salary, pay and where that money comes from. There has been no central or local authority funding to address rising energy costs. Teachers’ pay awards are overdue and insufficient, yet schools have not been funded to pay for them, either. The current pay offer looks like 6.5% but more than half of that will have to come from within school budgets. They cannot find the money. What can schools do? They cannot put prices up or increase their commercial revenue. They will, of course, pay the teachers their pay award, but that will mean having to cut other staff—which very often means teaching assistants. I am afraid that it looks like schools are having to pit teachers’ pay awards against having teaching assistants. These folk, who are on low wages but do immense work, are being let go. I cannot think of a single school in my part of Cumbria that is not at least contemplating doing that.
I ask the Minister to think very carefully about the impact on children of having demoralised teaching assistants who are either taking second and third jobs just to keep themselves going or, more likely, leaving the profession altogether. What does that mean for the quality of education? What does it mean for the stress levels of the teachers left behind to deal with large classes without any help whatsoever? What does it mean for children with special educational needs? We know how long it takes these days to get an education, health and care plan. Schools and teaching assistants have to carry the load before an EHCP is provided, and even when one is provided it is the schools that have to come up with the first £6,000 of the cost. Teaching assistants spend time with those children with the greatest level of need. If we want them to thrive, we need to invest in them, and that means paying people enough to keep them in their profession for a long time.
In conclusion, if the Minister is going to take this issue seriously and do more than pay lip service to how much we value teaching assistants, he will ensure that schools are adequately funded to provide the pay rises that they are being asked to make. That will enable them to keep their current staff and pay them properly. The huge cost of living disparities in authorities such as mine mean that many people, including teaching assistants, are being lost to the workforce. The Minister should therefore also arrange a special alteration to the formula for Westmorland and Furness so that our schools can pay teaching assistants adequately and they can afford a place to live. Finally, as has been said by Members on both sides of the House, we ought to be retaining teaching assistants by valuing them, creating a career structure and ensuring that the options on the table include the ability to progress directly into the training profession. In the end, we must value our teaching assistants not just through what we say but through what we do.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for opening the debate. I also thank all those who have signed the petition for bringing this pressing matter to our attention.
I pay tribute to all teaching assistants and school support staff across the country for their hard work and dedication. The essential support that they provide is invaluable in shaping the lives and futures of our children. As a former teacher, my hon. Friend spoke with insight and expertise about the challenges that teaching assistants face and the invaluable role that they play in schools, tackling inequalities, supporting children who are falling behind, improving progress, helping with mental health interventions. I am also very grateful to her for basing her contribution on research and evidence, especially from the University of Portsmouth, in particular on the conditions caused by the pandemic, including the concerning levels of physical assault. I thank her again for securing this debate and for her excellent speech.
The quality of teaching is the most important influence on improving children’s outcomes and delivering to them a high-quality education. As we know, teaching assistants are an essential part of that, offering supervision and encouragement to pupils, supporting teachers and assisting classroom management, and organising and assisting with extracurricular activities, as well as helping at breaks and lunchtimes. TAs help to create an environment that is conducive for effective teaching and learning, and they are a fundamental part of our education system. I also pay tribute to the extraordinary dedication of teaching assistants during the covid pandemic, supporting vulnerable children and the children of key workers. It is difficult to see how our school system would have managed without them.
Unfortunately, despite the integral role that they play, TAs and the wider teaching profession have been consistently overlooked and undervalued by this Government. According to a survey this year by the National Education Union, three out of every four TAs are routinely working out-of-contract hours and nearly half of TAs undertake cover supervision.
Increasingly, we hear stories of TAs leaving the profession to take up better-paid jobs elsewhere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower stated earlier. Even more worryingly, support staff are turning increasingly to food banks, as confirmed by the charity Education Support in The Times Educational Supplement today, to cope with the cost of living crisis. Yet despite these struggles, many teaching assistants are still helping struggling pupils from their own pocket with food, uniform and school supply costs, as I have seen at first hand from visiting schools across the country.
It is no surprise that school support staff vacancies have almost doubled since the start of the pandemic, with schools being forced to turn to supply teaching assistants from recruitment agencies to fill those vacancies, which eats further into their tight budgets. Indeed, recent analysis by my party has found that schools have spent £8 billion on such fees since 2010.
Support staff shortages hit those areas with more poorer pupils the hardest, as they often include schools with the largest class sizes and the most need for individualised support. The loss of school support staff also disproportionately impacts students with special educational needs, as we heard earlier, because they rely on vital one-to-one support and are often in need of additional pastoral care. Since 2010, TAs have been pushed into responsibilities that go way beyond their contract and job description, often picking up the pieces for overstretched teachers, acting as cover or stepping in for school nurses.
Cuts to youth services and wraparound services since 2010 have also placed a heavy burden on schools. And in the midst of a mental health crisis among our young people, TAs are often out of their depth and overwhelmed. Morale in the sector is not helped when senior Government Ministers describe school support staff in derogatory terms or when the Education Secretary refuses to confront reality and says that reports of teaching assistants leaving for supermarket jobs are “untrue”. When we factor in the increased stress alongside the erosion of pay and conditions, it is not a mystery why many teaching assistants are looking elsewhere for work.
Although the Government do not directly determine the pay of TAs in all schools, they are responsible for investing in authorities and schools that often decide the pay scale. Also, the Government’s inability to grow the economy or run our public services effectively has had a clear impact. In schools, budgets remain below 2010 levels and when budgets are extremely tight, teaching assistants—much to the regret of school leadership—are often the first jobs to be cut.
The impact of these cuts are felt across the school, but they are mostly felt by those children who need the most support, which is likely to be part of the reason why the attainment gap is widening at all stages of children’s learning and is now at its widest in a decade.
Labour is determined to fix this. We will do so by tackling head-on the recruitment and retention crises with school leaders, ensuring that every child has world-class teaching; by valuing rather than belittling the teaching profession, supporting teaching staff to develop as experts in their field; and by recognising and respecting the work of our school support staff, who deliver crucial learning support, especially for children who face the greatest barriers to engaging with education. We will once again make teachers and TAs feel valued and appreciated for the work that they do.
We will work with schools and school leaders to tackle the workloads, expanding the workforce to deliver optimal support for pupils and alleviate strain on staff, which will also be aided by reforming Ofsted. The next Labour Government will provide better working conditions for all workers, including teaching assistants. We want to learn from other professions how they structure pay, progression and ongoing training, to attract and retain the workforce. Our new deal for working people will ensure fair pay and job security for all. We will value every worker and ensure that their skills and expertise are acknowledged and appreciated. We will also provide better training and support structures, to ensure that workers are not pushed out of bounds of their contract.
To ensure that children receive the best possible education, it is crucial that we stand behind those who support them. Teaching assistants deserve to be treated fairly and paid fairly. They deserve to be respected, trusted and appreciated by a Government who recognise the sacrifices that they have made and continue to make to support the children across the country who face the greatest barriers to learning. What they do not deserve is to be overstretched and undervalued by a Government who do not prioritise their needs. The impact of that adversarial attitude on children’s learning has been clear to see.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister, in his response today, will outline what his Department is doing to tackle the growing number of vacancies among school support staff, to retain the excellent teaching assistants currently supporting children across our country’s schools and to once again make the role of teaching assistant valued and respected, as it was under the last Labour Government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all speakers for contributing to today’s debate.
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on her well informed and passionate speech opening this debate on the petition relating to pay for teaching assistants. I would like to start by saying that the Government recognise teaching assistants as a valuable part of the school workforce. We appreciate the dedication of our teaching assistants and know the valuable contribution that they make, alongside excellent teachers, to pupils’ education.
The Department recently published data on the number of teaching assistants through the school workforce census, which showed that there are now 281,000 full-time equivalent teaching assistants in schools. That represents an increase of 5,300 since 2021. Teaching assistants now make up three in 10 of the school workforce overall, accounting for 37% of the nursery and primary workforce, 14% of the secondary workforce and 52% of the special school workforce.
We know that when teaching assistants are well trained and well deployed, they can improve pupil attainment. Evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation shows that teaching assistants can add up to four months’ improvement in pupil progress when delivering one-to-one or small group support using structured interventions, as the hon. Member pointed out in her opening speech. That is why we set out in the SEND and AP Green Paper our intention to develop a longer-term approach for teaching assistants, to ensure that their impact is more consistent across the system and that they can specialise in interventions that are proven to work.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I hope the Minister will indulge me. When I was teaching, I had a young man in my classroom called Jac Richards, who was a wheelchair user and non-verbal; he used an Eyegaze. He was well supported by his teaching assistants, Hayley and Joanne, and learnt French from year 7 to year 11. Unfortunately he was unable to sit the GCSE exam, but the gift they gave him in preparing and supporting me to prepare resources for an Eyegaze to teach a young man French was absolutely magic. Also, he participated fully, and this was a mainstream 11-to-16 school. When I say “fully”, I mean he was able to come on the trips to France and everything. That is how magic his experience was in school: he was able to be in my classroom and to participate. That is how wonderful teaching assistants are, and I hope that the Minister hears more examples like that, because it really was an honour and a privilege to be able to teach Jac thanks to them.
Nick Gibb
I am delighted that the hon. Member was able to put that on the record. I hope that the teaching assistants she mentioned will see that in Hansard. We want those examples to be more consistent right across the country, so the Department already provides support for teaching assistants through a number of programmes, including training to improve maths for teaching assistants through the maths hubs, and to support them to identify and meet the needs of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities through the universal services programme. We are also pioneering innovative practice through the “Early Language and Support for Every Child” pilot to trial new ways of working to better identify and support children with speech, language and communication needs in early years and primary schools.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, IfATE, recently published a revised level 3 teaching assistant apprenticeship developed by employers, which became available for delivery from 6 May this year. Schools will be able to access up to £7,000 of levy funding to train and upskill teaching assistants. Of course, schools are free to set terms and conditions for teaching assistants and support staff according to their own circumstances. Local government employees, including school support staff, are covered by the National Joint Council terms and conditions, known as the green book. Most schools, including academies, use the local government pay scales in conjunction with the green book. Local government pay scales are set through negotiation between the Local Government Association, representing the employer, and local government trade unions, such as Unison, Unite and GMB, which represent the employee. Central Government have no formal role in those matters.
Currently, a generous offer is on the table for employees covered by local government pay scales. The offer for 2023-2024 is a flat cash uplift of £1,925 from 1 April 2023. That is the same uplift agreed for the 2022-23 pay deal. If accepted, it would equate to an increase of 9.42% this year for those on the lowest pay scale and an increase of £4,033, or 22%, over the two years since April 2021. We also know that schools can and do pay teaching assistants more than those on the lowest pay scale, currently earning £20,441 per annum. It is disappointing that the unions have rejected that offer, which would provide certainty for staff who are waiting to see an increase in the size of their pay packets. I hope that the pay award can be settled without the use of strike action, as we know that that will impact children’s education and cause disruption for parents.
The Government understand the pressures that people face with the cost of living, which is why we are providing £94 billion of support to households with higher costs across the 2022-23 and 2023-24 financial years—equivalent to £3,300 per household on average. Points have been raised in the debate about the ability of schools to pay for teaching assistants, particularly in the light of the recent pay award. The Government are committed to providing a world-class education for all children and have invested significantly in schools to achieve that. The 2022 autumn statement announced an additional £2 billion in each of the 2023-24 and 2024-25 financial years, over and above totals announced in the spending review in 2021.
In response to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), let me say that the pay award announced last week is fully funded. Last week, we announced an additional £525 million this year to support schools with a teachers’ pay award, and with a further £900 million in 2024-25. That means that funding for mainstream schools and special needs is more than £3.9 billion higher this year compared with last year. That is on top of the £4 billion cash increase last year—an increase of 16% over those two years. We submitted detailed evidence of the schools cost to the pay body, the School Teachers’ Review Body, and set out that the first 3.5% of the pay award is already funded by a £3.5 billion increase in school funding, which also included a very pessimistic assumption about energy costs that the hon. Gentleman also mentioned. The extra 3%—between 3.5% and 6.5%—is the funding that I just announced of £525 million this year and £900 million next year. The unions have acknowledged that the pay award has been properly funded.
Next year, school funding will be more than £59.6 billion—the highest ever level of school funding and the highest ever level in real terms and in real terms per pupil, as measured by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Schools are expected to use their core budgets to pay for staff, including teaching assistants, and they may use local government pay scales when setting pay. The Department’s affordability calculation for schools takes account of the latest pay offer to teaching assistants.
The petition highlighted the importance of teaching assistants supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities. I reiterate the importance of teaching assistants’ support to those pupils, and outline our commitment to ensuring that such pupils receive the support they need. High needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities will rise to £10.1 billion in this financial year, 2023-24; that is an increase of over 50% on the 2019-20 allocations. On top of that funding, special and alternative provision schools will receive an additional £50 million in 2023-24 through the teachers’ pay annual grant to support schools with their staffing costs.
Schools are expected to meet additional support costs of up to £6,000 per pupil with SEND from their core budgets. They can then seek additional funding from local authorities’ high needs budgets, and local authorities usually assess the need for extra funding through the education, health and care needs assessment process. If a pupil has an EHC plan, the local authority has a duty to secure their special educational provision, which will often include a teaching assistant. If the cost of that provision exceeds £6,000 per pupil, it will be paid for from the local authority’s high needs budget, which, as I have said, has increased considerably over the last few years. On 2 March, we published the SEND and AP improvement plan in response to the Green Paper. This outlines the Government’s mission for the special educational needs and alternative provision system to fulfil children’s potential, to build parents’ trust and to provide financial stability.
As I outlined earlier, we intend to develop a longer-term approach for teaching assistants to ensure that their impact is consistent across the system and the different responsibilities they take on. We want teaching assistants to be well trained and to be able to develop specific expertise —for example, in speech and language interventions. As a first step, we have commissioned a research project to develop our evidence base on current school approaches, demand and best practice. That research is being conducted by YouGov and CFE Research, with findings due by the end of the year.
The Government value teaching assistants and the role they play alongside excellent teachers. We recognise the positive impact they can have on pupil outcomes when they are well deployed and well trained. I have set out that we will be developing a longer-term approach to ensure that this is the case and that the impact of teaching assistants is more consistent across the system. The first step we are taking is to improve our evidence base through the research project that is currently in the field. Schools are best placed to recruit and pay teaching assistants according to their own needs, which is why central Government do not have a role in setting pay for teaching assistants or other school support staff. Many schools, including academies, pay teaching assistants according to local government pay scales, and if the pay offer for local government employees is accepted for 2023-24, it would see the lowest paid earning 22% more than they did in April 2021.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I will keep my comments brief. I believe that there is a need for reform: our teaching assistants deserve better, and there should be a real focus on recruitment and retention. I appreciate that I am from Wales, but the issues are similar across the United Kingdom, so we should all stand together, work together, and look to improve recruitment and retention, and pay, for those who play a vital role in our schools.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 620264, relating to pay for teaching assistants.
Written Statements
Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry: Interim Report
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry is led by retired high court judge Sir Wyn Williams who has over 28 years’ judicial experience. Sir Wyn is tasked with ensuring there is a public summary of the failings which occurred with the Horizon IT system at the Post Office leading to the prosecution and conviction of postmasters, with 86 having those convictions quashed to date, and the incorrect repayment of shortfalls by thousands more. The inquiry will look to establish a clear account of the implementation and historic failings of the system starting from its roll-out in the late 1990s.
Today the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry has published an interim report, which has been laid before the House. The report can be found at: www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk.
Government will review this report and consider how to respond to its content in due course.
I would like to thank Sir Wyn Williams and to everyone in his team for their ongoing work and commitment to delivering the inquiry’s work on these issues. It is vital that we establish the facts behind this scandal and learn the lessons so that something like this can never happen again.
[HCWS950]
Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership: Accession Protocol
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Introduction
The UK officially signed its accession protocol to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership (CPTPP) on 16 July 2023. This trade agreement contains some of the world’s largest and most dynamic economies. Our membership will take the agreement from 11 to 12 members and represents the first expansion of this high-standards trade agreement.
The agreement will act as a gateway to the wider Indo- Pacific and Americas region, bringing new opportunities for British businesses, supporting jobs across the whole UK and shaping the future of international trading rules.
The Indo-Pacific region will account for the majority of global growth in coming decades and be home to around half the world’s middle-class consumers. On the UK joining, the CPTPP membership will account for around £12 trillion in GDP, a number which will grow as new members join. Economies including Costa Rica, Uruguay and Ecuador have formally applied, and the Republic of Korea, Thailand and the Philippines have expressed an interest in doing so. As the first acceding country, we have placed ourselves in an ideal position to benefit from future expansion of the agreement.
Geopolitical benefits
Accession to the agreement will send a powerful signal that the UK is using our post-Brexit freedoms to boost the economy. It will secure our place as the second largest economy in a trade grouping dedicated to free and rules-based trade while taking a larger role in setting standards for the global economy.
Becoming a member will see us deepening our multilateral relations and strengthening our trading links in the Indo-Pacific region. We will work closely with our partners to develop the agreement, creating further benefits for all its members.
As CPTPP grows, the UK will help shape its development to fight unfair and coercive trading practices that threaten the future of international trade. British businesses will benefit from enhanced access to more markets while trading under fair rules that allow them to compete and thrive on the global stage.
Our status as an independent trading nation is putting the UK in an enviable position. Membership of this agreement will be a welcome addition to our bilateral free trade agreements with over 70 countries.
Gains for businesses and consumers
In an historic first, joining CPTPP will mean that the UK and Malaysia are in a free trade agreement together for the first time, giving British business better access to a market worth £330 billion. Manufacturers of key UK exports will be able to make the most of tariff reductions to this thriving market. Tariffs of around 80% on whisky will be eliminated within 10 years and tariffs of 30% on cars will be eliminated within seven years.
In addition, over 99% of current UK goods exports to economies in the agreement will be eligible for zero tariff trade. The agreement’s provisions will also help facilitate trade by ensuring that customs procedures of CPTPP parties are efficient, consistent, transparent and predictable.
Beyond goods exports, the UK’s world-leading services firms will benefit from modern rules which ensure non-discriminatory treatment and greater levels of transparency. In key sectors, UK companies will not be required to establish or maintain a representative office in a CPTPP territory. This will make it easier for them to provide services to consumers in other CPTPP countries.
The deal we have struck will also open up new opportunities in the Government procurement markets of CPTPP members, including in Malaysia, Singapore and Japan.
Business travel will be easier under the agreement. Britons travelling to CPTPP members for work purposes will enjoy greater certainty on trips for short-term work meetings. Professionals going to Peru and Vietnam for short-term business will be able to stay for six months. That is double the amount of time for previous agreements.
UK consumers are also set to benefit from tariff reductions on imports. These tariff reductions could lead to cheaper prices, better choice and higher quality. Products such as fruit juices from Chile and Peru, and Mexican honey and chocolate, to name but a few, could all cost less.
Defending UK interests in negotiations
We have ensured that joining will not compromise our high animal and plant health, food safety or animal welfare standards. We have also maintained our right to regulate in the public interest, including in areas such as the environment and labour standards. Furthermore, we ensured that the NHS was kept off the table throughout the course of discussions, as in all of our free trade agreement negotiations. We have also ensured that UK producers will be protected. We have reduced import tariffs in proportion to the market access we have received and kept safeguards where necessary. Market access increases will be staged over time for certain products, ensuring that farmers have time to adjust to new trade flows. Permanent limits on tariff-free volumes have been agreed on some of the most sensitive products that can be exported to the UK. This includes on beef and pork.
Conclusion and next steps
Following signature, the Government will now take the necessary steps to ratify the agreement. The Secretary of State will write to the Trade and Agriculture Commission to commission its advice on the agreement.
The Government have now published the accession protocol and related market access schedules, as well as relevant side letters, an impact assessment and a draft explanatory memorandum. With the publication of the accession protocol, the agreement text has now been presented to Parliament, but the Government will not commence the pre-ratification scrutiny process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 for a period of at least three months. This will ensure there is appropriate time for the relevant Select Committees to consider the agreement in advance. Legislation necessary to implement the agreement will be brought forward, and duly scrutinised by Parliament, when parliamentary time allows.
Joining CPTPP marks a key step in the development of the UK’s independent trade policy. It will deepen our relations with a strategically vital region and offer exciting new opportunities for British businesses and consumers.
[HCWS953]
Public Procurement Regime: Draft Regulations Consultation Part 2
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Further to my statement on 19 June 2023, I am today launching the second part of a public consultation on the draft implementing regulations that will form part of a new procurement regime. This consultation, which is highly technical and not seeking views on policy development, has been split into two parts. My previous statement launched the first part of the consultation which will remain open until 28 July 2023.
The second part of the consultation, announced today, focuses on the transparency provisions and notices that will be used by contracting authorities to fulfil their legal requirements under the Bill. It also includes information on the proposed approach to transitional arrangements for procurements already under way at the time that the new regime enters into force and the position on other legislation that will need to be amended in order for the full provisions of the Bill to take effect. We are also using this opportunity to consult on a proposal to use the power in the Bill at clause 120 to amend Bill provisions for private utilities with respect to the Preliminary Market Engagement notice, in line with our aim of minimising burdens on these private businesses.
The consultation we are publishing today, and laying in Parliament, gives everyone an opportunity to help shape public procurement for the future and I wish to encourage all involved in public procurement to have their say.
[HCWS949]
South Yorkshire Advanced Manufacturing Investment Zone
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)
On Friday, the Government and the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority announced the creation of a new South Yorkshire investment zone focused on advanced manufacturing, building on the region’s long-standing research strengths and existing commercial operations in the area. Local communities and businesses across South Yorkshire, including in the Sheffield-Rotherham corridor, Barnsley and Doncaster, will benefit.
The Government also announced that Boeing, Spirit AeroSystems, Loop Technologies and the University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (AMRC) have partnered to support the first investment within the zone, leading a portfolio of major new R&D projects into the future of aerospace. This investment will be worth over £80 million partially funded from the joint public-private sector Aerospace Technology Institute programme.
The South Yorkshire investment zone will be co-designed with the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. By harnessing the region’s local sector strengths, significant innovation assets and existing talent, the Investment Zone will catalyse further investment to boost productivity and deliver sustainable growth that benefits local communities. The investment zone will increase commercial opportunities in areas that have historically under-performed economically through a total funding envelope of £80 million over 5 years. It is expected that the investment zone will support more than £1.2 billion of private investment and the creation of more than 8,000 jobs by 2030.
The Government will continue to work with the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority, the University of Sheffield, Sheffield Hallam University and other local partners to co-develop the plans for their advanced manufacturing investment zone, including agreeing priority sites and specific interventions to drive cluster growth, over the summer ahead of final confirmation of plans.
[HCWS957]
Camp Bagnold: Gifting to the UN
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I have today laid before the House a departmental minute describing the provision of infrastructure worth £4,226,970 to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilisation Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in Gao, Mali.
MINUSMA is a UN-led, non-combat mission to support the political processes in Mali and to carry out a number of security related task, for which the UK contribution, since December 2020, was the Long Range Reconnaissance Group (Mali) (LRRG(M)).
The security and political situation in Mali has deteriorated significantly since the UK review of MINUSMA at the start of 2022.There have been two coups in the past two years and the transitional Government of Mali (TGoM), which seized power in 2021, has continued to delay democratic transition and has routinely failed to address the numerous security and humanitarian issues it is facing. The TGoM has also behaved in a way that is constraining MINUSMA’s delivery against its mandate. On 14 November 2022 the Government announced they were withdrawing their forces from Mali.
The UK Ministry of Defence intend to gift the Camp Bagnold infrastructure, with a value of £4,226,970, for $1(US) to UN MINUSMA. The gifting transfers all ownership rights of the camp to the UN, including any future responsibility for the remediation and disposal of the site.
On the 16 June 2023 the TGoM asked MINUSMA to leave Mali “without delay”. Despite this, we still intend to gift the Camp to the UN MINUSMA. Given the fast-moving situation on the ground we request special urgency to lay a departmental minute in Parliament for four sitting days before recess. This is necessary to allow us to meet the UN MINUSMA request that any contract to transfer the ownership of the camp must be signed before 31 July 2023.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-07-17/HCWS959/.
[HCWS959]
Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Quinquennial Review and Independent Review of Veterans Welfare Services for Veterans
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families (Dr Andrew Murrison)
The following joint statement is released on behalf of myself and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).
We are pleased to announce the completion and publication of both the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Quinquennial Review 2022-23 and the independent review of UK Government Welfare Services for veterans.
The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) provides compensation for injury or illness caused or made worse by service; or where death is caused by service in the UK Armed Forces on or after 6 April 2005. Quinquennial reviews ensure that the scheme is scrutinised and remains fit for purpose; this is the second of these quinquennial reviews.
We informed the House on 2 March 2023 that we had commissioned an additional review into the role, scope and breadth of UK Government welfare provision for veterans, including by the Ministry of Defence under the Veterans UK banner. This is the first time these have been considered in the round since the launch of the strategy for our veterans and corresponding Veterans Strategy Action Plan, and the creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
These reviews will help us to build on positive work already being undertaken across Government under the strategy for our veterans, including the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) £40 million digitisation project, which will significantly improve customer service and the process for managing claims within MOD.
We welcome both reviews and are grateful to the review teams for the considerable amount of work that has gone into both reports. The MOD and Office for Veterans’ Affairs, along with other stakeholders, will now consider the recommendations of both reports in full, and the Government’s response to each will be published later in the year.
We are placing copies of these reviews in the Library of the House.
The attachments are:
UK Government Services for Veterans Review (Independent Review of UK Government Welfare Services for Veterans.pdf).
Annex D Public Bodies Review Programme (Annex D Public Bodies Review Programme- Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees_.pdf).
AFCS Quinquennial Review 2023 (Armed Forces Compensation Scheme Quinquennial Review 2023.pdf).
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-07-17/HCWS956/.
[HCWS956]
Minimum School Week
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
In March 2022, the Government announced in the Schools White Paper ‘Opportunity for All’ that to give every pupil the opportunity to achieve their full academic potential, all mainstream, state-funded schools would be expected to deliver a minimum school week of 32.5 hours by September 2023.
Most schools already have a school week of at least this length, and others will have plans in hand to meet the minimum expectation by September 2023. However, in recognition of the pressures currently facing schools, the Government have decided to defer the deadline to September 2024. The Government are encouraging schools that are planning to increase their hours from this September to continue to do so.
The Government have today published guidance and case studies:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/length-of-the-school-week-minimum-expectation to support those schools that are not yet meeting the minimum expectation.
[HCWS948]
School Funding: Provisional 2024-25 Allocations
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
Today I am confirming provisional funding allocations for 2024-25 through the schools, high needs and central school services national funding formulae (NFFs). Core schools funding includes funding for both mainstream schools and high needs. This is increasing by over £1.8 billion in 2024-25—from over £57.7 billion in 2023-24 to over £59.6 billion in 2024-25. This is on top of the over £3.9 billion increase in the core schools budget in 2023-24.
The core schools funding increase for both this year and next year includes the additional funding for schools’ teacher pay costs, through the teachers’ pay additional grant (TPAG). On 13 July, we announced this funding to support schools with the September 2023 teachers’ pay award. The funding is being split between mainstream schools, special schools and alternative provision (AP), early years, and 16 to 19 provision. The part of the additional funding that goes to mainstream schools, special schools and alternative provision is worth £482.5 million in 2023-24 and £827.5 million in 2024-25. This funding will be paid on top of NFF funding in both 2023-24 and 2024- 25. Further information on the TPAG is published here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teachers-pay-additional-grant-2023-to-2024.
Funding for mainstream schools through the schools NFF is increasing by 2.7% per pupil compared to 2023-24. Taken together with the funding increases seen in 2023-24, this means that funding through the schools NFF will be 8.5% higher per pupil in 2024-25, compared to 2022-23.
The minimum per pupil funding levels (MPPLs) will increase by 2.4% compared to 2023-24. This will mean that, next year, every primary school will receive at least £4,655 per pupil, and every secondary school at least £6,050. Academy trusts continue to have flexibilities over how they allocate funding across academies in their trust. This means, in some cases, an individual academy could receive a lower or higher per-pupil funding amount than the MPPL value. This may reflect, for example, activities that are paid for by the trust centrally, rather than by individual academies.
The NFF will distribute this funding based on schools’ and pupils’ needs and characteristics. The main features in 2024-25 are:
We are introducing a formulaic approach to allocating split sites funding. This ensures that funding for schools which operate across more than one site will be provided on a consistent basis across the country.
The core factors in the schools NFF—such as basic per-pupil funding, and the lump sum that all schools attract—will increase by 2.4%.
The funding floor will ensure that every school attracts at least 0.5% more pupil-led funding per pupil compared to its 2023-24 allocation.
The 2023-24 mainstream schools additional grant (MSAG) has been rolled into the schools NFF for 2024-25. This is to ensure that the additional funding schools attract through the NFF is as close as possible to the funding they would have received if the funding was continuing as a separate grant in 2024-25, without adding significant complexity to the formula. Adding the grant funding to the NFF provides reassurance to schools that this funding forms part of schools’ core budgets and will continue to be provided.
For the first time, in 2024-25 we will allocate funding to local authorities on the basis of falling rolls, as well as growth. Local authorities can use this funding to support schools which see a short-term fall in the number of pupils on roll.
The 2023-24 was the first year of transition to the direct schools NFF, with our end point being a system in which, to ensure full fairness and consistency in funding, every mainstream school in England is funded through a single national formula without adjustment through local funding formulae. Following a successful first year of transition, we will continue with the same approach to transition in 2024-25. As in 2023-24, local authorities will only be allowed to use NFF factors in their local formulae, and must use all NFF factors, except any locally determined premises factors. Local authorities will also be required to move their local formulae factors a further 10% closer to the NFF values, compared to where they were in 2023-24, unless they are classed as already “mirroring” the NFF.
Today we are also publishing local authority funding formula data for 2023-24. Following the first year of transition, the number of local authorities that mirror the schools NFF increased significantly from just over half in 2022-23, to just over two-thirds in 2023-24. Of the 72 local authorities that were not mirroring the NFF in 2022-23, 61 chose to move their local formula closer to the NFF than required.
In 2024-25, high needs funding through the NFF is increasing by a further £440 million, or 4.3%—following the £970 million increase in 2023-24 and £1 billion increase in 2022-23. This brings the total high needs budget to over £10.5 billion. All local authorities will receive at least a 3% increase per head of their age two to 18 population, compared to their 2023-24 allocations, with some authorities seeing gains of up to 5%.
The £10.5 billion funding includes the continuation of the £400 million high needs funding allocated to local authorities following the 2022 autumn statement, and the £440 million increase is provided on top of that. All special and alternative provision schools will continue to receive their share of that funding in 2024-25.
Central school services funding is provided to local authorities for the ongoing responsibilities they have for all schools. The total provisional funding for ongoing responsibilities is £304 million in 2024-25. In line with the process introduced for 2020-21, to withdraw funding over time for the historic commitments local authorities entered into before 2013-14, funding for historic commitments will decrease by a further 20% in 2024-25.
Updated allocations of schools, high needs and central schools services funding for 2024-25 will be published in December, taking account of the latest pupil data at that point.
[HCWS958]
Fisheries Management
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries (Mark Spencer)
Today the UK Government are publishing a number of consultations and consultation responses, and announcing funding to use post-Brexit freedoms to support a thriving fishing sector.
Seizing the opportunities of being an independent coastal state, the UK is introducing a world class system of fisheries management which draws on the best available science and the expertise of our fishermen and anglers to ensure that our fish stocks are healthy and sustainable long into the future.
The UK has some of the finest fish stocks in the world. Healthy fish stocks are a vital resource, providing livelihoods, enjoyment, and prosperity to our coastal communities. Since we left the EU, the UK Government have taken important steps for our fishing industry, anglers and marine environment.
As an independent coastal state, we negotiated significant uplifts in fishing opportunities for UK vessels, valued at around £101 million this year. We are investing in the long-term future of the UK fisheries sector through our £100 million UK Seafood Fund, to drive innovation, support job creation, and boost seafood exports to new markets. We introduced the first Fisheries Act for nearly thirty years and published the Joint Fisheries Statement.
In replacing the Common Fisheries Policy with our own domestic policy, we aim to maximise our newfound freedoms to introduce a world class fisheries management system.
Today we take another step in that journey, unveiling proposals for a reform package that will transform how we manage our fisheries. Ensuring a thriving, sustainable industry and healthy marine environment for future generations. These reforms play a crucial role in achieving the goals in our Environmental Improvement Plan and the UK Government Food Strategy as well as levelling up some of our much-loved coastal towns and communities.
This new system will be underpinned by Fisheries Management Plans—blueprints for how best to manage fish stocks—with the first six published today, including bass, king scallops, crab and lobster.
Based on the best available science and experience from fishermen and anglers, FMPs assess the fish stocks, and set out actions to manage them sustainably. The first six draft FMPs and associated environmental reports are being published today for consultation.
We are also consulting on a range of other important changes. These include:
Expanding the use of remote electronic monitoring (REM) in English waters.
Introducing a new approach to managing discards in England.
Establishing a licensed recreational bluefin tuna fishery.
Permanently lifting the quota cap on licences for small vessels in English waters.
We are also awarding £45.6 million to modernise and improve infrastructure across the seafood sector, helping to support around 1,500 jobs and ensure we are using the best science, research, and technology in fisheries management as part of our £100 million UK Seafood Fund.
Finally, we are publishing a response to our consultation on flyseining measures in English waters, noting we will change legislation to make squid fishing more sustainable and will take forward other measures through the FMPs. We will also publish the summary of responses to our consultation on spatial management measures for sandeels. A clear majority of respondents supported a proposal of a full closure of sandeel fishing in English waters of the North Sea.
This package marks a clear departure from the Common Fisheries Policy and will deliver our ambition to build a modern, resilient and profitable fishing industry underpinned by sustainable fish stocks and a healthy marine environment.
[HCWS951]
The 0.7% of GNI ODA Target: 2022
(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 (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
The Government took the difficult decision to reduce temporarily the official development assistance (ODA) budget from 0.7% of gross national income (GNI) to 0.5% from 2021, because of the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the economy and public finances. The Government will return to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows.
The International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 envisages situations in which a departure from meeting the target of spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA may be necessary—for example, in response to “fiscal circumstances and, in particular, the likely impact of meeting the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing”.
The FCDO’s annual report and accounts for 2022-23, published today, reports that the 0.7% target was not met in 2022, on a provisional basis. As required by section 2 of the 2015 Act, an Un-numbered Act Paper has been laid before Parliament, in the same terms as this statement.
In a written ministerial statement on 12 July 2021, my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that the decision to reduce the ODA budget is temporary and set out the conditions for returning to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA. The principles for a return will be met when, on a sustainable basis, the Government are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. The House of Commons voted to approve this approach to returning to 0.7% on 13 July 2021. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reaffirmed this in his 22 November 2022 written ministerial statement.
Each year the Government will review, in accordance with the 2015 Act, whether a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA is possible against the latest fiscal forecast provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The most recent assessment, set out in HM Treasury’s autumn statement 2022, showed that the principles for a return to 0.7% had not been met.
[HCWS961]
Afghanistan: Aid and Support
(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 (Mr Andrew Mitchell)
My Noble Friend, the Minister of State (Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and United Nations) (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement:
Today I am updating the House on UK efforts to support those most in need in Afghanistan. Afghanistan remains one of HM Government’s (HMG’s) largest bilateral aid allocations and we continue to be a major contributor to humanitarian, health and education support. Since April 2021, HMG has disbursed over £532 million in aid for Afghanistan while the country continues to experience one of the world’s most acute humanitarian crises. This financial year we have made a further commitment of £100 million and plan an additional £151 million for next financial year. HMG continues to influence international thinking on how to support basic services in Afghanistan, challenge the Taliban on human rights abuses, and build consensus on engaging with the Taliban to make progress on issues of mutual benefit. We remain committed that at least 50% of people reached with UK aid in Afghanistan will be women and girls, a commitment we met in 2021-22 and are on track to meet for 2022-23.
The scale of the need in Afghanistan is profound. Two thirds of the population are estimated to be in humanitarian need. We remain appalled at the continued erosion of the rights of women and girls, which has led to their almost total exclusion from political, educational and social spaces. On 23 March 2022, the Taliban banned girls’ access to secondary schools and closed universities to women in December 2022. On 5 April 2023, the Taliban banned Afghan women from working for the UN in Afghanistan, extending their 24 December 2022 directive banning Afghan women from working for non-governmental organisations (NGOs). HMG has strongly condemned the Taliban’s decisions through a range of international statements, including the UN Security Council Resolution 2681. Together with like-minded countries—including those in the organisation of Islamic co-operation—we continue to press the Taliban to reverse their prohibitive decrees.
Afghan women play a vital role in the delivery of aid operations, and the FCDO is supporting our international partners to adapt programmes and find solutions to include women and girls in the implementation of aid. Afghan women and girls must have safe and equitable access to aid. HMG continues to support girls’ education in Afghanistan through bilateral and multilateral contributions to NGOs, UN partners and multilateral funds. Educated, empowered women will contribute to Afghanistan’s economic development, as well as to its peace and stability.
The UN’s Humanitarian Appeal for Afghanistan this year is for $3.2 billion and is currently only 15% funded. We continue to press donors to meet their commitments to support the Afghan people. In 2022-2023, the UK disbursed £95 million to the UN’s World Food Programme, supporting 4.2 million people. Through UNICEF, HMG expects to reach an estimated 1.6 million people with nutrition, water and sanitation, and child and social protection services in 2022-23. £50 million was allocated to the UN Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund last year to provide support for health, water, protection, shelter, food, livelihoods, and education interventions.
As co-chair of the Afghanistan co-ordination group until recently, HMG has worked with international partners to deliver sustained essential services for the Afghan people. In 2022, HMG supported the Asian Development Bank to approve a $405 million package of support. This followed an approval in December 2021 to transfer $280 million of funds from the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund to UN agencies. This funding supports UN agencies to finance core public health services, education, and the provision of emergency food services.
We continue to engage pragmatically with the Taliban, primarily through the UK Mission to Afghanistan, based in Doha. FCDO ministers are in regular contact with their international counterparts on Afghanistan. In 2023 The Rt Hon Andrew Mitchell MP and I as Minister of State have met UN Deputy Secretary General, Amina Mohammed, Afghan women and civil society organisations to discuss the Taliban’s restrictions on women and girls. The Foreign Secretary and his ministerial team regularly discuss Afghanistan during their international engagements. The Prime Minister's Special Representative to Afghanistan regularly engaged with international counterparts, including at a substantive meeting for special envoys hosted by the UN Secretary General in Doha in May 2023.
Attachments:
1. ODA spend breakdown for Afghanistan for FY 2022-20 (ODA spend breakdown for Afghanistan for FY 2022-2023.docx.pdf)
Attachments can be viewed online at http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2023-07-17/HCWS960/.
[HCWS960]
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in Immigration Rules.
Changes to the EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) and EUSS Family Permit
We are making certain changes to the EUSS, which enables EU, other European economic area (EEA) and Swiss citizens living in the UK by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and their family members, to obtain immigration status. In particular, meeting the deadline for the application (or, in line with the citizens’ rights agreements, having reasonable grounds for the delay in making an application) will become a requirement for making a valid application. Consistent with the agreements, this will enable us to consider whether there are reasonable grounds for a late application as a preliminary issue, before going on to consider whether a valid application meets the relevant eligibility and suitability requirements. We will also prevent a valid application as a joining family member being made by an illegal entrant to the UK, thereby reinforcing our approach to tackling illegal migration.
We are closing the EUSS on 8 August 2023 to new applications under two routes not covered by the agreements: family member of a qualifying British citizen (on their return to the UK having exercised free movement rights in the EEA or Switzerland, known as “Surinder Singh” cases) and primary carer of a British citizen (known as “Zambrano” cases). The UK made generous transitional provisions enabling such persons to access the EUSS for more than four years. It is now appropriate, as a matter of fairness to other British citizens wishing to sponsor foreign national family members to settle in the UK, that any new applications should have to meet the family immigration rules applicable to others. The routes will remain open to those who are already on them (or with a pending application, administrative review or appeal) or who have pending access to them via a relevant EUSS family permit.
The EUSS family permit will also close on 8 August 2023 to new applications by a family member of a qualifying British citizen. Those granted an EUSS family permit as such a family member via an application made by this date will still be able to come to the UK and apply to the EUSS.
Extension of the Ukraine Extension Scheme
We are extending the application deadline for the Ukraine extension scheme for a further six months to 16 May 2024.
This change extends the scheme to allow Ukrainian nationals and their family members who obtain permission to enter or stay in the UK for any period between 18 March 2022 and 16 November 2023 to apply to the Ukraine extension scheme and obtain 36 months’ permission to stay in the UK. All applications must now to be made by 16 May 2024.
The extension to the application deadline is intended to encourage people to apply for leave under the Ukraine extension scheme to ensure they maintain a lawful immigration status. This will provide greater certainty and clarity for the individual, the Home Office and other Government Departments and organisations which require evidence of immigration status to confirm entitlement to services.
Student Route (dependants and switching)
As announced by the Home Secretary on the 23 May 2023, and following the Government commitment to reduce net migration, we are removing the right for international students to bring dependants unless they are on postgraduate courses currently designated as research programmes. We are also removing the ability for international students to switch out of the student route into work routes before their studies have been completed.
These changes preserve the ability for dependants already in the UK to extend their stay, and for international students on taught postgraduate courses beginning before 1 January 2024 to bring dependants. They also preserve existing exemptions for dependants of Government-sponsored students and for dependent children who are born in the UK.
The switching restrictions will ensure that students are generally not switching in-country to another route until they have completed their course. Students on courses at degree level or above will be able to apply before course completion to switch to sponsored work routes, as long as their employment start date is not before course completion. Those studying towards PhDs will be able to switch after 24 months’ study.
Asylum—pausing the differentiation policy
Provisions within the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (NABA), which came into force on 28 June 2022, set out the framework to differentiate between two groups of refugees who ultimately remain in the UK: “group 1” and “group 2".
The primary way in which the groups are differentiated is the grant of permission to stay: group 1 refugees are normally granted refugee permission to stay for five years, after which they can apply for settlement, whereas group 2 refugees are normally granted temporary refugee permission to stay for 30 months on a 10-year route to settlement.
The differentiation policy was intended to disincentivise migrants from using criminal smugglers to facilitate illegal journeys to the UK. This was the right approach. Since then, the scale of the challenge facing the UK, like other countries, has grown—and that is why the Government introduced the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bill goes further than ever before in seeking to deter illegal entry to the UK, so that the only humanitarian route into the UK is a safe and legal one. The Bill will radically overhaul how we deal with people who arrive in the UK illegally via safe countries, rendering their asylum and human rights claims (in respect of their home country) inadmissible and imposing a duty on the Home Secretary to remove them. This approach represents a considerably stronger means of tackling the same issue that the differentiation policy sought to address, people making dangerous and unnecessary journeys through safe countries to claim asylum in the UK.
We will therefore pause the differentiation policy in the next package of immigration rules changes in July 2023. This means we will stop taking grouping decisions under the differentiated asylum system after these rules changes and those individuals who are successful in their asylum application, including those who are granted humanitarian protection, will receive the same conditions. Our ability to remove failed asylum applicant remains unchanged.
Individuals who have already received a group 2 or humanitarian protection decision under post-28 June 2022 policies will be contacted and will have their conditions aligned to those afforded to group 1 refugees. This includes length of permission to stay, route to settlement, and eligibility for family reunion.
On 23 February 2023 the Home Office announced the streamlined asylum processing model for a small number of cases of nationalities with high asylum grant rates: Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria and Yemen. Because this model focuses on manifestly well-founded cases, positive decisions can be taken without the need for an additional interview. No one will have their asylum application refused without the opportunity of an additional interview.
Those claims made between 28 June 2022 and the date of introduction of the Illegal Migration Bill (7 March 2023) will be processed according to this model. This, will also include claimants from Sudan. Sudanese legacy claimants are already being processed in line with established policies and processes and will be decided in line with the Prime Minister’s commitment to clear the backlog of legacy asylum claims by the end of 2023.
Improving Clarity Regarding Withdrawing Asylum Claims
The updated paragraph 333C provides clarity on the circumstances in which an asylum application will be withdrawn, whilst strengthening our ability to promptly withdraw asylum applications from individuals who do not comply with established processes.
It clarifies that there will be no substantive consideration of asylum claims that have been withdrawn and provides greater flexibility to accept explicit withdrawals where a claimant requests to withdraw their claim in writing but fails to do so on a specified form, in doing so preventing duplicative correspondence with the claimant.
In addition, the updates will support the efficient progression of applications by helping to prevent absconder scenarios by making it clear that the burden is on the claimant to keep the Home Office up to date with their contact details, and that failure to do so may result in a withdrawal of their asylum claim.
Furthermore, it is now made clear that failure to attend a reporting event may result in an asylum application being treated as implicitly withdrawn, ensuring efficiency with application progression through preventing potential absconder scenarios.
These changes will enable decision-making resources to be concentrated on those who genuinely wish to continue with their asylum claims in the United Kingdom.
The changes to the Immigration Rules are being laid on 17 July 2023.
The changes relating to asylum, pausing the differentiation policy and the changes relating to students will come into force at 3 pm today.
The changes relating to the EUSS will come into effect on 9 August 2023.
All other changes will come into effect on 7 August 2023.
[HCWS954]
Biometric Registration Non-compliance: Code of Practice
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
In 2018 the Home Office began issuing eVisas, which are an electronic record of immigration status and can be accessed via gov.uk. They were initially issued to individuals granted status under the EU settlement scheme and have since been extended to other schemes such as the Hong Kong (British National Overseas) route to citizenship. By the end of 2024, we will have completed the transition from physical biometric immigration documents (BIDs) in the form of the biometric residence permits, to digitised BIDs, known as eVisas. From this point the vast majority of individuals will receive digital status.
Holders of eVisas are able to evidence their status by creating a share-code which they can share with a third-party checkers, such as employers. We also enable system-to-system checks to directly confirm immigration status, for example the Department for Health and Social Care being able to check a person’s immigration status when accessing NHS treatment.
There will be times where key information shown on a customer’s record may change and they need to update their details (for example when they get married and change their name). Ensuring that this information is kept up to date is a requirement which is set out in the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008. Failure to comply with one of the requirements in the regulations may result in the Secretary of State imposing one or more sanctions on the individual. These are outlined in the “Code of Practice about the sanctions for non-compliance with the biometric registration regulations”, which was last updated in 2015.
However, since the introduction of biometric immigration documents in the form of eVisas, the code of practice needs to be updated to fully reflect the specific elements and approach to eVisas. This includes updating the requirements and sanctions associated with holders of these accounts.
To ensure they are effective and proportionate, I am launching a consultation on these changes. The consultation will explore how these sanctions would potentially be understood and effect individuals, including those who are vulnerable. It would also explore how the sanctions may impact groups linked to the holders of eVisas (employers, landlords and financial institutions).
The consultation will be available on gov.uk.
[HCWS955]
Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014: Review
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my noble Friend Lord Bellamy KC, has made the following written statement:
The Government has today published the outcome of its review of the fees that can be recovered from judgment debtors by enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers—commonly known as bailiffs—when using the procedures in the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 in England and Wales.
The ability of creditors to enforce the payment of debts and fines is a fundamental part of the justice system which supports economic growth and underpins the rule of law. The enforcement industry collects debts owed to private individuals, businesses and local authorities, the last of which are in turn used to fund public services. If effective enforcement methods were not available, creditors would be more cautious in their lending and the authority of the courts, and public trust in their effectiveness, would be questioned. To ensure the enforcement system remains effective it is essential that the enforcement industry is sustainable.
The fees that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover are set out in the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. They were designed to ensure a fair and transparent costs structure that provides appropriate remuneration for enforcement work undertaken, without allowing the sector to make excessive profits to be paid for by debtors. The regulations were also designed to incentivise early recovery without an enforcement visit being necessary, thereby reducing costs to all parties.
The review looked at whether the fees should be uplifted from the level set in 2014; whether more could be done to encourage payment without an enforcement visit becoming necessary; whether reform was needed of the High Court fee scale; and whether the costs of enforcement should continue to be borne by judgment debtors.
We intend to make the following changes:
Uplifting the fixed fees that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover from judgment debtors by 5%. This will be the first uplift to the fees since 2014. We consider it is necessary to do so to ensure that enforcement firms are appropriately remunerated for the work they do in order to ensure the sustainability of the sector.
Uplifting by 24% the thresholds above which enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover a percentage fee and rounding the result to the nearest £100. This will ensure that inflationary increases are accounted for so that only consumers and businesses with higher value debts requiring greater amounts of work to enforce have to pay this additional fee.
We also intend to consult on a package of measures aimed at incentivising earlier and cheaper settlement of debt. Proposals include extending the minimum period of notice that must be given before making an enforcement visit from 7 to 28 days; defining in regulations the tasks that are to be undertaken before a visit is made; and amending the statutory notice of enforcement to signpost debtors to advice and encourage early engagement with enforcement agents. We will also consult on amending the regulations that apply to High Court enforcement to prevent a higher fee being applied to low value debts, and to clarify when cases can progress to the next enforcement stage. We also intend to consult on proposals to amend the Taking Control of Goods: National Standards to prohibit creditors from seeking to recover a percentage of the enforcement agent or High Court enforcement officer fees when tendering for enforcement contracts. This will ensure enforcement agents do not recover less than they should for each stage of enforcement and prevent debtors being unnecessarily moved to more expensive stages of enforcement and higher costs.
This package of reforms aims to ensure the sustainability of the enforcement sector, whilst tightening up the rules that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers must follow to ensure that people in debt are given more opportunities to settle the debt at the earliest and cheapest stage possible. These reforms will complement the work that the government is already doing to make sure that people facing enforcement action are treated fairly, such as supporting the establishment of the Enforcement Conduct Board to provide independent oversight of the sector.
Following consultation, we propose introducing legislation to implement all of these measures at the same time.
Our review benefited from a wealth of data and feedback from the enforcement sector and other interested parties including debt advice providers local authorities, court users and other interested parties and the Government would like to thank them for their important contributions.
A copy of the Government Response to the Review will be online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/enforcement-agent-fee-review-2023.
[HCWS952]
Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
The Integrated Rail Plan, published in November 2021, set out a £96 billion investment to benefit the midlands and the north, the largest ever Government investment in the railways. The Government stand by the conclusions of the plan and continue to consider it the most effective way of providing rail benefits to the north and the midlands.
As part of the plan, we also committed to take forward a study to consider the most effective way to run HS2 trains to Leeds.
I am today publishing the terms of reference for this work, which will include consideration of station capacity at Leeds, and the implications of different options on the wider network.
The proposals set out in the Integrated Rail Plan bring communities and labour markets together and will support growing our economy in towns and cities across the nation.
The work in the study will consider a range of options and take account of: value for money; affordability; deliverability and timescales; economic development; disruption to passengers; and local views and evidence. The study will be extensive and will take two years to complete.
As this work progresses, we intend to review the case for dropping certain options, taking account of evidence gathered, particularly on costs, affordability, benefits and value for money.
In addition, the Transport Select Committee on 13 July published the Government’s response to its report on the Integrated Rail Plan. In response to the following recommendation on Bradford:
The Government should reconsider the case for the development of a new station in Bradford. The development of the St James’s Market station would not only enhance rail connectivity in the North, allowing further investment in the city, but also provide further opportunities for rail development in Bradford after the ‘core pipeline’ of IRP upgrades take place. (Paragraph 63)
I have confirmed that the Government accept this recommendation.
The Government stand by the conclusions of the Integrated Rail Plan on Bradford, and the benefits that plan brings to the city. However, in the light of this recommendation, a re-assessment of the evidence for better connecting Bradford and the case for a new station will now form part of the Northern Powerhouse Rail development programme and the HS2 to Leeds study.
The Government’s approaches for Leeds and Bradford remain those that were set out in the Integrated Rail Plan, and the undertaking of this work does not guarantee further interventions will be agreed or progressed.
The Government remain committed to the Integrated Rail Plan’s £96 billion envelope and expect that additions or changes to the core IRP pipeline will be affordable within that. Any options that are progressed, including those that would exceed the £96 billion envelope, will be subject to the established adaptive approach, as set out in the IRP.
[HCWS962]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Health: Cardiac Arrest
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve outcomes in cases of sudden cardiac arrest.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease are a priority for the Government. We want people to have the best chance of survival from cardiac arrest and rapid intervention is critical to improving outcomes. This is why the Government have agreed to provide funding of £1 million to design a grant scheme for the expansion of AEDs that increases the number of public access defibrillators.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare that my son is a consultant cardiologist. Around 80,000 cardiac arrests happen each year out of hospital, mostly in the home. Learning from countries such as Norway and Denmark—where survival rates are more than double ours, which is below 10%—will the Government extend cardiac first aid training to primary schools, to part of the driver’s licence, to all public sector workers and to those attending jobcentres? Will defibrillators be carried on every first response police and fire vehicle, with the NHS defibrillator purchasing scheme and registration extended to public places, to greatly increase 24-hour bystander public access to a working defibrillator via 999, with those who attempt CPR signposted to support afterwards?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I believe this is the noble Baroness’s 1,000th contribution to your Lordships’ House, so I congratulate her—that is some feat. She asked a very good, topical question. All state-funded schools are required to teach first aid as part of the mandatory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. This involves children aged over 12 being taught CPR and how to use a defibrillator.
To improve survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases, the NHS long-term plan sets out that a national network of community first responders and automated external defibrillators will help save up to 4,000 lives each year by 2028. NHS England are working with St John Ambulance to increase the awareness of the importance of CPR in England. Learning from other countries, as the noble Baroness said, is exactly right and it is very important that the NHS does learn from other countries to continually improve. With regard to first responder vehicles, including in the police and fire service, carrying defibrillators, it is a very good question and I will take this back to my colleagues in the Home Office.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad that the Minister said that this was a priority for the Government, but can I ask him to look at the UK out-of-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes project? The current 2023 figures show that the survival rate after 30 days is 11% in London but 5.3% in the West Midlands. Will he call in the integrated care systems in the West Midlands to see what they are doing to improve? That is a very big discrepancy between those two rates.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord is very knowledgeable about the West Midlands. I will certainly take that specific point back to the department.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, building on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the importance of defibrillators, the Minister may be aware of a database called the Circuit, which has been set up by the British Heart Foundation and its partners so that people can register the defibrillators they have on their premises. The project is far from complete. What might the Government do to encourage registration of defibrillators with that service and encourage the use of the associated consumer service, www.defibfinder.uk?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord; as always, he asks searching questions on such matters. I have taken the time and trouble to look into the exact app. As for what the Government can do, he has already mentioned the British Heart Foundation, and we are working closely with it. Noble Lords can download the defib app to locate the nearest defib registration on the Circuit; the defibrillators will appear on it. I encourage all organisations—sports clubs, community churches, and so on and so forth—to register to be on the app. That is key. Having the defib is one thing; having it on that app is another.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, following the successful campaign to ensure all state-funded schools will receive defibrillators—for which many thanks to the Government—will my noble friend the Minister ensure that all public and private sector sport and recreation facilities are also mandated to have defibrillators on site, with personnel trained to use them?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My noble friend raises a very good point. He is exactly right to point out the DfE’s programme, which is backed by £19 million of government support. In June 2021, the then Sports Minister welcomed the Premier League’s announcement of its new defibrillator fund, which will fund AEDs for thousands of football clubs and facilities across the country. Each grant recipient will receive all the training and support that the noble Lord refers to. It is not just about football; cricket clubs and other sports clubs throughout the nation should do this.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, many survivors of sudden cardiac arrest—unlike survivors of strokes or heart attacks—receive little or no follow-up care, although they may suffer from emotional, psychological and memory difficulties. Will the Minister look at establishing a formal care pathway for cardiac arrest survivors and ensuring that an individualised post-cardiac arrest rehabilitation plan is available across all integrated care boards to everyone who needs it, including families and people who give CPR, many of whom suffer from anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The noble Lord is exactly right: surviving a heart attack is one thing, but recovery, both of the victim and their family, is another. I will take that point back to the department.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, it is estimated that 999 call handlers and ambulance services do not have access to data on the whereabouts of tens of thousands of defibrillators, meaning that emergency services cannot direct bystanders to them in the event of a cardiac arrest while they wait for ambulance support. We know that a victim’s chance of survival falls by about 10% with every minute that defibrillation is delayed. What steps are the Government taking to address this, particularly targeting areas of poor health and high OHCA incidence so that the chances of survival in these communities can be significantly increased?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s latter point, NHS England has partnered with St John Ambulance to co-ordinate skills development to significantly increase the use of AEDs by individuals in community settings such as those she has just outlined. The ambulance service has access to the location of defibrillators, but, as I said to the noble Lord earlier, it is important that, if you have a defibrillator, you register it so it ends up on the system.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, defibrillators are extremely important in helping people who have out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, but research shows that there is significant variation in the treatment that patients receive, depending on where they are from, after a cardiac arrest. What can the Government do to ensure that evidence-based guidance for treatment is embedded in practice consistently across the NHS?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
That is a very good point. Treatment does vary from hospital to hospital, which is why it is very important that the NHS establishes best practice so that hospitals which are not performing to a high standard can learn from the best within the NHS.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, would it be a good idea, if we are dealing with things which have to be used by the general public, for us to have a universal signing system to tell you where you can find something? For instance, something red or yellow could flash in public to say where a defibrillator is—because I managed to walk past one in my office without noticing it for a couple of years.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
If the noble Lord refers to the House of Lords or the House of Commons, he raises a very good point. However, in my experience, looking at defibrillators out and about in the community, they are very well signposted—there are signs that clearly indicate them to the public. But it does vary; there is no standard, as indeed communities vary throughout the country. If the noble Lord wants to share with me his case of a specific defibrillator, we can certainly take that up with the House authorities.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this important question is part of a wider issue regarding rapid intervention across a range of health emergencies. Stroke victims, for example, who are treated quickly have a much better recovery rate and suffer much less harm, and therefore place much less subsequent pressure on health and social services. What are the Government doing to ensure that rapid intervention is a key element in the health strategy across this country? Our outcomes on a range of medical emergencies are much worse in this country than in many others.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
The NHS is doing all that it can to raise awareness. The noble Lord talks about stroke victims, and awareness and looking for the signs of somebody who is suffering from a stroke are far better than they were. However, the noble Lord is right and, as I said in an earlier answer, we can always learn from other countries’ health services. On heart attacks, the survival rate of those who receive CPR is twice that of those who do not receive it.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister to examine one of the causes of cardiovascular disease: the manufacturing of food? Manufacturers add excessive salt, sugar and fat, which then trigger neurological responses leading to cravings for food. This is highly profitable for the industry and leads to very high executive bonuses, but it is disastrous for people. Can the Minister say when the Government will examine the role of food manufacturers in creating cardiovascular disease?
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
It is well documented that a healthy lifestyle and diet are critical for a long and healthy life. A balanced and healthy lifestyle includes exercise, reduced sugar and fats. That is not the unique responsibility of food manufacturers; it is incumbent on us all to have a healthy, balanced diet.
Electronic Travel Authorisation
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Doocey
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the merits of their proposed Electronic Travel Authorisation as compared with the proposed European Travel Information and Authorisation Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
The United Kingdom’s electronic travel authorisation scheme, or ETA, and the EU’s European travel information and authorisation system, ETIAS, will require travellers to obtain authorisation prior to travel. In both cases, travellers must complete an online application form and receive electronic permission to travel, which is verified by carriers before boarding. The ETA scheme will collect biometrics upstream, away from the United Kingdom border. This will enable us to increase automation of passenger clearance at the UK border.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this new system will also require all passengers transiting through UK airports to have an ETA. The EU equivalent system has no such requirement. This means that more than 20% of passengers—and that was 20 million people in 2019—who go through airports will need to pay £10 a head for an ETA, despite the fact that they will not even leave the airport. Do the Government really believe that a family of four is going to choose to pay £40 to transit through a UK airport when it can transit through an EU airport for free?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is the intention of the policy to apply to those transferring in British airports. This makes Britain a more secure country.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, following the regret Motion debate on 23 May and subsequent amendments in Committee and at Report on the Illegal Migration Bill in respect of ETAs, what further discussions has the Minister had with his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office regarding further exemptions to ETA to ensure that the tourism industry in Northern Ireland is not further undermined as a result of such requirements?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, and I can reassure her that work continues on the guidance discussed during the previous debate. The Government remain committed to the Good Friday agreement and ensuring there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. In line with our commitments under strand 2, the Government are committed to working with Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively through targeting messages and a variety of channels. That would include Tourism Ireland, as a crucial body established under the north/south provisions.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests as the chairman of Airlines UK. Does my noble friend understand that putting Britain at a commercial disadvantage in such an international industry will do us no good whatsoever in the long term? Perhaps the Government should look at how our airlines are able to compete internationally with others.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. I must say, however, that the cost of an electronic travel application in the UK is only £10. It will be €7 for an ETIAS, whereas among our comparators overseas—in the US, for example—the equivalent ESTA costs $21, which is £16 in today’s prices. In Australia, it is 20 Australian dollars and in New Zealand, it is 23 New Zealand dollars if completed online and 17 dollars if completed on a mobile app. By any measure, the price to be charged for a UK ETA is very reasonable.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has been extremely well briefed, to missing the point. Is he not aware that the tourism agencies in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have expressed grave concern at the catastrophic impact this will have on tourism across the island of Ireland, which is very important to both? Can we have some sense of action this day from him, rather than a few more meaningless statistics?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord that the views of the tourist authorities across the island of Ireland have not been taken into account. Engagement has been deep and thorough, and it is for that reason that an agreement has been made that particular circumstances will apply in Northern Ireland. I simply do not agree with him that the impact of the introduction of ETAs will devastate the Irish tourism industry.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, will these rules apply to those with full residency in the European Union—to British nationals entering the European Union? I declare that I am a full resident in Portugal. Are the Government aware that EU citizens can avail themselves of the opportunity to go through the UK’s electronic gate immigration system? However, as a result of Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, those with residency, when entering the EU, are consigned to third-country status. Would the Minister consider engaging with his EU ministerial colleagues—it has been suggested by EU immigration authorities that they would welcome this—to have this anomaly corrected?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for that question. He makes an important point. As I have said before in this House, we endeavour to operate our e-gates policy on the most welcoming basis we can, and this includes allowing EEA nationals to use our e-gates. It is perhaps unfortunate that the same privilege has not been extended reciprocally so far, but this is something officials continue to work on. I reassure the noble Viscount that my understanding is that the Schengen border area negotiations resulted in an agreement that there would be exemptions for residents and family members of EU citizens from ETIAS, although it is a little unclear what those are and how they will be affected at this stage.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that, whatever systems are used at the border, staff are needed to oversee the border and the e-gates? Can the Minister comment on the recent Daily Mail article, which said that the Defence Secretary
“has refused the Home Secretary's request for 750 troops to be deployed to plug gaps in the UK’s Border Force—claiming that Ms Braverman should have made contingency plans for the shortages, rather than expecting him to act as a last-minute stop-gap”?
The Home Secretary has said that, without those 750 members of the Armed Forces
“to help man immigration posts to cover for striking or absent Border Force officers, then British travellers could face long queues”.
What does the Minister say to that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is quite a long way from comparing ETIAS and ETAs, of course, but the short answer is that the figures that appeared in the Daily Mail article relate to the military aid to civilian authority application, which was made in order to make up for shortfalls in Border Force staff during strike action. I am glad to confirm for the House that there is no strike action planned during the peak of the summer season. I can also confirm that the Border Force strikes at Christmastime saw the effective deployment of soldiers; I am sure that Members of this House are grateful to them for their excellent work on that occasion.
I can assure the noble Lord that we have trained and are ready to deal with situations relating to a shortage of Border Force staff. We have recruited more staff, cancelled some leave and trained staff to address more front-line roles, so the noble Lord should be satisfied with that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I voted for Brexit because I thought that it would result in making our country more competitive and reduce the burdens on people. Is this not a classic example of going in the opposite direction, and should we not abandon it?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I agree entirely with my noble friend as to the sentiment behind the decision that we as a nation took. I can reassure him that the ETA system is as unbureaucratic as it can be and is not linked in the same way that ETIAS is to a burdensome requirement for biometric and fingerprint recognition on entry into and exit from the European Union. The British scheme simply requires the taking of a photograph when someone applies for an ETA on their phone. It will be much smoother and much less burdensome and as a result, economic benefits will, I think, accrue to our country.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to fingerprinting. Can he update the House on what plans, that he knows of, are being prepared to force UK citizens travelling to Europe to be fingerprinted at the point of departure, whether it is Dover, Folkestone or St Pancras? If discussions are happening, can he tell us what steps the Government are taking to enable the infrastructure in those three locations to handle the large volumes of people who would need to be fingerprinted?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Viscount makes an important point. Obviously, a vital part of the ETIAS system on which the EU will rely involves the implementation, six months before the introduction of ETIAS, of something called the European entry/exit system, which will require all non-EU nationals entering the EU to be photographed and to provide their fingerprints on both entry and exit. This is the topic of ongoing negotiations between our Government and that of the European Union and the member states themselves. Clearly, discussions are ongoing about the impact this will have at our ports and the border. I can reassure the noble Viscount that these things are being speedily considered, and it is hoped that changes may be made.
Schools: Admissions
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child’s recommendation that the United Kingdom should prevent the use of religion as a selection criterion for school admissions in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is a proud signatory of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, the Government support faith schools’ ability to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. This allows parents to have their children educated in line with their religious beliefs. Faith schools can give priority to applicants on the basis of faith only when they are oversubscribed. Where places are available, they must admit all children who apply.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure that is quite correct. Not a lot of people know this, but children from non-religious families may experience double discrimination when it comes to selection at schools. Approximately 40% of all faith schools and 60% of Catholic schools give priority to children of families of any religion against those of no religion. As the equalities spokesperson and a humanist, I agree with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has urged the UK to end the use of religion as a selection criterion for school admissions in England. Does the Minister agree that all children, irrespective of faith or belief background, should have equal right to access schools funded by taxpayers’ money?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I tried to set out in my initial Answer, we believe that all children have equal access. Only when a school is oversubscribed can the admissions authority introduce additional restrictions. Indeed, many faith schools do not restrict on the basis of faith.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
How does the Minister respond to these remarks from a parent in Oldham who told Humanists UK that
“the 2021 Census found that those of no religion, and those of other faiths than Christianity, now form a majority of the population in our town. So it is a great injustice that one of the best schools in Oldham actively prevents local children from benefiting from its excellent teaching”?
Baroness Barran (Con)
If there is a specific example where the noble Baroness believes that the admissions code is not being followed by a school, I will be delighted for her to refer it to me.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, as there is no Anglican bishop in the House to put forward the view of the Anglican Church, I remind the House that I went to a Church of England primary school back in the 1940s, when we had been evacuated to Southport. Neither of my parents was asked whether they were members of the Church of England—neither was. I know of no secondary Anglican school that has ever debarred a child on grounds of religion. They are open to all.
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is not quite clear to me what my noble friend’s question was, but he is absolutely right that, on oversubscription, certainly at primary, there is no difference between faith and non-faith schools.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will probably be aware that the UK is one of only four countries in the OECD that allows state-funded schools to discriminate on grounds of religion in their admission practices. The others are Israel, Ireland and Estonia. Ireland recently ended discrimination in admission practices for Catholic junior schools. Does the Minister accept that it is high time for this country also to end its discrimination on grounds of religion for state-funded schools?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is really hard to compare the role of faith-based schools between countries with an overwhelmingly dominant faith and those, such as the one we are all very proud to live in, with many faiths, all of which are respected.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Baker that it is a great pity that, of the 26 of them entitled to sit in your Lordships’ House, there is no bishop here to defend the wonderful contribution that the established Church has made to education through the centuries. Should we not pay proper regard to that and, in doing so, accept that Christian parents should have some degree of priority if there are vacancies in a Church of England school?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I share my noble friend’s warm welcome for the remarkable work of all our schools, including our faith schools, all around the country.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I was present when the then Education Secretary Michael Gove, on a visit to the Guru Nanak school in Hayes, applauded Sikh respect for other faiths, shown in assemblies and teaching. This and high academic performance lead to oversubscription for entry. Does the Minister agree that greater support should be given to faith schools that teach respect and inclusivity over those grounded in the divisive belief that their faith alone has a monopoly on the truth?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not accept that there are faith schools that have the kind of perspective that the noble Lord set out. We work hard with all our schools, and schools work together in local areas, to make sure that those values of respect—particularly for those of any other faith or none—are upheld. That is part of our citizenship curriculum and our fundamental British values.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is estimated that 1.2 million school places are subject to religious selection. There is evidence of low numbers of pupils eligible for free school meals, which is a measure of deprivation, in English faith schools. Will the Minister share her reflections and concerns about the selection process that may have led to this and whether the Department for Education will take a deeper look at this?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I looked at those numbers just before this Question, because I anticipated that the noble Baroness might raise them. I am happy to pick this up with her afterwards, but the data that I looked at suggest very little difference in the profile of deprivation between faith and non-faith schools.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former head teacher of a Church of England school. As the Minister knows, a third of all our schools in England are faith schools. She will also know that in 2010 we introduced the 50% rule whereby 50% of new academies had to have open places. Has her department reviewed the success of that scheme in terms of community cohesion, understanding of different cultures and faiths, and whether we should now extend it to all faith schools?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware that we have looked in detail at any of those proposals in the way that the noble Lord describes, but I am aware that all schools—potentially faith schools in particular—take their role in community cohesion very seriously.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Does my noble friend accept that the rights of parents to have their children educated according to their own religious beliefs is protected by Article 2 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights? Does she accept that Catholic schools, at least, are not state schools?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not quite sure that I follow. To the best of my knowledge, all Catholic schools outside the independent sector are funded by the state.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, as a former Archbishop of Canterbury, perhaps I might speak on behalf of the absent Bishops’ Benches. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Baker: the very heart of Anglicanism and the Church of England has been a tolerance of and welcome to other faiths. Does the Minister agree that that has always been the focus of education in England, and that we all want it to continue?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble and right reverend Lord makes a very important point, and I absolutely agree with him.
Leasehold Properties: Managing Agents
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to regulate managing agents who manage leasehold properties on behalf of freeholders while being paid by leaseholders.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer the House to the register of interests and the fact that I am a leaseholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to raising standards and professionalism within the property management sector. Managing agents in England and Wales must belong to one of the two government-approved redress schemes. Leaseholders can also apply to the First-tier Tribunal to appoint a manager where there is significant management failure. We will continue to work with the industry on improving best practice, including in relation to the codes of practice. Announcements will be set out in the usual way.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for that response. There is a desperate need for a regulator with real teeth to ensure that managing agents treat leaseholders fairly and are open about their charges; that there is a proper redress scheme in place, with real powers to take remedial action against those who rip people off; and that, in the worst cases, they can be removed from the industry. Does the Minister agree with me that that is the way forward?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. That is exactly what we are doing. The commitment includes raising professionalism and standards among property agents. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and RICS, which she is working with, will meet the Housing Minister to discuss a code of practice for property agents. I thank the noble Baroness for all the work she is doing on this, and I welcome her excellent stewardship of the independent steering group as we strive to promote best practice among property agents in future.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Building Safety Act has given leaseholders very welcome protection against the costs of making their buildings safe, following the Grenfell tragedy. But the legislation has an important defect, in that if any leaseholder subsequently extends his or her lease, they lose all their protection. I think my noble friend is aware of this oversight in the legislation, but when will she put it right and will it be retrospective?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, we are well aware of the significant issue concerning leaseholder protections where leases are extended or varied. A change to primary legislation is necessary to ensure the continuation of protection. We are looking to bring forward the necessary legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows. Obviously, compensation will be part of that discussion, I am sure.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
Is the Minister not aware that freeholders are frequently motivated to consolidate the ownership of their properties by driving the leaseholders into unsustainable debt, by dint of exorbitant service charges?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thought the noble Viscount was going to go on further with that question; it was nice and quick. He is absolutely right; I get more letters about service charges, particularly at this time, than ever before. We believe very strongly that service charges need to be more transparent and communicated more effectively by freeholders, because there should be a clear route to challenging them, or to redress if things go wrong. We are working to make sure that we get further changes to leaseholder legislation to ensure that transparency.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, raised the regulation of managing agents of leaseholder properties. Does the Minister recall that the working group the Government set up looked at estate agents and letting agents as well, grouping them all together as property agents and requiring a regulator that covered all three sectors together? This makes a lot of sense because some people do all three jobs.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord is right, and I thank him for the work he has done on this. I assure him that we are still looking at his review. We are also working with National Trading Standards to improve particularly the disclosure of material information in property listings, and with estate agents to ensure that they are offering an appropriate service to consumers all the time. We will continue to work with the sector to make sure that it is behaving appropriately and ensuring that people who go to agents are treated with the respect that they deserve.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, over the years that this has been a major issue we have had seven Secretaries of State and nine Housing Ministers. In the meantime, the building safety crisis and surging inflation are causing even more financial hardship to tens of thousands of leaseholders. Can the Minister assure us that managing agent reform—I use that word deliberately—and regulation specifically will be a plank of any new legislation? Will it be given the necessary time to ensure that it receives Royal Assent before the end of the next Parliament?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I have said many times at the Dispatch Box that I cannot say that. I cannot tell noble Lords when the leaseholder protection Bill will come through and what it will contain because that would pre-empt the King’s Speech. However, I can assure noble Lords, as I have said before, that it was in our manifesto and that we intend to deliver before the end of the Parliament.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, would it not be better if leaseholders were enabled more easily to take over the management of their flats themselves? At present, this is particularly difficult and can be easily frustrated. What will the Government do to make it easier?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the Government agree with the noble Lord. We should wait until we have further leasehold reform.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the estate agents Hamptons estimates that England’s leaseholders will collectively pay a crippling £7.6 billion in service charges this year. The Minister will have heard from the individuals. Although it is tempting to say that the case is therefore for statutory regulation of managing agents, could she comment on the real solution, which is that leaseholders should have the right easily to hire and fire managing agents themselves, as suggested by Commonhold Now, and that they should have some control over their own properties?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. That is exactly why we are looking at a code of conduct, which will have teeth, and the role more widely of leaseholders when we look to the leasehold Bill that will come through.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend refers to leasehold, but is it not correct that all the other professionals involved in residential property transactions—I declare an interest as a solicitor—are very tightly controlled indeed in respect of fees and their conduct, bearing in mind the extra responsibilities, such as sales and purchases, now placed on professionals? Why are we not more determined to ensure that estate agents are equally controlled?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, estate agents are regulated through the Estate Agents Act 1979. As I said, that is currently enforced through the National Trading Standards estate and letting agency team, which makes it very clear that estate agents are expected to exercise due diligence and check whether the information on anything they are selling is correct. The Government expect all property agents to ensure that customers are aware of anything to do with the property that they are negotiating on and to work within those trading standards rules and regulations.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we keep getting vague promises about action being taken on leaseholder reform. For all leaseholders, the prospect of hikes in their service charges hangs over them like a sword of Damocles. It is about time that this was sorted out. The present provisions are too opaque and leave leaseholders at the mercy of unscrupulous managing agents. If we are to have transparency of service charges, when will this reform come forward? Please can we have a bit more clarity about when the Government will tackle it?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: leaseholders need that transparency to better understand what they are paying for and for it to be harder for landlords to hide any unreasonable charges. As I said, we are looking at it. We will bring forward legislation later in this Parliament.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, on that very important point, does the Minister envisage that the outcome of this will be models to insist that agents set out information in a way that is very simple and easy to understand? Unless we have that, it will be so easy for agents to hide behind the jargon used in the industry about what exactly service charges cover.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot say what will be in the proposed Bill, but what the noble Lord has said is absolutely right. Leaseholders should be absolutely clear about what to expect from their landlord.
Business of the House
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Before we move on to the main business, I think it will be helpful, while as many noble Lords as possible are in the Chamber, to provide an update on how today’s proceedings will run. After consideration of the Senior Deputy Speaker’s Motions and other brief business, we will further consider the Online Safety Bill on Report. We will break for dinner at a convenient point after 7.30 pm as per usual, continue with that Bill after dinner and conclude proceedings on it by 10 pm.
As noble Lords know, we will also consider a further message from the House of Commons on the Illegal Migration Bill this evening. The precise start time will depend on a variety of factors. We expect the other House to conclude its consideration of the Bill no earlier than 8 pm and to send its message as soon as possible thereafter. The deadline for noble Lords to table amendments will be one hour after the message arrives in this House. The precise time will be communicated by email to Peers through the usual channels and will be placed on the annunciator. Members must contact the Public Bill Office in that window, preferably in person, to table their amendments. Once amendments have been received, the Public Bill Office will produce a Marshalled List and briefings for the Peers and Deputy Speakers involved. The Government Whips’ Office will also reissue today’s list with the groupings for debate. We will commence the debate as soon as possible, but we expect that it could be later in the evening.
If we have finished the debate on the Online Safety Bill, the House will be adjourned until proceedings on the Illegal Migration Bill commence. I hope that is clear to all noble Lords. The Whips’ offices and House authorities are on hand to help, and all details will be communicated on the annunciator as soon as they are available.
I take this opportunity to thank all staff across the House and the usual channels for their work to support late sittings this week, particularly the Public Bill Office for its dedicated work and those who have made additional catering and services available to noble Lords, ensuring that we are well supported. Further detail on the arrangements for this evening and tomorrow has been circulated and is available on the intranet.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for the excellent work that she and her colleagues in the Whips’ Office are doing but, just on that last point, are we really expected to have just the Long Room open later this evening—and I suspect it may be a long evening—when there are so many people on both sides of the House who will want refreshments? I know this is not my noble friend’s bailiwick, but could she use her good offices to ensure that those responsible are aware of the needs of Members?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It may not be my bailiwick but the well-being of my colleagues and, indeed, the whole House is of utmost importance, so I have asked that the extended opening hours of establishments all over the House, including the Terrace, until midnight be circulated.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, could I be reminded of what the Companion says about the normal finishing times for business in this House? Is it not the case that the way that this is being structured is almost a punishment beating for the House of Lords for daring to question a particular piece of legislation? The Commons is considering it earlier in the day and then we will have the usual four or five hours while a message comes from one end of the building to the other. It will then be digested before we start our business so that the message can go back—if there is a message—and the Commons can consider it tomorrow, early in the day, and then presumably it will be sent back to us for us to consider right at the end of the day. Would it not be better for us to agree that we finish at the normal time tonight, then consider it at a sensible hour tomorrow and, if the Commons needs to consider again, it can do it either very late at night tomorrow or wait until the following day?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I think the House will agree that there is nothing unusual about this ping-pong process. One thing that has led to a slight delay today is that there was a Statement in the House of Commons. The Statement is coming first, followed by the consideration, then the Bill is coming back to us. That is not unusual. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
My Lords, when the House sits as late as it may tonight and tomorrow morning, expenses are provided to certain House staff. I understand that, following a recent late sitting, after 6 am—when it is not impossible we will be sitting at again—some staff were not allowed to claim expenses for travel. Can my noble friend please have a look at that?
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend gets up, bearing in mind the interview that the Minister of State gave on Saturday morning on the “Today” programme, could we not save some time by telling those noble Lords who want to put down amendments that the Bill is not going to change? It will come back in the state in which that the Minister of State says it will come back. That would save quite a lot of time and we could just get on with the debate.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
On my noble friend Lord McLoughlin’s point, he knows that that is not the way of politics. On my noble friend Lord Brownlow’s point, I will certainly take that back. I did not realise that it was the case.
Procedure and Privileges Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Leave of Absence, Sifting of proposed negative instruments under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and amendments to the SLSC Terms of Reference (6th Report, HL Paper 228) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the report recommends two sets of changes to the House. The first relates to the leave of absence scheme and the second to the sifting of proposed negative instruments by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
I turn first to the proposed small change to the leave of absence scheme. In applying to the Clerk of the Parliaments for leave of absence, Members are currently required to state that they have a “reasonable expectation” of return, to specify a reason for requesting the leave of absence, and to give a
“date by which they expect to return”.
This last requirement has caused some difficulty for Members who genuinely do not know when they will be in a position to return. Cases may include a Member seeking leave of absence for medical treatment or to take on caring responsibilities for a family member.
The change proposed by the committee would allow a Member who is not able to specify a date instead to explain the
“circumstances which will allow their return”.
The committee intends to look further at the leave of absence scheme in the autumn, and I would be happy to talk to any Member who had thoughts on how it could be improved. For now, I hope that the House will support this adjustment.
The report also contains proposals relating to the sifting of proposed negative instruments laid under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and their scrutiny by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. These proposals mirror the arrangements that operated under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020.
The report speaks for itself and I will not detain the House unnecessarily. However, I want to place on record my considerable thanks to the members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, who are content to take on this extra scrutiny and to the excellent officials who serve the committee.
I would like to be very clear that the laying of negative instruments during Recess would not reduce the House’s ability to scrutinise them as the scrutiny clock would not start until the two Houses were sitting again. The advantage of allowing proposed negative instruments to be laid during recesses is that it would enable staff working for the committee to continue their work in recesses in order to provide papers immediately after the return of the House. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s recommendation that the terms of reference of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I am privileged to chair, should be extended to include scrutiny of proposed negative instruments laid under the retained EU law Act. In 2018, the committee was given a similar sifting function in relation to the withdrawal Act, which was later extended to include the sifting of proposed negative instruments under the 2020 future relationship Act.
At the beginning, the committee was in uncharted territory, but under the wise leadership of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, and then my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley of Abbotts, ably assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, and others, together with a strong team of advisers and other staff, I believe the committee has since become well accustomed to what was at the time a novel procedure. Having considered nearly 350 proposed negative instruments laid under the 2018 and 2020 Acts, we would welcome this opportunity to apply our experience to sifting instruments laid under the retained EU law Act.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, can I raise a couple of points in relation to leave of absence? I have reason to believe that in one or two cases the leave of absence provision has been exploited in an unfortunate way. I wonder therefore whether the committee and the chairman could consider two things. I understand why this is not retrospective and says “in future”, but first these proposals should be drawn to the attention of those who are currently on leave of absence and, secondly, each current case of leave of absence should be looked at to ensure it is not being exploited in an unfortunate way. If the chairman wants further information, I am very happy to provide it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I would just like to add a few words to what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said. This House is frequently criticised because of its size. We have trotted out in newspaper leaders and articles that it is second only in size to the Chinese National People’s Congress, but if one actually looks at this House and studies it, the vast majority of work falls on the shoulders of a relatively small number of the 800 or so Members.
It is also clear, when one looks at the list of those who have taken leave of absence, that there are big question marks over some of them. Of course, an ambassador, such as our current ambassador in Italy, should, without question, be given leave of absence. We know that when he retires from his diplomatic career, he will be able to add many wise words to our counsel in this place. The same was true, of course, of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, when she had a very important job in the European Union and had leave of absence.
However, there are others, whose names I will not mention, who do not necessarily measure up to that and are not necessarily very ill for a long period. Of course illness or caring for a loved one should be taken into account and accepted as a proper reason, but there ought to be much more frequent reviews of this. My understanding is that, although it is supposed to be looked at by committee on a regular basis, that actually happens very infrequently. I am most grateful to my noble friend and delighted that it is being examined at the moment.
I would be grateful if, when my noble friend replies to this brief debate, he would tell us how many currently are on leave of absence, and how many have been for more than two years. My view is that, unless there is an overriding reason—health, a diplomatic appointment or something like that—a leave of absence should not be readily granted for more than a parliamentary Session. After all, if someone does not appear during a parliamentary Session, under the terms of the 2014 Act, known as the Steel Act, that Member forfeits membership. There is a very strong case, although I will not expand on it now, that those who do not put in a certain minimum attendance should forfeit their right because you are not able to play a constructive part in a Chamber of Parliament unless you attend on a reasonably regular basis and participate.
I hope that the review to which my noble friend referred—he said it would be coming back in the autumn—will take evidence and discuss this with bodies such as the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, which I have the honour to chair, and which has Members from all political parties and the Cross Benches and meets on a frequent basis. I hope we will have the chance to make a submission. If numbers are something that bring obloquy on the House, we ought to try to deal with that in a constructive and sensible manner. Granting indefinite leave of absence without rigorous examination, frankly, does no service to Parliament in general or to this House in particular.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak so I shall be brief. I endorse many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
As the House knows well, we are entering a period when there is going to be a great deal more debate about the future and the nature of the composition of the membership of this House, and that will extend beyond the next general election. When I read, as all Members have done, in the recent report by the Speaker’s committee on the composition of the House that the House of Commons Select Committee is currently investigating this House then I think there is all the more reason why we ourselves should have a full and proper discussion and not wait until the next election, so I fully endorse the Senior Deputy Speaker’s suggestion that we return to this in the autumn.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. On what he said about “uncharted territory”, my view is that the noble Lord’s committee has acquired expertise on these matters of sifting extremely quickly, and I place on record my gratitude to previous members and current members and staff for their considerable work in this regard.
On the question of leave of absence, we have had three very helpful contributions. The work that will be getting under way, which I mentioned in prefacing this debate, is precisely for the reasons that have been articulated. We need to get this right and it needs to be appropriate. The reference regarding leave of absence is to “temporary circumstances”. One can interpret “temporary” in different ways, and we have heard various examples of rather longer periods of temporary circumstance when a Member takes leave of absence.
To answer some questions, I knew the answer to the first one, which is that 38 Members are currently on leave of absence, but then a helpful note was passed to me with a figure that I did not know, which is that 18 Members are on leave of absence for more than two years. So those are the two figures.
On future dialogue, as I have said, I very much welcome contributions, submissions or one-to-one meetings with any Members who have particular thoughts on this matter. There is an opportunity for your Lordships’ Select Committee to look at this in the autumn, because we want to make sure that it is contemporary and correct. We are of course mindful that there is the ability for some of our Members to be away for the reasons that we all know and, I hope, to come back and make a strong contribution—sometimes because of the experience they have had in other disciplines and tasks.
We have heard very helpful comments from Members of the House today. In the meantime, I commend the report to the House.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:
Standing Order 21 (Leave of Absence)
Leave out paragraph (3) and insert the following new paragraph:
“(3) When applying for leave of absence, a member of the House should state in their written application: (a) either the date by which they expect to return, or, if they are unable to specify a date, the circumstances which will allow their return; (b) the reason for their leave of absence; and (c) that they have a reasonable expectation that they will be in a position again to take part in the proceedings of the House.”
Standing Order 71 (Laying of documents under Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and Schedule 5 to the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020)
Title, delete from “and” to the end and insert “Schedule 5 to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023
Line 1, delete “paragraphs 3(3) and” and insert “paragraph”
Line 2, delete “paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 5 to the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020” and insert “paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 5 to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023”.
Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 June be approved.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 June be approved.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Online Safety Bill
Monday 17th July 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 151-V Fifth marshalled list for Report - (17 Jul 2023)
Lord Moylan
“Terms of service as a contract
The terms of service under which a Category 1 service is provided to a person who is a consumer for the purposes of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 must be treated as being a contract for a trader to provide a service to a consumer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This purpose of this amendment is to ensure that providers’ terms of service are treated as consumer contracts, and to give users recourse to the remedies under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the event of breach.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 186A, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not speaking in detail to the many other amendments in this group correctly branded “miscellaneous” by those who compile our lists for us. Many of them are minor and technical, especially the government amendments. However, that is not true of all of them: Amendment 253 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is a substantial amendment relating to regulatory co-operation, while Amendment 275A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is also of some interest, relating to the reports that Ofcom is being asked to produce on technological developments.
Nor is Amendment 191A lacking in importance and substance, although—I hope I will be forgiven for saying this, not in a snarky sort of way—for those of us who are worried about the enormous powers being given to Ofcom as a result of the Bill, the idea that it should be required by statute to give guidance to coroners, who are part of the courts system, seems to me strange and worth examining more closely. There might be a more seemly way of achieving the effect that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, understandably wants to achieve.
I turn to my own Amendment 186A, which, I hope, ought to be relatively straightforward. It concerns the terms of service of a contract with a category 1 service provider, and it is intended to improve the rights that consumers or users of that service have. It is the case that the Government want users of those services to have the ability to enforce their rights under contract against the service providers, as set out in Clause 65, and this is entirely welcome. However, it is well known that bringing claims in contract can be an expensive and onerous business, as I have pointed out in the past, particularly when the service is provided on the one-sided terms of the service provider—often, of course, drafted under the legal system of a foreign jurisdiction.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 275A in this group. It would place a duty on Ofcom to report annually on areas where our legal codes need clarification and revision to remain up to date as new technologies emerge—and that is to cover technologies, some of which we have not even thought of yet.
Government Amendments 206 and 209 revealed the need for an amendment to the Bill and how it would operate, as they clarify that reference to pornographic content in the Bill includes content created by a bot. However, emerging technologies will need constant scrutiny.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked, what about provider content, which forms the background to the user interaction and may include many harms. For example, would a game backdrop that includes anti-Semitic slurs, a concentration camp, a sex shop or a Ku Klux Klan rally be caught by the Bill?
The Minister confirmed that “content” refers to anything communicated by means of an internet service and the encounter includes any content that individuals read, view, hear or otherwise experience, making providers liable for the content that they publish. Is this liable under civil, regulatory or criminal law?
As Schedule 1 goes to some lengths to exempt some service-to-provider content, can the Minister for the record provide chapter and verse, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on provider liability and, in particular, confirm whether such content would be dealt with by the Part 3 duties under the online safety regime or whether users would have to rely on similar law for claims at their own expense through the courts or the police carry the burden of further enforcement?
Last week, the Minister confirmed that “functionality” captures any feature enabling interactions of any description between service users, but are avatars or objects created by the provider of a service, not by an individual user, in scope and therefore subject to risk assessments and their mitigation requirements? If so, will these functionalities also be added to user empowerment tools, enabling users to opt out of exposure to them, or will they be caught only by child safety duties? Are environments provided by a service provider, such as a backdrop to immersive environments, in scope through the definition of “functionality”, “content” or both? When this is provider content and not user-generated content, will this still hold true?
All this points to a deeper issue. Internet services have become more complex and vivid, with extremely realistic avatars and objects indistinguishable from people and objects in the real world. This amendment avoids focusing on negatives associated with AI and new technologies but tries to ensure that the online world is as safe as the offline world should be. It is worth noting that Interpol is already investigating how to deal with criminals in the metaverse and anticipating crimes against children, data theft, money laundering, fraud and counterfeit, ransomware, phishing, sexual assault and harassment, among other things. Many of these behaviours operate in grey areas of the law where it is not clear whether legal definitions extend to the metaverse.
Ofcom has an enormous task ahead, but it is best placed to consider the law’s relationship to new technological developments and to inform Parliament. Updating our laws through the mechanisms proposed in Amendment 275A will provide clarity to the courts, judges, police and prosecution service. I urge the Minister to provide as full an answer as possible to the many questions I have posed. I am grateful to him for all the work he has been doing. If he cannot accept my amendment as worded, will he provide an assurance that he will return to this with a government amendment at Third Reading?
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 191A in my name. I also support Amendment 186A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, Amendment 253 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and Amendment 275A in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay. I hope that my words will provide a certain level of reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
In Committee and on Report, the question was raised as to how to support the coronial system with information, education and professional development to keep pace with the impact of the fast-changing digital world. I very much welcome the Chief Coroner’s commitment to professional development for coroners but, as the Minister said, this is subject to funding. While it is right that the duty falls to the Chief Coroner to honour the independence and expert knowledge associated with his roles, this amendment seeks to support his duties with written guidance from Ofcom, which has no such funding issue since its work will be supported by a levy on regulated companies—a levy that I argue could usefully and desirably contribute to the new duties that benefit coroners and bereaved parents.
The role of a coroner is fundamental. They must know what preliminary questions to ask and how to triage the possibility that a child’s digital life is relevant. They must know that Ofcom is there as a resource and ally and how to activate its powers and support. They must know what to ask Ofcom for, how to analyse information they receive and what follow-up questions might be needed. Importantly, they must feel confident in making a determination and describing the way in which the use of a regulated service has contributed to a child’s death, in the case that that is indeed their finding. They must be able to identify learnings that might prevent similar tragedies happening in the future. Moreover, much of the research and information that Ofcom will gather in the course of its other duties could be usefully directed at coroners. All Amendment 191A would do is add to the list of reports that Ofcom has to produce with these issues in mind. In doing so, it would do the Chief Coroner the service of contributing to his own needs and plans for professional development.
I turn to Amendment 186A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who makes a very significant point in bringing it forward. Enormous effort goes into creating an aura of exceptionality for the tech sector, allowing it to avoid laws and regulations that routinely apply to other sectors. These are businesses that benefit from our laws, such as intellectual copyright or international tax law. However, they have negotiated a privileged position in which they have privatised the benefits of our attention and data while outsourcing most of the costs of their service to the public purse or, indeed, their users.
Terms and conditions are a way in which a company enters into a clear agreement with its users, who then “pay” for access with their attention and their data: two of the most valuable commodities in today’s digital society. I am very sympathetic to the noble Lord’s wish to reframe people, both adults and children, from a series of euphemisms that the sector employs—such as “users”, “community members”, “creators” or “participants”—to acknowledge their status as consumers who have rights and, in particular, the right to expect the product they use to be safe and for providers to be held accountable if it is not. I join the noble Lord in asserting that there are now six weeks before Third Reading. This is a very valuable suggestion that is worthy of government attention.
Amendment 253 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, puts forward a very strong recommendation of the pre-legislative committee. We were a bit bewildered and surprised that it was not taken up at the time, so I will be interested to hear what argument the Minister makes to exclude it, if indeed he does so. I say to him that I have already experienced the frustration of being bumped from one regulator to another. Although my time as an individual or the organisational time of a charity is minor in the picture we are discussing, it is costly in time and resources. I point to the time, resources and potential effectiveness of the regulatory regime. However well oiled and well funded the regulatory regime of the Online Safety Bill is, I do not think it will be as well oiled and well funded as those that it seeks to regulate.
I make it clear that I accept the arguments of not wanting to create a super-regulator or slow down or confuse existing regulators which each have their own responsibilities, but I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has approached this with more of a belt-and-braces approach rather than a whole realignment of regulators. He simply seeks to make it explicit that regulators can, should and do have a legal basis on which to work singularly or together when it suits them. As I indicated earlier, I cannot quite understand why that would not be desirable.
Finally, in what is truly a miscellaneous group, I will refer to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay. I support the intent of this amendment and sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that this is already in the Bill and will be done by Ofcom under one duty or another. I hope that he will be able to point to something that includes this. I thank my noble friend for raising it, as it harks back to an amendment in Committee in my name that sought to establish that content deemed harmful in one format would be deemed harmful in all formats—whether synthetic, such as AI, the metaverse or augmented reality. As my noble friend alluded to, it also speaks to the debate we had last week in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about provider content in the metaverse.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I will make some arguments in favour of Amendment 191A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and inject some notes of caution around Amendment 186A.
On Amendment 191A, it has been my experience that when people frequently investigate something that has happened on online services, they do it well, and well-formed requests are critical to making this work effectively. This was the case with law enforcement: when an individual police officer is investigating something online for the first time, they often ask the wrong questions. They do not understand what they can get and what they cannot get. It is like everything in life: the more you do it, the better you get at it.
Fortunately, in a sense, most coroners will only very occasionally have to deal with these awful circumstances where they need data related to the death of a child. At that point, they are going to be very dependent on Ofcom—which will be dealing with the companies day in and day out across a range of issues—for its expertise. Therefore, it makes absolute sense that Ofcom’s expertise should be distributed widely and that coroners—at the point where they need to access this information—should be able to rely on that. So Amendment 191A is very well intended and, from a practical point of view, very necessary if we are going to make this new system work as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I would like to see it work.
On Amendment 186A around consumer law, I can see the attraction of this, as well as some of the read-across from the United States. A lot of the enforcement against online platforms in the US takes place through the Federal Trade Commission precisely in this area of consumer law and looking at unfair and deceptive practices. I can see the attraction of seeking to align with European Union law, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, argued we should be doing with respect to consumer law. However, I think this would be much better dealt with in the context of the digital markets Bill and it would be a mistake to squeeze it in here. My reasons for this are about both process and substance.
In terms of process, we have not done the impact assessment on this. It is quite a major change, for two reasons. First, it could potentially have a huge impact in terms of legal costs and the way businesses will have to deal with that—although I know nobody is going to get too upset if the impact assessment says there will be a significant increase in legal costs for category 1 companies. However, we should at least flesh these things out when we are making regulations and have them in an impact assessment before going ahead and doing something that would have a material impact.
Secondly in process terms, there are some really interesting questions about the way this might affect the market. The consumer law we have does exclude services that are offered for free, because so much of consumer law is about saying, “If the goods are not delivered correctly, you get your money back”. With free services, we are clearly dealing with a different model, so the notion that we have a law that is geared towards making sure you either get the goods or you get the money may not be the best fit. To try to shoehorn in these free-at-the-point-of-use services may not be the best way to do it, even from a markets and consumer point of view. Taking our time to think about how to get this right would make sense.
More fundamentally, in terms of the substance, we need to recognise that, as a result of the Online Safety Bill, Ofcom will be requiring regulated services to rewrite their terms of service in quite a lot of detail. We see this throughout the Bill. We are going to have to do all sorts of things—we will debate other amendments in this area today—to make sure that their terms of service are conformant with what we want from them in this Bill. They are going to have to redo their complaints and redress mechanisms. All of this is going to have to change and Ofcom is going to be the regulator that tells them how to do it; that is what we are asking Ofcom to tell them to do.
My fundamental concern here, if we introduce another element, is that there is a whole different structure under consumer law where you might go to local trading standards or the CMA, or you might launch a private action. In many cases, this may overlap. The overlap is where consumer law states that goods must be provided with reasonable care and skill and in a reasonable time. That sounds great, but it is also what the Online Safety Bill is going to be doing. We do not want consumer law saying, “You need to write your terms of service this way and handle complaints this way”, and then Ofcom coming along and saying, “No, you must write your terms of service that way and handle complaints that way”. We will end up in a mess. So I just think that, from a practical point of view, we should be very focused in this Bill on getting all of this right from an Online Safety Bill point of view, and very cautious about introducing another element.
Perhaps one of the attractions of the consumer law point for those who support the amendment is that it says, “Your terms must be fair”. It is the US model; you cannot have unfair terms. Again, I can imagine a scenario in which somebody goes to court and tries to get the terms struck down because they are unfair but the platform says, “They’re the terms Ofcom told me to write. Sort this out, please, because Ofcom is saying I need to do this but the courts are now saying the thing I did was unfair because somebody feels that they were badly treated”.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Does the noble Lord accept that that is already a possibility? You can bring an action in contract law against them on the grounds that it is an unfair contract. This could happen already. It is as if the noble Lord is not aware that the possibility of individual action for breach of contract is already built into Clause 65. This measure simply supplements it.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I am certainly aware that it is there but, again, the noble Lord has just made the point himself: this supplements it. The intent of the amendment is to give consumers more rights under this additional piece of legislation; otherwise, why bother with the amendment at all? The noble Lord may be arguing against himself in saying that this is unnecessary and, at the same time, that we need to make the change. If we make the change, it is, in a sense, a material change to open the door to more claims being made under consumer law that terms are unfair. As I say, we may want this outcome to happen eventually, but I find it potentially conflicting to do it precisely at a time when we are getting Ofcom to intervene much more closely in setting those terms. I am simply arguing, “Let’s let that regime settle down”.
The net result and rational outcome—again, I am speaking to my noble friend’s Amendment 253 here—may be that other regulators end up deferring to Ofcom. If Ofcom is the primary regulator and we have told it, under the terms of the Online Safety Bill, “You must require platforms to operate in this way, handle complaints in this way and have terms that do these things, such as excluding particular forms of language and in effect outlawing them on platforms”, the other regulators will eventually end up deferring to it. All I am arguing is that, at this stage, it is premature to try to introduce a second, parallel route for people to seek changes to terms or different forms of redress, however tempting that may be. So I am suggesting a note of caution. It is not that we are starting from Ground Zero—people have routes to go forward today—but I worry about introducing something that I think people will see as material at this late stage, having not looked at the full impact of it and potentially running in conflict with everything else that we are trying to do in this legislation.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on a couple of amendments and pick up from where the noble Lord, Lord Allan, just finished on Amendment 186A. I associate myself with all the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made on her Amendment 191A. As ever, she introduced the amendment so brilliantly that there is no need for me to add anything other than my wholehearted support.
I will briefly reference Amendment 253 from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Both his amendment and my noble friend Lord Moylan’s point to one of the challenges about regulating the digital world, which is that it touches everything. We oscillate between wanting to compartmentalise the digital and recognising that it is interconnected to everything. That is the same challenge faced by every organisation that is trying to digitise: do you ring-fence or recognise that it touches everything? I am very supportive of the principles behind Amendment 253 precisely because, in the end, it does touch everything. It is hugely important that, even though this Bill and others still to come are creating an extraordinarily powerful single regulator in the form of Ofcom, we also recognise the interconnectivity of the regulatory landscape. The amendment is very well placed, and I hope my noble friend the Minister looks favourably on it and its heritage from the pre-legislative scrutiny committee.
I will briefly add my thoughts on Amendment 186A in this miscellaneous group. It feels very much as if we are having a Committee debate on this amendment, and I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for introducing it. He raises a hugely important point, and I am incredibly sympathetic to the logic he set out.
In this area the digital world operates differently from the physical world, and we do not have the right balance at all between the powers of the big companies and consumer rights. I am completely with my noble friend in the spirit in which he introduced the amendment but, together with the noble Lord, Lord Allan, I think it would be better tackled in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, precisely because it is much broader than online safety. This fundamentally touches the issue of consumer rights in the digital world and I am worried that, if we are not careful, we will do something with the very best intentions that actually makes things slightly worse.
I worry that the terms and conditions of user-to-user services are incomprehensible to consumers today. Enshrining it as a contract in law might, in some cases, make it worse. Today, when user-to-user services have used our data for something, they are keen to tell us that we agreed to it because it was in their terms of service. My noble friend opens up a really important issue to which we should give proper attention when the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill arrives in the House. It is genuinely not too late to address that, as it is working its way through the Commons now. I thank my noble friend for introducing the amendment, because we should all have thought of the issue earlier, but it is much broader than online safety.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, even by previous standards, this is the most miscellaneous of miscellaneous groups. We have ranged very broadly. I will speak first to Amendment 191A from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which was so well spoken to by her and by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding. It is common sense, and my noble friend Lord Allan, as ever, put his finger on it: it is not as if coroners are going to come across this every day of the week; they need this kind of guidance. The Minister has introduced his amendments on this, and we need to reduce those to an understandable code for coroners and bereaved parents. I defy anybody, apart from about three Members of this House, to describe in any detail how the information notices will interlock and operate. I could probably name those Members off the top of my head. That demonstrates why we need such a code of practice. It speaks for itself.
I am hugely sympathetic to Amendment 275A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who asked a series of important questions. The Minister said at col. 1773 that he would follow up with further information on the responsibility of private providers for their content. This is a real, live issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, put it right: we hope fervently that the Bill covers the issue. I do not know how many debates about future-proofing we have had on the Bill but each time, including in that last debate, we have not quite been reassured enough that we are covering the metaverse and provider content in the way we should be. I hope that this time the Minister can give us definitive chapter and verse that will help to settle the horses, so to speak, because that is exactly what the very good amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was about.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, as others have said, this has been a very interesting tour d’horizon of some of the points in the Bill that we still need to resolve. I will not go over too much of the detail that has been raised because those points need a response from the Minister when he responds.
I will start with the use of “chairman” in several places throughout the Bill. We do not understand what is going on here. My noble friend Lady Merron wanted to deal with this but she unfortunately is not here, so I have been left holding the issue, and I wish to pursue it vigorously.
It is probably not well known but, in 2007, the Government decided that there ought to be changes in the drafting of our laws to make them gender-neutral as much as possible. Since 2007, it has been customary practice to replace words that could be gender-specific with those which are not. The Drafting Guidance, which is issued and should be followed by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, says that gender-neutral drafting requires
“avoiding gender-specific pronouns (such as ‘he’) for a person who is not necessarily of that gender”,
and avoiding gender-specific nouns
“that might appear to assume that a person of a particular gender will do a particular job or perform a particular role (eg ‘chairman’)”.
The guidance provides another bit of extra information:
“The gender-specific noun most likely to be encountered is ‘chairman’. ‘Chair’ is now widely used in primary legislation as a substitute”,
and we should expect to see it. Why do we not see it in this Bill?
Lord Deben (Con)
My wife, who is chairman of a number of things, objects to “chair” as “furniturism”. She likes to be referred to as a person and not a thing.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I respect the noble Lord’s point. I did not make a specific proposal; I simply asked why the Bill was framed in circumstances that are not those required by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
Moving on, Amendment 288A, which addresses the issue of multiple characteristics, is welcome. I am grateful to the Minister for it. However, it is a rather odd solution to what should be a very straightforward question. We have the amendment—which, as I said, we welcome—because it was pointed out that the new overarching objective for this Bill that has been brought forward by government amendment refers to issues affecting those who have a characteristic. It uses the word “characteristic” without qualification, although I think most of us who have been involved in these debates and discussions realise that this is an oblique reference to the Equality Act 2010 and that, although they are not set out in the Bill, the characteristics concerned are probably those that are protected under the Equality Act. I think the Minister has some problem with the Equality Act, because we have crossed swords on it before, but we will not go back into that.
In referencing “a characteristic”, which is perfectly proper, we did not realise—but it has been pointed out—that under the Interpretation Act it is necessary to recall that in government legislation when the singular is mentioned it includes the plural unless it is specifically excluded. So we can assume that when references are made to “a characteristic”, they do in fact mean “characteristics”. Therefore, by logic, moving forward to the way to which it is referred in the Bill, when a person is referred to as having “a characteristic” it can also be assumed that the reference in the Bill applies to them having more than one characteristic.
However, grateful as I am to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments, which we accept, this is not quite the point that we were trying to get across. I invite the Minister, when he comes to respond, to explain a little more about the logic behind what I will propose. We are fairly convinced—as I think are most people who have been involved in these discussions—that social media companies’ form of operation, providing the materials and service that we want, is gendered. I do not think there is any doubt about that; everybody who has spoken in this debate has at some stage pointed out that, in many cases, those with protected characteristics, and women and girls in particular, are often picked on and singled out. A pile-on—the phrase used to mean the amplification that comes with working on the internet—is a very serious concern. That may change; it may just be a feature of today’s world and one day be something that does not happen. However, at the moment, it is clearly the case that if one is in some way characterised by a protected characteristic, and you have more than one of them, you tend to get more attention, aggravation and difficulty in your social media engagement. The evidence is so clear that we do not need to go into it.
The question we asked in Committee, and which we hoped we would get a response to, was whether we should always try to highlight the fact that where we are talking about people with more than one characteristic, it is the fact that there is a combination, not that it is a plural, that is the matter. Being female and Jewish, which has been discussed several times from the Dispatch Box by my noble friend Lady Merron and others, seems to be the sort of combination of characteristics which causes real difficulties on the internet for the people who have them. I use that only as one example; there are others.
If that is the case then it would have been nice to have seen that specifically picked up, and my original drafting of the amendment did that. However, we have accepted the Government’s amendment to create the new overarching objective, and I do not want to change it at this stage—we are past that debate. But I wonder whether the Minister, when he comes to respond, could perhaps as a grace note explain that he accepts the point that it is the doubling or tripling of the characteristics, not the plurality, that matters.
Moving back to the clauses that have been raised by others speaking in this debate, and who have made points that need to be responded to, I want to pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, about the need for some form of engagement between domestic regulators if we are going to get the best possible solution to how the internet is regulated as we go forward. We have never said that there had to be a new super-regulator and we never intended that there should be powers taken to change the way in which we do this. However, some form of co-operation, other than informal co-operation, is almost certainly going to be necessary. We do not want to subtract from where we are in relation to how our current regulators operate—they seem to be working well—but we worry that the legal powers and support that might be required in order to do that are not yet in place or, if they are in place, are based on somewhat archaic and certainly not modern-day regulatory practice.
Is this something that the committees of the Houses might consider? Perhaps when we come to other amendments around this, that is something we might pick up, because I think it probably needs further consideration away from the Bill in order to get the best possible solution. That is particularly true given, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, says, so many of these regulators will now have experience of working together and might be prepared to share that in evidence or in appearances before such a committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, let me add to this miscellany by speaking to the government amendments that stand in my name as part of this group. The first is Amendment 288A, which we mentioned on the first group of amendments on Report because it relates to the new introductory clause, Clause 1, and responds to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I am very happy to say again that the Government recognise that people with multiple and combined characteristics suffer disproportionately online and are often at greater risk of harm. This amendment therefore adds a provision in the new interpretation clause, Clause 1, to put beyond doubt that all the references to people with “a certain characteristic” throughout the Bill include people with a combination of characteristics. We had a good debate about the Interpretation Act 1978, which sets that out, but we are happy to set it out clearly here.
In his Amendment 186A, my noble friend Lord Moylan seeks to clarify a broader issue relating to consumer rights and online platforms. He got some general support—certainly gratitude—for raising this issue, although there was a bit of a Committee-style airing of it and a mixture of views on whether this is the right way or the right place. The amendment seeks to make it clear that certain protections for consumers in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 apply when people use online services and do not pay for them but rather give up their personal data in exchange. The Government are aware that the application of the law in that area is not always clear in relation to free digital services and, like many noble Lords, express our gratitude to my noble friend for highlighting the issue through his amendment.
We do not think that the Bill is the right vehicle for attempting to provide clarification on this point, however. We share some of the cautions that the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, raised and agree with my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe that this is part of a broader question about consumer rights online beyond the services with which the Bill is principally concerned. It could be preferable that the principle that my noble friend Lord Moylan seeks to establish through his amendment should apply more widely than merely to category 1 services regulated under the Bill. I assure him that the Bill will create a number of duties on providers which will benefit users and clarify that they have existing rights of action in the courts. We discussed these new protections in depth in Committee and earlier on Report. He drew attention to Clause 65(1), which puts a requirement on all services, not just category 1 services, to include clear and accessible provisions in their terms of service informing users about their right to bring a claim for breach of contract. Therefore, while we are grateful, we agree with noble Lords who suggested that this is a debate for another day and another Bill.
Amendment 191A from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would require Ofcom to issue guidance for coroners and procurators fiscal to aid them in submitting requests to Ofcom to exercise its power to obtain information from providers about the use of a service by a deceased child. While I am sympathetic to her intention, I do not think that her amendment is the right answer. It would be inappropriate for an agency of the Executive to issue guidance to a branch of the judiciary. As I explained in Committee, it is for the Chief Coroner to provide detailed guidance to coroners. This is written to assist coroners with the law and their legal duties and to provide commentary and advice on policy and practice.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness cuts across the role of the Chief Coroner and risks compromising the judicial independence of the coroner, as set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As she is aware, the Chief Coroner has agreed to consider issuing guidance to coroners on social media and to consider the issues covered in the Bill. He has also agreed to explore whether coroners would benefit from additional training, with the offer of consultation with experts including Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office. I suggest that the better approach would be for Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office to support the Chief Coroner in his consideration of these issues where he would find that helpful.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Allan, that coroners must have access to online safety expertise given the technical and fast-moving nature of this sector. As we have discussed previously, Amendment 273 gives Ofcom a power to produce a report dealing with matters relevant to an investigation or inquest following a request from a coroner which will provide that expertise. I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
I understand the report on a specific death, which is very welcome and part of the regime as we all see it. The very long list of things that the coroner may not know that they do not know, as I set out in the amendment, is the issue which I and other noble Lords are concerned about. If the Government could find a way to make that possible, I would be very grateful.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are keen to ensure that coroners have access to the information and expertise that they need, while respecting the independence of the judicial process to decide what they do not know and would like to know more about and the role of the Chief Coroner there. It is a point that I have discussed a lot with the noble Baroness and with my noble friend Lady Newlove in her former role as Victims’ Commissioner. I am very happy to continue doing so because it is important that there is access to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spoke to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, about supposedly gendered language in relation to Clauses 141 and 157. As I made clear in Committee, I appreciate the intention—as does Lady Deben—of making clear that a person of either sex can perform the role of chairman, just as they can perform the role of ombudsman. We have discussed in Committee the semantic point there. The Government have used “chairman” here to be consistent with terminology in the Office of Communications Act 2002. I appreciate that this predates the Written Ministerial Statement which the noble Lord cited, but that itself made clear that the Government at the time recognised that in practice, parliamentary counsel would need to adopt a flexible approach to this change—for example, in at least some of the cases where existing legislation originally drafted in the former style is being amended.
The noble Lord may be aware of a further Written Ministerial Statement, made on 23 May last year, following our debates on gendered language on another Bill, when the then Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons said that the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel would update its drafting guidance in light of that. That guidance is still forthcoming. However, importantly, the term here will have no bearing on Ofcom’s decision-making on who would chair the advisory committees. It must establish that this could indeed be a person of either sex.
Amendment 253 seeks to enable co-operation, particularly via information-sharing, between Ofcom and other regulators within the UK. I reassure noble Lords that Section 393 of the Communications Act 2003 already includes provisions for sharing information between Ofcom and other regulators in the UK.
As has been noted, Ofcom already co-operates effectively with other domestic regulators. That has been strengthened by the establishment of the Digital Regulation Co-operation Forum. By promoting greater coherence, the forum helps to resolve potential tensions, offering clarity for people and the industry. It ensures collaborative work across areas of common interest to address complex problems. Its outputs have already delivered real and wide-ranging impacts, including landmark policy statements clarifying the interactions between digital regulatory regimes, research into cross-cutting issues, and horizon-scanning activities on new regulatory challenges. We will continue to assess how best to support collaboration between digital regulators and to ensure that their approaches are joined up. We therefore do not think that Amendment 253 is necessary.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has not stated that there is a duty to collaborate. Is he saying that that is, in fact, the case in practice?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, there is a duty, and the law should be followed. I am not sure whether the noble Lord is suggesting that it is not—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord’s question, but perhaps—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is saying that, in practice, there is a kind of collaboration between regulators and that there is a power under the Communications Act, but is he saying that there is any kind of duty on regulators to collaborate?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
If I may, I will write to the noble Lord setting that out; he has lost me with his question. We believe, as I think he said, that the forum has added to the collaboration in this important area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised important questions about avatars and virtual characters. The Bill broadly defines “content” as
“anything communicated by means of an internet service”,
meaning that it already captures the various ways through which users may encounter content. In the metaverse, this could therefore include things such as avatars or characters created by users. As part of the user-to-user services’ risk assessments, providers will be required to consider more than the risk in relation to user-generated content, including aspects such as how the design and operation of their services, including functionality and how the service is used, might increase the risk of harm to children and the presence of illegal content. A user-to-user service will need to consider any feature which enables interaction of any description between users of the service when carrying out its risk assessments.
The Bill is focused on user-to-user and search services, as there is significant evidence to support the case for regulation based on the risk of harm to users and the current lack of regulatory and other accountability in this area. Hosting, sharing and the discovery of user-generated content and activity give rise to a range of online harms, which is why we have focused on those services. The Bill does not regulate content published by user-to-user service providers themselves; instead, providers are already liable for the content that they publish on their services themselves, and the criminal law is the most appropriate mechanism for dealing with services which publish illegal provider content.
The noble Baroness’s Amendment 275A seeks to require Ofcom to produce a wide-ranging report of behaviour facilitated by emerging technologies. As we discussed in Committee, the Government of course agree that Ofcom needs continually to assess future risks and the capacity of emerging technologies to cause harm. That is why the Bill already contains provisions which allow it to carry out broad horizon scanning, such as its extensive powers to gather information, to commission skilled persons’ reports and to require providers to produce transparency reports. Ofcom has already indicated that it plans to research emerging technologies, and the Bill will require it to update its risk assessments, risk profiles and codes of practice with the outcomes of this research where relevant.
As we touched on in Committee, Clause 56 requires regular reviews by Ofcom into the incidence of content that is harmful to children, and whether there should be changes to regulations setting out the kinds of content that are harmful to children. In addition, Clause 143 mandates that Ofcom should investigate users’ experience of regulated services, which are likely to cover user interactions in virtual spaces, such as the metaverse and those involving content generated by artificial intelligence.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister; perhaps I could just check something he said. There was a great deal of detail and I was trying to capture it. On the question of harms to children, we all understand that the harms to children are viewed more extensively than harms to others, but I wondered: what counts as unregulated services? The Minister was talking about regulated services. What happens if there is machine-generated content which is not generated by any user but by some random codes that are developed and then randomly incite problematic behaviours?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am happy to provide further detail in writing and to reiterate the points I have made as it is rather technical. Content that is published by providers of user-to-user services themselves is not regulated by the Bill because providers are liable for the content they publish on the services themselves. Of course, that does not apply to pornography, which we know poses a particular risk to children online and is regulated through Part 5 of the Bill. I will set out in writing, I hope more clearly, for the noble Baroness what is in scope to reassure her about the way the Bill addresses the harms that she has rightly raised.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, this has indeed been a wide-ranging and miscellaneous debate. I hope that since we are considering the Bill on Report noble Lords will forgive me if I do not endeavour to summarise all the different speeches and confine myself to one or two points.
The first is to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her support for my amendment but also to say that having heard her argument in favour of her Amendment 191A, I think the difference between us is entirely semantic. Had she worded it so as to say that Ofcom should be under a duty to offer advice to the Chief Coroner, as opposed to guidance to coroners, I would have been very much happier with it. Guidance issued under statute has to carry very considerable weight and, as my noble friend the Minister said, there is a real danger in that case of an arm of the Executive, if you like, or a creature of Parliament—however one wants to regard Ofcom—interfering in the independence of the judiciary. Had she said “advice to the Chief Coroner and whoever is the appropriate officer in Scotland”, that would have been something I could have given wholehearted support to. I hope she will forgive me for raising that quibble at the outset, but I think it is a quibble rather than a substantial disagreement.
On my own amendment, I simply say that I am grateful to my noble friend for the brevity and economy with which he disposed of it. He was of course assisted in that by the remarks and arguments made by many other noble Lords in the House as they expressed their support for it in principle.
I think there is a degree of confusion about what the Bill is doing. There seemed to be a sense that somehow the amendment was giving individuals the right to bring actions in the courts against providers, but of course that already happens because that right exists and is enshrined in Article 65. All the amendment would do is give some balance so that consumers actually had some protections in what is normally, in essence, an unequal contest, which is trying to ensure that a large company enforces the terms and contracts that it has written.
In particular, my amendment would give, as I think noble Lords know, the right to demand repeat performance—that is, in essence, the right to put things right, not monetary compensation—and it would frustrate any attempts by providers, in drafting their own terms and conditions, to limit their own liability. That is of course what they seek to do but the Consumer Rights Act frustrates them in their ability to do so.
We will say no more about that for now. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a change to a provision about what the terms of service of a Category 1 service say. The effect of the change is to cover a wider range of ways in which a term of service might indicate that a certain kind of content is not allowed on the service.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, transparency and accountability are at the heart of the regulatory framework that the Bill seeks to establish. It is vital that Ofcom has the powers it needs to require companies to publish online safety information and to scrutinise their systems and processes, particularly their algorithms. The Government agree about the importance of improving data sharing with independent researchers while recognising the nascent evidence base and the complexities of this issue, which we explored in Committee. We are pleased to be bringing forward a number of amendments to strengthen platforms’ transparency, which confer on Ofcom new powers to assess how providers’ algorithms work, which accelerate the development of the evidence base regarding researchers’ access to information and which require Ofcom to produce guidance on this issue.
Amendment 187 in my name makes changes to Clause 65 on category 1 providers’ duties to create clear and accessible terms of service and apply them consistently and transparently. The amendment tightens the clause to ensure that all the providers’ terms through which they might indicate that a certain kind of content is not allowed on its service are captured by these duties.
Amendment 252G is a drafting change, removing a redundant paragraph from the Bill in relation to exceptions to the legislative definition of an enforceable requirement in Schedule 12.
In relation to transparency, government Amendments 195, 196, 198 and 199 expand the types of information that Ofcom can require category 1, 2A and 2B providers to publish in their transparency reports. With thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his engagement on this issue, we are pleased to table these amendments, which will allow Ofcom to require providers to publish information relating to the formulation, development and scope of user-to-user service providers’ terms of service and search service providers’ public statements of policies and procedures. This is in addition to the existing transparency provision regarding their application.
Amendments 196 and 199 would enable Ofcom to require providers to publish more information in relation to algorithms, specifically information about the design and operation of algorithms that affect the display, promotion, restriction, discovery or recommendation of content subject to the duties in the Bill. These changes will enable greater public scrutiny of providers’ terms of service and their algorithms, providing valuable information to users about the platforms that they are using.
As well as publicly holding platforms to account, the regulator must be able to get under the bonnet and scrutinise the algorithms’ functionalities and the other systems and processes that they use. Empirical tests are a standard method for understanding the performance of an algorithmic system. They involve taking a test data set, running it through an algorithmic system and observing the output. These tests may be relevant for assessing the efficacy and wider impacts of content moderation technology, age-verification systems and recommender systems.
Government Amendments 247A, 250A, 252A, 252B, 252C, 252D, 252E and 252F will ensure that Ofcom has the powers to enable it to direct and observe such tests remotely. This will significantly bolster Ofcom’s ability to assess how a provider’s algorithms work, and therefore to assess its compliance with the duties in the Bill. I understand that certain technology companies have voiced some concerns about these powers, but I reassure your Lordships that they are necessary and proportionate.
The powers will be subject to a number of safeguards. First, they are limited to viewing information. Ofcom will be unable to remotely access or interfere with the service for any other purpose when exercising the power. These tests would be performed offline, meaning that they would not affect the services’ provision or the experience of users. Assessing systems, processes, features and functionalities is the focus of the powers. As such, individual user data and content are unlikely to be the focus of any remote access to view information.
Additionally, the power can be used only where it is proportionate to use in the exercise of Ofcom’s functions—for example, when investigating whether a regulated service has complied with relevant safety duties. A provider would have a right to bring a legal challenge against Ofcom if it considered that a particular exercise of the power was unlawful. Furthermore, Ofcom will be under a legal obligation to ensure that the information gathered from services is protected from disclosure, unless clearly defined exemptions apply.
The Bill contains no restriction on services making the existence and detail of the information notice public. Should a regulated service wish to challenge an information notice served to it by Ofcom, it would be able to do so through judicial review. In addition, the amendments create no restrictions on the use of this power being viewable to members of the public through a request, such as those under the Freedom of Information Act—noting that under Section 393 of the Communications Act, Ofcom will not be able to disclose information it has obtained through its exercise of these powers without the provider’s consent, unless permitted for specific, defined purposes. These powers are necessary and proportionate and will that ensure Ofcom has the tools to understand features and functionalities and the risks associated with them, and therefore the tools to assess companies’ compliance with the Bill.
Finally, I turn to researchers’ access to data. We recognise the valuable work of researchers in improving our collective understanding of the issues we have debated throughout our scrutiny of the Bill. However, we are also aware that we need to develop the evidence base to ensure that any sharing of sensitive information between companies and researchers can be done safely and securely. To this end, we are pleased to table government Amendments 272B, 272C and 272D.
Government Amendment 272B would require Ofcom to publish its report into researcher access to information within 18 months, rather than two years. This report will provide the evidence base for government Amendments 272C and 272D, which would require Ofcom to publish guidance on this issue. This will provide valuable, evidence-based guidance on how to improve access for researchers safely and securely.
That said, we understand the calls for further action in this area. The Government will explore this issue further and report back to your Lordships’ House on whether further measures to support researchers’ access to data are required—and if so, whether they could be implemented through other legislation, such as the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 247B in my name was triggered by government Amendment 247A, which the Minister just introduced. I want to explain it, because the government amendment is quite late—it has arrived on Report—so we need to look in some detail at what the Government have proposed. The phrasing that has caused so much concern, which the Minister has acknowledged, is that Ofcom will be able to
“remotely access the service provided by the person”.
It is those words—“remotely access”—which are trigger words for anyone who lived through the Snowden disclosures, where everyone was so concerned about remote access by government agencies to precisely the same services we are talking about today: social media services.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, hinted at the fact that there have been a plethora of government amendments on Report and, to be honest, it has been quite hard fully to digest most of them, let alone scrutinise them. I appreciate that the vast majority have been drawn up with opposition Lords, who might have found it a bit easier. But some have snuck in and, in that context, I want to raise some problems with the amendments in this group, which are important. I, too, am especially worried about that government amendment on facilitating remote access to services and equipment used to buy services. I am really grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Allan of Hallam and Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling Amendment 247B, because I did not know what to do—and they did it. At least it raises the issue to the level of it needing to be taken seriously.
The biggest problem that I had when I originally read this provision was that facilitating remote access to services, and as yet undefined equipment used by a service, seems like a very big decision, and potentially disproportionate. It certainly has a potential to have regulatory overreach, and it creates real risks around privacy. It feels as though it has not even been flagged up strongly enough by the Government with regard to what it could mean.
I listened to what the Minister said, but I still do not fully understand why this is necessary. Have the Government considered the privacy and security implications that have already been discussed? Through Amendment 252A, the Government now have the power to enter premises for inspection—it rather feels as if there is the potential for raids, but I will put that to one side. They can go in, order an audit and so on. Remote access as a preliminary way to gather information seems heavy-handed. Why not leave it as the very last thing to do in a dialogue between Ofcom and a given platform? We have yet to hear a proper justification of why Ofcom would need this as a first-order thing to do.
The Bill does not define exactly what
“equipment used by the service”
means. Does it extend to employees’ laptops and phones? If it extends to external data centres, have the Government assessed the practicalities and security impact of that and the substantial security implications, as have been explained, for the services, the data centre providers and those of us whose data they hold?
I am also concerned that this will necessitate companies having very strongly to consider internal privacy and security controls to deal with the possibility of this, and that this will place a disproportionate burden on smaller and mid-sized businesses that do not have the resources available to the biggest technology companies. I keep raising this because in other parts of government there is a constant attempt to say that the UK will be the centre of technological innovation and that we will be a powerhouse in new technologies, yet I am concerned that so much of the Bill could damage that innovation. That is worth considering.
It seems to me that Amendment 252A on the power to observe at the premises ignores decentralised projects and services—the very kind of services that can revolutionise social media in a positive way. Not every service is like Facebook, but this amendment misses that point. For example, you will not be able to walk into the premises of the UK-based Matrix, the provider of the encrypted chat service Element that allows users to host their own service. Similarly, the non-profit Mastodon claims to be the largest decentralised social network on the internet and to be built on open-web standards precisely because it does not want to be bought or owned by a billionaire. So many of these amendments seem not to take those issues into account.
I also have a slight concern on researcher access to data. When we discussed this in Committee, the tone was very much—as it is in these amendments now—that these special researchers need to be able to find out what is going on in these big, bad tech companies that are trying to hide away dangerous information from us. Although we are trying to ensure that there is protection from harms, we do not want to demonise the companies so much that, every time they raise privacy issues or say, “We will provide data but you can’t access it remotely” or “We want to be the ones deciding which researchers are allowed to look at our data”, we assume that they are always up to no good. That sends the wrong message if we are to be a tech-innovative country or if there is to be any working together.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the business of the internet is data. Whether it is a retail business, a media business or any other kind of business, the internet is all about data. The chiefs of our internet companies know more about noble Lords than anyone else—more than any government agency, your doctor and almost anyone—because the number of data points that big internet companies have on people is absolutely enormous, and they use them to very great effect.
Some of those effects are entirely benign. I completely endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said. As a champion of innovation and business, I totally recognise the good that is done by the world’s internet companies to make our lives richer, create jobs and improve the world, but some of what they do is not good. Either inadvertently or by being passive enablers of harm, internet companies have been responsible for huge societal harms. I do not want to go through the full list, but when I think about the mental health of our teenagers, the extremism in our politics, the availability of harmful information to terrorists and what have you, there is a long catalogue of harms to which internet companies have contributed. We would be naive if we did not recognise.
However, almost uniquely among commercial businesses, internet companies guard access to that data incredibly jealously. They will not let you peek in and share their insights. I know from my experience in the health field that we work very closely with the pharmaceutical industry—there is a whole programme of pharmacovigilance that any pharma company has to participate in in order to explain, measure and justify the good and disbenefits of its medicines. We have no similar programme to pharmacovigilance for the tech industry. Instead, we are completely blind. Policy makers, the police and citizens are flying blind when it comes to the data that is held on us on both an individual and a demographic basis. That is extremely unusual.
That is why I really welcome my noble friend’s amendments that give Ofcom what seems to me to be extremely proportionate and thoughtful powers in order to look into this data, because without it, we do not know what is going on in this incredibly important part of our lives.
The role that researchers, including academic, civil society and campaigning researchers, play in helping Ofcom, policymakers and politicians to arrive at sensible, thoughtful and proportionate policy is absolutely critical. I pay enormous tribute to them; I am grateful to those noble Lords who have also done so. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his amendments on this subject, Amendments 272B and 272C, which address the question of giving researchers better access to some of this data. They would reduce the timeline for the review on data from 24 months to 18 months, which would be extremely helpful, and would changing “may” to “must”, which represents an emphatic commitment to the outcome of this review.
However, issues remain around the question of granting access to data for researchers. What happens to the insights from the promised review once it is delivered? Where are the powers to deliver the review’s recommendations? That gap is not currently served by the government amendments, which is why I and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have tabled Amendments 237ZA, 237DB, 262AA and 272AB. Their purpose is to put in the Bill reasonable, proportionate powers to bring access to data for researchers along the lines that the research review will recommend.
The feelings on this matter are extremely strong because we all recognise the value here. We are concerned that any delay may completely undermine this sector. As we debated in Committee, there is a substantial and valuable UK sector in this research area that is likely to move lock, stock and barrel to other countries where these kinds of powers may be in place; for instance, in EU or US legislation. The absence of these powers will, I think, leave Britain in the dark and competitively behind other countries, which is why I want to push the Minister hard on these amendments. I am grateful for his insight that this matter is something that the Government may look to in future Bills, but those Bills are far off. I would like to hear from him what more he could do to try to smooth the journey from this Bill and this review to any future legislation that comes through this House in order to ensure that this important gap is closed.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 270 and 272 are in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for adding his name to them. They are the least controversial amendments in this group, I think. They are really simple. Amendment 270 would require Ofcom’s research about online interests and users’ experiences of regulated services under Clause 143 to be broken down by nation, while Amendment 272 relates to Clause 147 and would require Ofcom’s transparency reports also to be broken down in a nation-specific way.
These amendments follow on from our debates on devolution in Committee. Both seek to ensure that there is analysis of users’ online experiences in the different nations of the UK, which I continue to believe is essential to ensuring that the Bill works for the whole of the UK and is both future-proofed—a word we have all used lots—and able to adapt to different developments across each of the four nations. I have three reasons why I think these things are important. The first concerns the interplay between reserved and devolved matters. The second concerns the legal differences that already exist across the UK. The third concerns the role of Ofcom.
In his much-appreciated email to me last week, the Minister rightly highlighted that internet services are a reserved matter and I absolutely do not wish to impose different standards of regulation across the UK. Regarding priority offences, I completely support the Government’s stance that service providers must treat any content as priority illegal content where it amounts to a criminal offence anywhere in the UK regardless of where that act may have taken place or where the user is. However, my amendments are not about regulation; they are about research and transparency reporting, enabling us to understand the experience across the UK and to collect data—which we have just heard, so powerfully, will be more important as we continue.
I am afraid that leaving it to Ofcom’s discretion to understand the differences in the online experiences across the four nations over time is not quite good enough. Many of the matters we are dealing with in the online safety space—such as children, justice, police and education—are devolved. Government policy-making in devolved areas will increasingly rely on data about online behaviours, harms and outcomes. These days, I cannot imagine creating any kind of public policy without understanding the online dimension. There are areas where either the community experience and/or the policy approach is markedly different across the nations—take drug abuse, for example. No data means uninformed policy-making or flying blind, as my noble friend Lord Bethell has just said. But how easy will it be for the devolved nations to get this information if we do not specify it in the Bill?
In many of the debates, we have already heard of the legal differences across the four nations, and I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who is not in his place, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the Minister for supporting my amendment last week when I could not be here. I am terribly sorry. I was sitting next to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, at the time. The amendment was to ensure that there is a legal definition of “freedom of expression” in the Bill that can be understood by devolved Administrations across the UK.
The more I look at this landscape, the more challenges arise. The creation of legislation around intimate abuse images is a good example. The original English legislation was focused on addressing the abusive sharing of intimate images after a relationship breakdown. It required the sharing to have been committed with the intent to cause harm, which has a very easy defence: “I did not mean to cause any harm”. The Scottish legislation, drafted slightly later, softened this to an intent to cause harm or being reckless as to whether harm was caused, which is a bit better because you do not need to prove intent. Now the English version is going to be updated in the Bill to create an offence simply by sharing, which is even better.
Other differences in legislation have been highlighted, such as on deepfakes and upskirting. On the first day of Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, highlighted a difference in the way cyberflashing offences are understood in Northern Ireland. So the issue is nuanced, and the Government’s responses change as we learn about harmful behaviours in practice. Over time, we gradually see these offences refined as we learn more about how technology is used to abuse in practice. The question really is: what will such offences look like online in five years’ time? Will the user experience and government policy across the four nations be the same? I will not pretend to try to answer that, but to answer it we will need the data.
I am concerned that the unintended consequences of the Bill in the devolved Administrations have not been fully appreciated or explored. Therefore, I am proposing a belt and braces approach in the reporting regime. When we come to post-legislative scrutiny, with reports being laid before this Parliament and the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast—if there is one—we will want to have the data to understand the online experiences of each nation. That is why my very little amendments are seeking to ensure that we capture this experience and that is why it is so important.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I think that was a very good speech from the noble Baroness, partly because I signed her amendment and support it and also because I want to refer back to the points made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, about research. I am speaking from the Back Benches here because some of what I say may not have been cleared fully with my colleagues, but I am hoping that they will indulge me slightly. If I speak from this elevated position, perhaps they will not hear me so well.
To deal with noble Lords in the order in which they spoke, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in relation to having a bit more activity in relation to the area where we have very good change of government policy in relation to access by researchers to data, and I am very grateful to the Minister for doing that. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, made the point that there is perhaps a bigger question and a bigger story than can be done just by simply bringing forward the time of the report and changing “may” to “must”, although I always think “may” to “must” changes are important because they reflect a complete change of approach and I hope action will follow. The question about access by those who need data in order to complete their research is crucial to the future success of these regimes. That plays back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, was saying, which is that we need to have this not just in aggregate form but broken down and stratified so that we can really interrogate where this information is showing the gaps, the opportunities, the changes that are needed and the successes, if there are any, in the way in which we are working.
I support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, because I think this is not so much a question of regulation or lawmaking in this Bill but of trying to engender a change of culture about the way in which social media companies operate. It will need all of us, not just the Government or the regulatory bodies, to continue to press this because this is a major sea change in what they have been doing until now. They are quite rightly protective of their business interests and business secrets, but that is not the same when the currency is data and our data is being used to create change and opportunity and their profits are based on exploiting our resources.
I go back to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his opening amendment today about why consumer rights do not apply when monetary considerations are not being taken into account. Bartering our data in order to obtain benefits from social media companies is not the same as purchasing over the counter at the local shop—we accept that—but times have changed and we are living in a different world. Everything is being bought and sold electronically. Why is consumer law not being moved forward to take account of that so that the rights that are important to that, because they are the same, are being exploited? I leave that for the Minister to come back to if he wishes to do so from the Dispatch Box.
Moving on to the Scottish issues, the amendment, as introduced by the noble Baroness, is about transparency and data, but I think it hides a bigger question which I am afraid affects much of the legislation that comes through this House, which is that very often the devolution impact of changes in the law and new laws that are brought forward is always the last to be thought about and is always tacked on at the end in ways that are often very obscure.
I have one particularly obscure question which I want to leave with the Minister, completely unreasonably, but I think it just about follows on from the amendment we are discussing. It is that, towards the end of the Bill, Clause 53(5)(c) refers to the consent of the Secretary of State or other Minister of the Crown to crimes in Scottish or Northern Irish legislation when they enter the Online Safety Bill regime. This is because, as has been made clear, laws are changing and are already different in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from some of the criminal laws in England and Wales. While that is to be welcomed, as the noble Baroness said, the devolved Administrations should have the right to make sure, in the areas of their control, that they have the laws that are appropriate for the time, but if they are different, we are going to have to live with those across the country in a way that is a bit patchwork. There need to be rules about how they will apply. I think the noble Baroness said that it would be right and proper that a crime committed in one territory is treated within the rules that apply in that territory, but if they are significantly different, we ought at least to understand why that is the case and how that has come about.
As I understand it—I have a note provided by Carnegie UK and it is always pretty accurate about these matters—the Secretary of State can consent to a devolved authority which wants to bring forward a devolved offence and include it in the online safety regime. However, it is not quite clear how that happens. What is a consent? Is it an Order in Council, a regulation, affirmative or negative procedure or primary legislation? We are not told that; we are just told that consent arrangements apply and consent can be given. Normally consents involve legislative authority—in its words, one Parliament speaking to another—and we are all becoming quite aware of the fact that the legislative consent required from Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales is often not given, yet the UK Parliament continues to make legislation and it applies, so the process works, but obviously it would be much better if the devolved structures were involved and agreed to what was being done. This is different from the normal top-down approach. Where we already have a change in the law or the law is about to be changed in one of the devolved Administrations, how does that become part of the Online Safety Bill regime? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I did not warn him that I was giving him a very difficult question, and he can write if he cannot give the detail today, but we would like to see on the record how this happens.
If we are getting Statements to Parliament from the Secretary of State about provisional changes to the way in which the law applies in the devolved Administrations, are they going to be subject to due process? Will there be engagement with committees? What will happen if a new code is required or a variation in the code is required? Does that require secondary legislation and, if so, will that be done with the consent of the devolved Administration or by this Parliament after a process we are yet to see?
There is a lot here that has not been fleshed out. There are few very easy answers, but it would be useful if we could get that going. I will not go into more detail on the noble Baroness’s point that laws change, but I know that the Law Society of Scotland has briefed that at least one major piece of legislation, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, does not appear in Schedule 7 as expected. Again, I ask the Minister if he would write to us explaining the background to that.
These are very important issues and they do not often get discussed in the full process of our Bills, so I am glad that the noble Baroness raised them. She cloaked them in what sounded like a very general and modest request, but they reveal quite considerable difficulties behind them.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, before I talk to the amendments I had intended to address, I will make a very narrow point in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. About 10 years ago, when I started doing work on children, I approached Ofcom and asked why all its research goes to 24, when childhood finishes at 18 and the UNCRC says that a child needs special consideration. Ofcom said, “Terribly sorry, but this is our inheritance from a marketing background”. The Communications and Digital Committee later wrote formally to Ofcom and asked if it could do its research up to 18 and then from 18 to 24, but it appeared to be absolutely impossible. I regret that I do not know what the current situation is and I hope that, with the noble Lord, Lord Grade, in place it may rapidly change overnight. My point is that the detailed description that the noble Baroness gave the House about why it is important to stipulate this is proven by that tale.
I also associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who terrified me some 50 minutes ago. I look forward to hearing what will be said.
I in fact rose to speak to government Amendments 196 and 199, and the bunch of amendments on access to data for researchers. I welcome the government amendments to which I added my name. I really am delighted every time the Government inch forward into the area of the transparency of systemic and design matters. The focus of the Bill should always be on the key factor that separates digital media from other forms of media, which is the power to determine, manipulate and orchestrate what a user does next, see how they behave or what they think. That is very different and is unique to the technology we are talking about.
It will not surprise the Minister to hear that I would have liked this amendment to cover the design of systems and processes, and features and functionalities that are not related to content. Rather than labouring this point, on this occasion I will just draw the Minister’s attention to an article published over the weekend by Professor Henrietta Bowden-Jones, the UK’s foremost expert on gambling and gaming addiction. She equates the systems and processes involved in priming behaviours on social media with the more extreme behaviours that she sees in her addiction clinics, with ever younger children. Professor Bowden-Jones is the spokesperson on behavioural addictions for the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the House ignores her experience of the loops of reward and compulsion that manipulate behaviour, particularly the behaviour of children, at our peril.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for continuing to press the research issue and coming back, even in the light of the government amendment, with a little more. Access to good data about the operation of social media is vital in holding regulated companies to account, tracking the extent of harms, building an understanding of them and, importantly, building knowledge about how they might be sensibly and effectively addressed.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I associate myself with my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie’s incredibly well-made points. I learned a long time ago that, when people speak very softly and say they have a very small point to make, they are often about to deliver a zinger. She really did; it was hugely powerful. I will say no more than that I wholeheartedly agree with her; thank you for helping us to understand the issue properly.
I will speak in more detail about access to data for researchers and in support of my noble friend Lord Bethell’s amendments. I too am extremely grateful to the Minister for bringing forward all the government amendments; the direction of travel is encouraging. I am particularly pleased to see the movement from “may” to “must”, but I am worried that it is Ofcom’s rather than the regulated services’ “may” that moves to “must”. There is no backstop for recalcitrant regulated services that refuse to abide by Ofcom’s guidance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, in other areas of the Bill we have quite reasonably resorted to launching a review, requiring Ofcom to publish its results, requiring the Secretary of State to review the recommendations and then giving the Secretary of State backstop powers, if necessary, to implement regulations that would then require regulated companies to change.
I have a simple question for the Minister: why are we not following the same recipe here? Why does this differ from the other issues, on which the House agrees that there is more work to be done? Why are we not putting backstop powers into the Bill for this specific issue, when it is clear to all of us that it is highly likely that there will be said recalcitrant regulated firms that are not willing to grant access to their data for researchers?
Before my noble friend the Minister leaps to the hint he gave in his opening remarks—that this should all be picked up in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill—unlike the group we have just discussed, this issue was discussed at Second Reading and given a really detailed airing in Committee. This is not new news, in the same way that other issues where we have adopted the same recipe that includes a backstop are being dealt with in the Bill. I urge my noble friend the Minister to follow the good progress so far and to complete the package, as we have in other areas.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is valuable to be able to speak immediately after my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe, because it gives me an opportunity to address some remarks she made last Wednesday when we were considering the Bill on Report. She suggested that there was a fundamental disagreement between us about our view of how serious online safety is—the suggestion being that somehow I did not think it was terribly important. I take this opportunity to rebut that and to add to it by saying that other things are also important. One of those things is privacy. We have not discussed privacy in relation to the Bill quite as much as we have freedom of expression, but it is tremendously important too.
Government Amendment 247A represents the most astonishing level of intrusion. In fact, I find it very hard to see how the Government think they can get away with saying that it is compatible with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which we incorporated into law some 20 years ago, thus creating a whole law of privacy that is now vindicated in the courts. It is not enough just to go around saying that it is “proportionate and necessary” as a mantra; it has to be true.
This provision says that an agency has the right to go into a private business with no warrant, and with no let or hindrance, and is able to look at its processes, data and equipment at will. I know of no other business that can be subjected to that without a warrant or some legal process in advance pertinent to that instance, that case or that business.
My noble friend Lord Bethell said that the internet has been abused by people who carry out evil things; he mentioned terrorism, for example, and he could have mentioned others. However, take mobile telephones and Royal Mail—these are also abused by people conducting terrorism, but we do not allow those communications to be intruded into without some sort of warrant or process. It does not seem to me that the fact that the systems can be abused is sufficient to justify what is being proposed.
My noble friend the Minister says that this can happen only offline. Frankly, I did not understand what he meant by that. In fact, I was going to say that I disagreed with him, but I am moving to the point of saying that I think it is almost meaningless to say that it is going to happen offline. He might be able to explain that. He also said that Ofcom will not see individual traffic. However, neither the point about being offline nor the point about not seeing individual traffic is on the face of the Bill.
When we ask ourselves what the purpose of this astonishing power is—this was referred to obliquely to some extent by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley—we can find it in Clause 91(1), to which proposed new subsection (2A) is being added or squeezed in subordinate to it. Clause 91(1) talks about
“any information that they”—
that is, Ofcom—
“require for the purpose of exercising, or deciding whether to exercise, any of their online safety functions”.
The power could be used entirely as a fishing expedition. It could be entirely for the purpose of educating Ofcom as to what it should be doing. There is nothing here to say that it can have these powers of intrusion only if it suspects that there is criminality, a breach of the codes of conduct or any other offence. It is a fishing expedition, entirely for the purpose of
“exercising, or deciding whether to exercise”.
Those are the intrusions imposed upon companies. In some ways, I am less concerned about the companies than I am about what I am going to come to next: the intrusion on the privacy of individuals and users. If we sat back and listened to ourselves and what we are saying, could we explain to ordinary people—we are going to come to this when we discuss end-to-end encryption—what exactly can happen?
Two very significant breaches of the protections in place for privacy on the internet arise from what is proposed. First, if you allow someone into a system and into equipment, especially from outside, you increase the risk and the possibility that a further, probably more hostile party that is sufficiently well-equipped with resources—we know state actors with evil intent which are so equipped—can get in through that or similar holes. The privacy of the system itself would be structurally weakened as a result of doing this. Secondly, if Ofcom is able to see what is going on, the system becomes leaky in the direction of Ofcom. It can come into possession of information, some of which could be of an individual character. My noble friend says that it will not be allowed to release any data and that all sorts of protections are in place. We know that, and I fully accept the honesty and integrity of Ofcom as an institution and of its staff. However, we also know that things get leaked and escape. As a result of this provision, very large holes are being built into the protections of privacy that exist, yet there has been no reference at all to privacy in the remarks made so far by my noble friend.
I finish by saying that we are racing ahead and not thinking. Good Lord, my modest amendment in the last group to bring a well-established piece of legislation—the Consumer Rights Act—to bear upon this Bill was challenged on the grounds that there had not been an impact assessment. Where is the impact assessment for this? Where is even the smell test for this in relation to explaining it to the public? If my noble friend is able to expatiate at the end on the implications for privacy and attempt to give us some assurance, that would be some consolation. I doubt that he is going to give way and do the right thing and withdraw this amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the debate so far has been—in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—a Committee debate. That is partly because this set of amendments from the Government has come quite late. If they had been tabled in Committee, I think we would have had a more expansive debate on this issue and could have knocked it about a bit and come back to it on Report. The timing is regrettable in all of this.
That said, the Government have tabled some extremely important amendments, particularly Amendments 196 and 198, which deal with things such as algorithms and functionalities. I very much welcome those important amendments, as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, did.
I also very much support Amendments 270 and 272 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser. I hope the Minister, having been pre-primed, has all the answers to them. It is astonishing that, after all these years, we are so unattuned to the issues of the devolved Administrations and that we are still not in the mindset on things such as research. We are not sufficiently granular, as has been explained—let alone all the other questions that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked. I hope the Minister can unpack some of that as well.
I want to express some gratitude, too, because the Minister and his officials took the trouble to give us a briefing about remote access issues, alongside Ofcom. Ofcom also sent through its note on algorithmic assessment powers, so an effort has been made to explain some of these powers. Indeed, I can see the practical importance, as explained to us. It is partly the lateness, however, that sets off what my noble friend Lord Allan called “trigger words” and concerns about the remote access provisions. Indeed, I think we have a living and breathing demonstration of the impact of triggers on the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, because these are indeed issues that concern those outside the House to quite a large degree.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I just want to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Bethell said about the amendments to which I have also put my name: Amendments 237ZA, 266AA and 272E. I was originally of the view that it was enough to give Ofcom the powers to enforce its own rulings. I have been persuaded that, pace my noble friend Lord Grade, the powers that have been given to Ofcom represent such a huge expansion that the likelihood of the regulator doing anything other than those things which it is obliged to do is rather remote. So I come to the conclusion that an obligation is the right way to put these things. I also agree with what has been said about the need to ensure that subsequent action is taken, in relation to a regulated service if it does not follow what Ofcom has set out.
I will also say a word about researchers. They are a resource that already exists. Indeed, there has been quite a lot of pushing, not least by me, on using this resource, first, to update the powers of the Computer Misuse Act, but also to enlarge our understanding of and ability to have information about the operation of online services. So this is a welcome move on the part of the Government, that they see the value of researchers in this context.
My noble friend Lord Moylan made a good point that the terms under which this function is exercised have to have regard to privacy as well as to transparency of operations. This is probably one of the reasons why we have not seen movement on this issue in the Computer Misuse Act and its updating, because it is intrinsically quite a difficult issue. But I believe that it has to be tackled, and I hope very much that the Government will not delay in bringing forward the necessary legislation that will ensure both that researchers are protected in the exercise of this function, which has been one of the issues, and that they are enabled to do something worth while. So I believe the Minister when he says that the Government may need to bring forward extra legislation on this; it is almost certainly the case. I hope very much that there will not be a great gap, so that we do not see this part of the proposals not coming into effect.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, we have had an important debate on a range of amendments to the Bill. There are some very important and good ones, to which I would say: “Better late than never”. I probably would not say that to Amendment 247A; I would maybe say “better never”, but we will come on to that. It is interesting that some of this has come to light following the debate on and scrutiny of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill in another place. That might reinforce the need for post-legislative review of how this Bill, the competition Bill and the data Bill are working together in practice. Maybe we will need another Joint Committee, which will please the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, no end.
There are many government amendments. The terms of service and takedown policy ones have been signed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, and we support them. There are amendments on requiring information on algorithms in transparency reports; requiring search to put into transparency reports; how policies on illegal content and content that is harmful for children were arrived at; information about search algorithms; and physical access in an audit to view the operations of algorithms and other systems. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I very much welcome, in this section anyway, that focus on systems, algorithms and process rather than solely on content.
However, Amendment 247A is problematic in respect of the trigger words, as the noble Lord, Lord Allan, referred to, of remote access and requiring a demonstration gathering real-time data. That raises a number of, as he said, non-trivial questions. I shall relay what some service providers have been saying to me. The Bill already provides Ofcom with equivalent powers under Schedule 12—such as rights of entry and inspection and extensive auditing powers—that could require them to operate any equipment or algorithms to produce information for Ofcom and/or allow Ofcom to observe the functioning of the regulated service. Crucially, safeguards are built into the provisions in Schedule 12 to ensure that Ofcom exercises them only in circumstances where the service provider is thought to be in breach of its duties and/or under a warrant, which has to have judicial approval, yet there appear to be no equivalent safeguards in relation to this power. I wonder whether, as it has come relatively late, that is an oversight that the Minister might want to address at Third Reading.
The policy intent, as I understand it, is to give Ofcom remote access to algorithms to ensure that service providers located out of the jurisdiction are not out of scope of Ofcom’s powers. Could that have been achieved by small drafting amendments to Schedule 12? In that case, the whole set of safeguards that we are concerned about would be in place because, so to speak, they would be in the right place. As drafted, the amendment appears to be an extension of Ofcom’s information-gathering powers that can be exercised as a first step against a service provider or access facility without any evidence that the service is in breach of its obligations or that any kind of enforcement action is necessary, which would be disproportionate and oppressive.
Given the weight of industry concern about the proportionality of these powers and their late addition, I urge the Minister to look at the addition of further safeguards around the use of these powers in the Bill and further clarification on the scope of the amendment as a power of escalation, including that it should be exercised as a measure of last resort, and only in circumstances where a service provider has not complied with its duty under the Bill or where the service provider has refused to comply with a prior information notice.
Amendment 247B is welcome because it gives the Minister the opportunity to tell us now that he wants to reflect on all this before Third Reading, work with us and, if necessary, come back with a tightening of the language and a resolution of these issues. I know his motivation is not to cause a problem late on in the Bill but he has a problem, and if he could reflect on it and come back at Third Reading then that would be helpful.
I welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, on researcher access. This is another area where he has gone to great efforts to engage across the House with concerned parties, and we are grateful to him for doing so. Independent research is vital for us to understand how this new regime that we are creating is working. As he says, it is a UK strength, and we should play to that strength and not let it slip away inadvertently. We will not get the regime right first time, and we should not trust the platforms to tell us. We need access to independent researchers, and the amendments strike a good balance.
We look forward to the Minister deploying his listening ear, particularly to what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, had to say on backstop powers. When he said in his opening speech that he would reflect, is he keeping open the option of reflecting and coming back at Third Reading, or is he reflecting only on the possibility of coming back in other legislation?
The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, raised an important issue for the UK regulator, ensuring that it is listening to potential differences in public opinion in the four nations of our union and, similarly, analysing transparency reports. As she says, this is not about reserved matters but about respecting the individual nations and listening to their different voices. It may well be written into the work of Ofcom by design but we cannot assume that. We look forward to the Minister’s response, including on the questions from my noble friend on the consent process for the devolved Administrations to add offences to the regime.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions in this group. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, on why we are bringing in some of these powers now, I say that the power to direct and observe algorithms was previously implicit within Ofcom’s information powers and, where a provider has UK premises, under powers of entry, inspection and audit under Schedule 12. However, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill, which is set to confer similar powers on the Competition and Markets Authority and its digital markets unit, makes these powers explicit. We wanted to ensure that there was no ambiguity over whether Ofcom had equivalent powers in the light of that. Furthermore, the changes we are making ensure that Ofcom can direct and observe algorithmic assessments even if a provider does not have relevant premises or equipment in the UK.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, for inviting me to re-emphasise points and allay the concerns that have been triggered, as his noble friend Lord Clement-Jones put it. I am happy to set out again a bit of what I said in opening this debate. The powers will be subject to a number of safeguards. First, they are limited to “viewing information”. They can be used only where they are proportionate in the exercise of Ofcom’s functions, and a provider would have the right to bring a legal challenge against Ofcom if it considered that a particular exercise of the power was done unlawfully. Furthermore, Ofcom will be under a legal obligation to ensure that the information gathered from services is protected from disclosure, unless clearly defined exemptions apply.
These are not secret powers, as the noble Lord rightly noted. The Bill contains no restriction on services making the existence and detail of the information notice public. If a regulated service wished to challenge an information notice served to it by Ofcom, it would be able to do so through judicial review. I also mentioned the recourse that people have through existing legislation, such as the Freedom of Information Act, to give them safeguards, noting that, under Section 393 of the Communications Act, Ofcom will not be able to disclose information that it has obtained through its exercise of these powers without the provider’s consent unless that is permitted for specific, defined purposes.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 247B seeks to place further safeguards on Ofcom’s use of its new power to access providers’ systems remotely to observe tests. While I largely agree with the intention behind it, there are already a number of safeguards in place for the use of that power, including in relation to data protection, legally privileged material and the disclosure of information, as I have outlined. Ofcom will not be able to gain remote access simply for exploratory or fishing purposes, and indeed Ofcom expects to have conversations with services about how to provide the information requested.
Furthermore, before exercising the power, Ofcom will be required to issue an information notice specifying the information to be provided, setting out the parameters of access and why Ofcom requires the information, among other things. Following the receipt of an information notice, a notice requiring an inspection or an audit notice, if a company has identified that there is an obvious security risk in Ofcom exercising the power as set out in the notice, it may not be proportionate to do so. As set out in Ofcom’s duties, Ofcom must have regard to the principles under which regulatory activities should be proportionate and targeted only at cases where action is needed.
In line with current practice, we anticipate Ofcom will issue information notice requests in draft form to identify and address any issues, including in relation to security, before the information notice is issued formally. Ofcom will have a legal duty to exercise its remote access powers in a way that is proportionate, ensuring that undue burdens are not placed on businesses. In assessing proportionality in line with this requirement, Ofcom would need to consider the size and resource capacity of a service when choosing the most appropriate way of gathering information, and whether there was a less onerous method of obtaining the necessary information to ensure that the use of this power is proportionate. As I said, the remote access power is limited to “viewing information”. Under this power, Ofcom will be unable to interfere or access the service for any other purpose.
In practice, Ofcom will work with services during the process. It is required to specify, among other things, the information to be provided, which will set the parameters of its access, and why it requires the information, which will explain the link between the information it seeks and the online safety function that it is exercising or deciding whether to exercise.
As noble Lords know, Ofcom must comply with the UK’s data protection law. As we have discussed in relation to other issues, it is required to act compatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8 privacy rights. In addition, under Clause 91(7), Ofcom is explicitly prohibited from requiring the provision of legally privileged information. It will also be under a legal obligation to ensure that the information gathered from services is protected from disclosure unless clearly defined exemptions apply, such as those under Section 393(2) of the Communications Act 2003—for example, the carrying out of any of Ofcom’s functions. I hope that provides reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who raised these questions.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. That was helpful, particularly the description of the process and the fact that drafts have to be issued early on. However, it still leaves open a couple of questions, one of which was very helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. We have in Schedule 12 this other set of protections that could be applied. There is a genuine question as to why this has been put in this place and not there.
The second question is to dig a little more into the question of what happens when there is a dispute. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out that if you have created a backdoor then you have created a backdoor, and it is dangerous. If we end up in a situation where a company believes that what it is being asked to do by Ofcom is fundamentally problematic and would create a security risk, it will not be good enough to open up the backdoor and then have a judicial review. It needs to be able to say no at that stage, yet the Bill says that it could be committing a serious criminal offence by failing to comply with an information notice. We want some more assurances, in some form, about what would happen in a scenario where a company genuinely and sincerely believes that what Ofcom is asking for is inappropriate and/or dangerous and it wants not to have to offer it unless and until its challenge has been looked at, rather than having to offer it and then later judicially review a decision. The damage would already have been done by opening up an inappropriate backdoor.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
A provider would have a right to bring a legal challenge against Ofcom if it considered that a particular exercise of the remote access power was unlawful. I am sure that would be looked at swiftly, but I will write to the noble Lord on the anticipated timelines while that judicial review was pending. Given the serious nature of the issues under consideration, I am sure that would be looked at swiftly. I will write further on that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Before the Minister sits down, to quote the way the Minister has operated throughout Report, there is consensus across the House that there are some concerns. The reason why there are concerns outside and inside the House on this particular amendment is that it is not entirely clear that those protections exist, and there are worries. I ask the Minister whether, rather than just writing, it would be possible to take this back to the department, table a late amendment and say, “Look again”. That has been done before. It is certainly not too late: if it was not too late to have this amendment then it is certainly not too late to take it away again and to adopt another amendment that gives some safeguarding. Seriously, it is worth looking again.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I had not quite finished; the noble Baroness was quick to catch me before I sat down. I still have some way to go, but I will certainly take on board all the points that have been made on this group.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about Schedule 12. I will happily write with further information on that, but Schedule 12 is about UK premises, so it is probably not the appropriate place to deal with this, as we need to be able to access services in other countries. If there is a serious security risk then it would not necessarily be proportionate. I will write to him with further details.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so quickly. I think the House is asking him to indicate now that he will go away and look at this issue, perhaps with some of us, and that, if necessary, he would be willing to look at coming back with something at Third Reading. From my understanding of the Companion, I think he needs to say words to that effect to allow him to do so, if that is what he subsequently wants to do at Third Reading.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very happy to discuss this further with noble Lords, but I will reserve the right, pending that discussion, to decide whether we need to return to this at Third Reading.
Amendments 270 and 272, tabled by my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie, to whom I am very grateful for her careful scrutiny of the devolved aspects of the Bill, seek to require Ofcom to include separate analyses of users’ online experiences in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the research about users’ experiences of regulated services and in Ofcom’s transparency reports. While I am sympathetic to her intention—we have corresponded on it, for which I am grateful—it is important that Ofcom has and retains the discretion to prioritise information requests that will best shed light on the experience of users across the UK.
My noble friend and other noble Lords should be reassured that Ofcom has a strong track record of using this discretion to produce data which are representative of people across the whole United Kingdom. Ofcom is committed to reflecting the online experiences of users across the UK and intends, wherever possible, to publish data at a national level. When conducting research, Ofcom seeks to gather views from a representative sample of the United Kingdom and seeks to set quotas that ensure an analysable sample within each of the home nations.
It is also worth noting the provisions in the Communications Act 2003 that require Ofcom to operate offices in each of the nations of the UK, to maintain advisory committees for each, and to ensure their representation on its various boards and panels—and, indeed, on the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to capture the experiences of children and users of all ages. While we must give Ofcom the discretion it needs to ensure that the framework is flexible and remains future-proofed, I hope that I have reassured my noble friend that her point will indeed be captured, reported on and be able to be scrutinised, not just in this House but across the UK.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My premise is that the reason Ofcom reports in a nation-specific way in broadcasting and in communications is because there is a high-level reference in both the Communications Act 2003 and the BBC charter that requires it to do so, because it feeds down into national quotas and so on. There is currently nothing of that equivalence in the Online Safety Bill. Therefore, we are relying on Ofcom’s discretion, whereas in the broadcasting and communications area we have a high-level reference to insisting that there is a breakdown by nation.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We think we can rely on Ofcom’s discretion, and point to its current practice. I hope that will reassure my noble friend that it will set out the information she seeks.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I was about to say that I am very happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the manner by which consent is given in Clause 53(5)(c), but I think his question is on something else.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat that immediately afterwards, when I will listen much harder.
Just to echo what the noble Baroness was saying, may we take it as an expectation that approaches that are signalled in legislation for broadcasting and communications should apply pari passu to the work of Ofcom in relation to the devolved Administrations?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, and we can point to the current actions of Ofcom to show that it is indeed doing this already, even without that legislative stick.
I turn to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on researchers’ access to data. Amendment 237ZA would confer on the Secretary of State a power to make provisions about access to information by researchers. As my noble friend knows, we are sympathetic to the importance of this issue, which is why we have tabled our own amendments in relation to it. However, as my noble friend also knows, in such a complex and sensitive area that we think it is premature to endow the Secretary of State with such broad powers to introduce a new framework. As we touched on in Committee, this is a complex and still nascent area, which is why it is different from the other areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed in his contribution.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made the point that in other areas where the Minister has agreed to reviews or reports, there are backstop powers; for instance, on app stores. Of course, that was a negotiated settlement, so to speak, but why can the Minister not accede to that in the case of access for researchers, as he has with app stores? Indeed, there is one other example that escapes me, which the Minister has also agreed to.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We touched on the complexity of defining who and what is a researcher and making sure that we do not give rise to bad actors exploiting that. This is a complex area, as we touched on in Committee. As I say, the evidence base here is nascent. It is important first to focus on developing our understanding of the issues to ensure that any power or legislation is fit to address those challenges. Ofcom’s report will not only highlight how platforms can share data with researchers safely but will provide the evidence base for considering any future policy approaches, which we have committed to doing but which I think the noble Lord will agree are worthy of further debate and reflection in Parliament.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The benefit of having a period of time between the last day of Report on Wednesday and Third Reading is that that gives the Minister, the Bill team and parliamentary counsel the time to reflect on the kind of power that could be devised. The wording could be devised, and I would have thought that six weeks would be quite adequate for that, perhaps in a general way. After all, this is not a power that is immediately going to be used; it is a general power that could be brought into effect by regulation. Surely it is not beyond the wit to devise something suitable.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Sit down or stand up—I cannot remember.
I wonder whether the department has looked at the DSA and other situations where this is being worked out. I recognise that it takes a period of time, but it is not without some precedent that a pathway should be described.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We do not think that six weeks is enough time for the evidence base to develop sufficiently, our assessment being that to endow the Secretary of State with that power at this point is premature.
Amendment 262AA would require Ofcom to consider whether it is appropriate to require providers to take steps to comply with Ofcom’s researcher access guidance when including a requirement to take steps in a confirmation decision. This would be inappropriate because the researcher access provisions are not enforceable requirements; as such, compliance with them should not be subject to enforcement by the regulator. Furthermore, enforcement action may relate to a wide variety of very important issues, and the steps needed should be sufficient to address a failure to comply with an enforceable requirement. Singling out compliance with researcher access guidance alone risks implying that this will be adequate to address core failures.
Amendment 272AB would require Ofcom to give consideration to whether greater access to data could be achieved through legal requirements or incentives for regulated services. I reassure noble Lords that the scope of Ofcom’s report will already cover how greater access to data could be achieved, including through enforceable requirements on providers.
Amendment 272E would require Ofcom to take a provider’s compliance with Ofcom’s guidance on researcher access to data into account when assessing risks from regulated services and determining whether to take enforcement action and what enforcement action to take. However, we do not believe that this is a relevant factor for consideration of these issues. I hope noble Lords will agree that whether or not a company has enabled researcher access to its data should not be a mitigating factor against Ofcom requiring companies to deal with terrorism or child sexual exploitation or abuse content, for example.
On my noble friend Lord Bethell’s remaining Amendments 272BA, 273A and 273B, the first of these would require Ofcom to publish its report on researchers’ access to information within six months. While six months would not be deliverable given other priorities and the complexity of this issue, the government amendment to which I have spoken would reduce the timelines from two years to 18 months. That recognises the importance of the issue while ensuring that Ofcom can deliver the key priorities in establishing the core parts of the regulatory framework; for example, the illegal content and child safety duties.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
Just on the timescale, one of the issues that we talked about in Committee was the fact that there needs to be some kind of mechanism created, with a code of practice with reference to data protection law and an approving body to approve researchers as suitable to take information; the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, referred to the DSA process, which the European Union has been working on. I hope the Minister can confirm that Ofcom might get moving on establishing that. It is not dependent on there being a report in 18 months; in fact, you need to have it in place when you report in 18 months, which means you need to start building it now. I hope the Minister would want Ofcom, within its existing framework, to be encouraging the creation of that researcher approval body and code of practice, not waiting to start that process in 18 months’ time.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will continue my train of thought on my noble friend’s amendments, which I hope will cover that and more.
My noble friend’s Amendment 273A would allow Ofcom to appoint approved independent researchers to access information. Again, given the nascent evidence base here, it is important to focus on understanding these issues before we commit to a researcher access framework.
Under the skilled persons provisions, Ofcom will already have the powers to appoint a skilled person to assess compliance with the regulatory framework; that includes the ability to leverage the expertise of independent researchers. My noble friend’s Amendment 273B would require Ofcom to produce a code of practice on access to data by researchers. The government amendments I spoke to earlier will require Ofcom to produce guidance on that issue, which will help to promote information sharing in a safe and secure way.
To the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Allan: yes, Ofcom can start the process and do it quickly. The question here is really about the timeframe in which it does so. As I said in opening, we understand the calls for further action in this area.
I am happy to say to my noble friend Lord Bethell, to whom we are grateful for his work on this and the conversations we have had, that we will explore the issue further and report back on whether further measures to support researchers’ access to data are required and, if so, whether they can be implemented through other legislation, such as the Data Protection and Digital Information (No.2) Bill.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down—he has been extremely generous in taking interventions—I want to put on record my understanding of his slightly ambiguous response to Amendment 247A, so that he can correct it if I have got it wrong. My understanding is that he has agreed to go away and reflect on the amendment and that he will have discussions with us about it. Only if he then believes that it is helpful to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading will he do so.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, but I do not want to raise the hopes of the noble Lord or others, with whom I look forward to discussing this matter. I must manage their expectations about whether we will bring anything forward. With that, I beg to move.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a change to the definition of “relevant content” which applies for the purposes of Chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Bill (transparency of terms of service etc). The effect of the change is to cover a wider range of ways in which a term of service might indicate that a certain kind of content is not allowed on the service.
“CHAPTER 3ADECEASED CHILD USERSDisclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users
(1) A provider of a relevant service must make it clear in the terms of service what their policy is about dealing with requests from parents of a deceased child for information about the child’s use of the service.(2) A provider of a relevant service must have a dedicated helpline or section of the service, or some similar means, by which parents can easily find out what they need to do to obtain information and updates in those circumstances, and the terms of service must provide details.(3) A provider of a relevant service must include clear and accessible provisions in the terms of service—(a) specifying the procedure for parents of a deceased child to request information about the child’s use of the service,(b) specifying what evidence (if any) the provider will require about the parent’s identity or relationship to the child, and(c) giving sufficient detail to enable child users and their parents to be reasonably certain about what kinds of information would be disclosed and how information would be disclosed. (4) A provider of a relevant service must respond in a timely manner to requests from parents of a deceased child for information about the child’s use of the service or for updates about the progress of such information requests.(5) A provider of a relevant service must operate a complaints procedure in relation to the service that—(a) allows for complaints to be made by parents of a deceased child who consider that the provider is not complying with a duty set out in any of subsections (1) to (4),(b) provides for appropriate action to be taken by the provider of the service in response to such complaints, and(c) is easy to access, easy to use and transparent.(6) A provider of a relevant service must include in the terms of service provisions which are easily accessible specifying the policies and processes that govern the handling and resolution of such complaints.(7) If a person is the provider of more than one relevant service, the duties set out in this section apply in relation to each such service.(8) The duties set out in this section extend only to the design, operation and use of a service in the United Kingdom, and references in this section to children are to children in the United Kingdom.(9) A “relevant service” means—(a) a Category 1 service (see section 86(10)(a));(b) a Category 2A service (see section 86(10)(b));(c) a Category 2B service (see section 86(10)(c)).(10) In this section “parent”, in relation to a child, includes any person who is not the child’s parent but who—(a) has parental responsibility for the child within the meaning of section 3 of the Children Act 1989 or Article 6 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)), or(b) has parental responsibilities in relation to the child within the meaning of section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.(11) In the application of this section to a Category 2A service, references to the terms of service include references to a publicly available statement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes new duties on providers of Category 1, 2A and 2B services to have a policy about disclosing information to the parents of deceased child users, and providing details about it in the terms of service or a publicly available statement.
“OFCOM’s guidance about duties set out in section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users)
(1) OFCOM must produce guidance for providers of relevant services to assist them in complying with their duties set out in section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users).(2) OFCOM must publish the guidance (and any revised or replacement guidance).(3) In this section “relevant service” has the meaning given by section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires OFCOM to give guidance to providers about the new duties imposed by the other Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to content to which section 12(2) applies (content to which certain user empowerment duties apply) to paragraph 1 of the transparency reporting Schedule, which allows OFCOM to require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency reports about the incidence of content.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to content to which section 12(2) applies to paragraph 2 of the transparency reporting Schedule, which allows OFCOM to require providers of user- to-user services to include information in their transparency reports about the dissemination of content.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to content to which section 12(2) applies to paragraph 3 of the transparency reporting Schedule, which allows OFCOM to require providers of user- to-user services to include information in their transparency reports about the number of users encountering content.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows OFCOM to require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about the formulation, development and scope of their terms of service (as well as the application of the terms of service).
“8A_ The design and operation of algorithms which affect the display, promotion, restriction or recommendation of illegal content, content that is harmful to children, relevant content or content to which section 12(2) applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about algorithms, as mentioned in this new paragraph.
“12A_ Measures taken or in use by a provider to comply with any duty set out in section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users) (deceased child users).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of user-to-user services to include information in their transparency report about measures taken to comply with the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows OFCOM to require providers of search services to include information in their transparency report about the formulation, development and scope of their public statements of policies and procedures (as well as the application of those statements).
“24A_ The design and operation of algorithms which affect the display, promotion, restriction or recommendation of illegal search content or search content that is harmful to children.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of search services to include information in their transparency report about algorithms, as mentioned in this new paragraph.
“26A_ Measures taken or in use by a provider to comply with any duty set out in section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users) (deceased child users).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that OFCOM can require providers of search services to include information in their transparency report about measures taken to comply with the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires OFCOM, in considering which information to require from a provider in a transparency report, to consider whether the provider is subject to the duties imposed by Chapter 3A, which is the new Chapter containing the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a change to the definition of “relevant content” which applies for the purposes of the transparency reporting Schedule. The effect of the change is to cover a wider range of ways in which a term of service might indicate that a certain kind of content is not allowed on the service.
“(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to users’ access to content being restricted is to be construed in accordance with sections 52 and 211(5).”Member’s explanatory statement
This technical amendment makes it clear that the reference to users’ access to content being restricted in the transparency reporting Schedule has the meaning given to it in Part 3 of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Clause 211 in my name adding a definition of “pornographic content” to that Clause.
(a) software or an automated tool or algorithm applied by the provider or by a person acting on behalf of the provider, or(b) an automated tool or algorithm made available on the service by the provider or by a person acting on behalf of the provider.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is about what counts as “provider pornographic content” for the purposes of Part 5 of the Bill. Words are added to expressly cover the case where an automated tool or algorithm is made available on the service by a provider, such as a generative AI bot.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is related to the next amendment in my name which inserts new subsection (4A) into Clause 70. The change is to the scope of what it means for content to consist only of text.
“(4A) Content is within this subsection if it—(a) consists only of text, or(b) consists only of text accompanied by—(i) a GIF which is not itself pornographic content,(ii) an emoji or other symbol, or(iii) a combination of content mentioned in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii).(4B) Content is within this subsection if it consists of a paid-for advertisement (see section 211).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the scope of the exemption from the Part 5 duties for content which consists only of text. Such content does not count as regulated provider pornographic content.
(iii) references to pornographic content that is generated on the service by means of an automated tool or algorithm in response to a prompt by a user and is only visible or audible to that user (no matter for how short a time);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that, for the purposes of Part 5 (provider pornography), content is within scope of the duties if it is AI-generated content.
“(2) A duty to ensure, by the use of age verification or age estimation (or both), that children are not normally able to encounter content that is regulated provider pornographic content in relation to the service.(2A) The age verification or age estimation must be of such a kind, and used in such a way, that it is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a particular user is a child.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires providers within scope of Part 5 to use highly effective age verification or age estimation (or both) to comply with the duty in Clause 72(2) (preventing children from encountering provider pornographic content).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a technical change relating to the preceding amendment in my name.
“(a) the kinds of age verification or age estimation used, and how they are used, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires Part 5 providers to keep a written record about the age verification or age estimation measures they use to comply with the duty in Clause 72(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the preceding amendment in my name.
“(4) A duty to summarise the written record in a publicly available statement, so far as the record concerns compliance with the duty set out in subsection (2), including details about which kinds of age verification or age estimation a provider is using and how they are used.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires Part 5 providers to make publicly available a summary of the age verification or age estimation measures used to comply with the duty in Clause 72(2), and how they are used.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires OFCOM’s guidance about the duty in Clause 72(2) to give examples of kinds and uses of age verification and age estimation that are, or are not, highly effective at determining whether or not a user is a child.
“(2A) The guidance may elaborate on the following principles governing the use of age verification or age estimation for the purpose of compliance with the duty set out in section 72(2)—(a) the principle that age verification or age estimation should be easy to use;(b) the principle that age verification or age estimation should work effectively for all users regardless of their characteristics or whether they are members of a certain group; (c) the principle of interoperability between different kinds of age verification or age estimation.(2B) The guidance may refer to industry or technical standards for age verification or age estimation (where they exist).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out principles about age verification or age estimation, which are relevant to OFCOM’s guidance to providers about their duty in Clause 72(2).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 149 in my name expanding OFCOM’s duties to promote media literacy in relation to regulated user-to-user and search services.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to provisions for media literacy in the Bill and Ofcom’s existing duty on media literacy under Section 11 of the Communications Act 2003. I am grateful to noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House for the views they have shared on this matter, which have been invaluable in helping us draft the amendments.
Media literacy remains a key priority in our work to tackle online harms; it is essential not only to keep people safe online but for them to understand how to make informed decisions which enhance their experience of the internet. Extensive work is currently being undertaken in this area. Under Ofcom’s existing duty, the regulator has initiated pilot work to promote media literacy. It is also developing best practice principles for platform-based media literacy measures and has published guidance on how to evaluate media literacy programmes.
While we believe that the Communications Act provides Ofcom with sufficient powers to undertake an ambitious programme of media literacy activity, we have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords and understand the desire to ensure that Ofcom is given media literacy objectives which are fit for the digital age. We have therefore tabled the following amendments seeking to update Ofcom’s statutory duty to promote media literacy, in so far as it relates to regulated services.
Amendment 274B provides new objectives for Ofcom to meet in discharging its duty. The first objective requires Ofcom to take steps to increase the public’s awareness and understanding of how they can keep themselves and others safe when using regulated services, including building the public’s understanding of the nature and impact of harmful content online, such as disinformation and misinformation. To meet that objective, Ofcom will need to carry out, commission or encourage the delivery of activities and initiatives which enhance users’ media literacy in these ways.
It is important to note that, when fulfilling this new objective, Ofcom will need to increase the public’s awareness of the ways in which they can protect groups that disproportionately face harm online, such as women and girls. The updated duty will also compel Ofcom to encourage the development and use of technologies and systems that support users of regulated services to protect themselves and others. Ofcom will be required to publish a statement recommending ways in which others, including platforms, can take action to support their users’ media literacy.
Amendment 274C places a new requirement on Ofcom to publish a strategy setting out how it will fulfil its media literacy functions under Section 11, including the new objectives. Ofcom will be required to update this strategy every three years and report on progress made against it annually to provide assurance that it is fulfilling its duty appropriately. These reports will be supported by the post-implementation review of the Bill, which covers Ofcom’s media literacy duty in so far as it relates to regulated services. This will provide a reasonable point at which to establish the impact of Ofcom’s work, having given it time to take effect.
I am confident that, through this updated duty, Ofcom will be empowered to ensure that internet users become more engaged with media literacy and, as a result, are safer online. I hope that these amendments will find support from across your Lordships’ House, and I beg to move.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this proposed new clause on media literacy and support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Knight of Weymouth. I will briefly press the Minister on two points. First, proposed new subsection (1C) sets out how Ofcom must perform its duty under proposed new subsection (1A), but it does not explicitly require Ofcom to work in partnership with existing bodies already engaged in and expert in provision of these kinds of activities. The potential for Ofcom to commission is explicit, but this implies quite a top-down relationship, not a collaboration that builds on best practice, enables scale-up where appropriate and generally avoids reinventing wheels. It seems like a wasted opportunity to fast-track delivery of effective programmes through partnership.
My second concern is that there is no explicit requirement to consider the distinct needs of specific user communities. In particular, I share the concerns of disability campaigners and charities that media literacy activities and initiatives need to take into account the needs of people with learning disabilities, autism and mental capacity issues, both in how activities are shaped and in how they are communicated. This is a group of people who have a great need to go online and engage, but we also know that they are at greater risk online. Thinking about how media literacy can be promoted, particularly among learning disability communities, is really important.
The Minister might respond by saying that Ofcom is already covered by the public sector equality duty and so is already obliged to consider the needs of people with protected characteristics when designing and implementing policies. But the unfortunate truth is that the concerns of the learning disability community are an afterthought in legislation compared with other disabilities, which are already an afterthought. The Petitions Committee in the other place, in its report on online abuse and the experience of disabled people, noted that there are multiple disabled people around the country with the skills and experience to advise government and its bodies but that there is a general unwillingness to engage directly with them. They are often described as hard to reach, which is kind of ironic because in fact most of these people use multiple services and so are very easy to reach, because they are on lots of databases and in contact with government bodies all the time.
The Minister may also point out that Ofcom’s duties in the Communications Act require it to maintain an advisory committee on elderly and disabled persons that includes
“persons who are familiar with the needs of persons with disabilities”.
But referring to an advisory committee is not the same as consulting people with disabilities, both physical and mental, and it is especially important to consult directly with people who may have difficulty understanding what is being proposed. Talking to people directly, rather than through an advisory committee, is very much the goal.
Unlike the draft Bill, which had media literacy as a stand-alone clause, the intention in this iteration is to deal with the issue by amending the Communications Act. It may be that in the web of interactions between those two pieces of legislation, my concerns can be set to rest. But I would find it very helpful if the Minister could confirm today that the intention is that media literacy programmes will be developed in partnership with—and build on best practice of—those organisations already delivering in this space and that the organisations Ofcom collaborates with will be fully inclusive of all communities, including those with disabilities and learning disabilities. Only in this way can we be confident that media literacy programmes will meet their needs effectively, both in content and in how they are communicated.
Finally, can the Minister confirm whether Ofcom considers people with lived experience of disability as subject matter experts on disability for the purpose of fulfilling its consultation duties? I asked this question during one of the helpful briefing sessions during the Bill’s progress earlier this year, but I did not get an adequate answer. Can the Minister clarify that for the House today?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to look at how, in the Government expanding Ofcom’s duties to prioritise media literacy, it has become linked to this group, and to look at the way in which Amendment 274B does this. It is very much linked with misinformation and disinformation. According to the amendment, there has to be an attempt to establish
“accuracy and authenticity of content”
and to
“understand the nature and impact of disinformation and misinformation, and reduce their and others’ exposure to it”.
I was wondering about reducing users’ exposure to misinformation and disinformation. That gives me pause, because I worry that reducing exposure will obviously mean the removal or censorship of material. I just want to probe some assumptions. Is it the presumption that incorrect or seemingly untrue or erroneous information is the predominant cause of real harm if it is not suppressed? Is there not a risk of harm in suppressing ideas too? Apart from the fact that heretical scientific and political theories were historically seen as misinformation and now are conventional wisdom, is there a danger that suppression in the contemporary period would create mistrust and encourage conspiratorial thinking—people saying, “What have you got to hide?”—and so on?
I want to push this by probing Amendment 269AA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which itself is a probing amendment as to why Ofcom’s misinformation and disinformation committee is not required to consider the provenance of information to help empower users to understand whether content is real or true and so on, rather than the wording at the moment, “accuracy and authenticity”. When I saw the word “provenance”, I stopped for a moment. In all the debates going on in society about misinformation and disinformation, excellent provenance cannot necessarily guarantee truth.
I was shocked to discover that the then Wellcome Trust director, Jeremy Farrar, who is now the chief scientist at the World Health Organization, claimed that the Wuhan lab leak and the manmade theories around Covid were highly improbable. We now know that there were emails from Jeremy Farrar—I was shocked because I am a great fan of the Wellcome Trust and Jeremy Farrar’s work in general—in which there was a conscious bending of the truth that led to the editing of a scientific paper and a letter in the Lancet that proved to have been spun in a way to give wrong information. When issues such as the Wuhan lab leak were raised by Matt Ridley, recently of this parish—I do not know whether his provenance would count—they were dismissed as some kind of racist conspiracy theory. I am just not sure that it is that clear that you can get provenance right. We know from the Twitter files that the Biden Administration leaned on social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story that was in the New York Post, which was described as Russian disinformation. We now know that it was true.
Therefore, I am concerned that, in attempting to be well-meaning, this amendment that says we should have better media information does not give in to these lazy labels of disinformation and misinformation, as if we all know what the truth is and all we need is fact-checkers, provenance and authenticity. Disinformation and misinformation have been weaponised, which can cause some serious problems.
Can the Minister clarify whether the clause on media literacy is a genuine, positive attempt at encouraging people to know more, or itself becomes part of an information war that is going on offline and which will not help users at all but only confuse things?
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the government Amendments 274B and 274C. I truly welcome a more detailed approach to Ofcom’s duties in relation to media literacy. However, as is my theme today, I raise two frustrations. First, having spent weeks telling us that it is impossible to include harms that go beyond content and opposing amendments on that point, the Government’s media literacy strategy includes a duty to help users to understand the harmful ways in which regulated services may be used. This is in addition to understanding the nature and impact of harmful content. It appears to suggest that it is the users who are guilty of misuse of products and services rather than putting any emphasis on the design or processes that determine how a service is most often used.
I believe that all of us, including children, are participants in creating an online culture and that educating and empowering users of services is essential. However, it should not be a substitute for designing a service that is safe by design and default. To make my point absolutely clear, I recount the findings of researchers who undertook workshops in 28 countries with more than 1,000 children. The researchers were at first surprised to find that, whether in Kigali, São Paulo or Berlin, to an overwhelming extent children identified the same problems online—harmful content, addiction, privacy, lack of privacy and so on. The children’s circumstances were so vastly different—country and town, Africa and the global north et cetera—but when the researchers did further analysis, they realised that the reason why they had such similar experiences was because they were using the same products. The products were more determining of the outcome than anything to do with religion, education, status, age, the family or even the country. The only other factor that loomed large, which I admit that the Government have recognised, was gender. Those were the two most crucial findings. It is an abdication of adult responsibility to place the onus on children to keep themselves safe. The amendment and the Bill, as I keep mentioning, should focus on the role of design, not on how a child uses it.
My second point, which is of a similar nature, is that I am very concerned that a lot of digital literacy—for adults as well as children, but my particular concern is in schools—is provided by the tech companies themselves. Therefore, once again their responsibility, their role in the system and process of what children might find from reward loops, algorithms and so on, is very low down on the agenda. Is it possible at this late stage to consider that Ofcom might have a responsibility to consider the system design as part of its literacy review?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting short debate. Like other noble Lords, I am very pleased that the Government have proposed the new clauses in Amendments 274B and 274C. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, described absolutely the importance of media literacy, particularly for disabled people and for the vulnerable. This is really important for them. It is important also not to fall into the trap described by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, of saying, “You are a child or a vulnerable person. You must acquire media literacy—it’s your obligation; it’s not the obligation of the platforms to design their services appropriately”. I take that point, but it does not mean that media literacy is not extraordinarily important.
However, sadly, I do not believe that the breadth of the Government’s new media literacy amendments is as wide as the original draft Bill. If you look back at the draft Bill, that was a completely new and upgraded set of duties right across the board, replacing Section 11 of the Communications Act and, in a sense, fit for the modern age. The Government have made a media literacy duty which is much narrower. It relates only to regulated services. This is not optimum. We need something broader which puts a bigger and broader duty for the future on to Ofcom.
It is also deficient in two respects. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, will speak to his amendments, but it struck me immediately when looking at that proposed new clause that we were missing all the debate about functionalities and so on that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, debated the other day, regarding design, and that we must ensure that media literacy encompasses understanding the underlying functionalities and systems of the platforms that we are talking about.
I know that your Lordships will be very excited to hear that I am going to refer again to the Joint Committee. I know that the Minister has read us from cover to cover, but at paragraph 381 on the draft Bill we said, and it is still evergreen:
“If the Government wishes to improve the UK’s media literacy to reduce online harms, there must be provisions in the Bill to ensure media literacy initiatives are of a high standard. The Bill should empower Ofcom to set minimum standards for media literacy initiatives that both guide providers and ensure the information they are disseminating aligns with the goal of reducing online harm”.
I had a very close look at the clause. I could not see that Ofcom is entitled to set minimum standards. The media literacy provisions sadly are deficient in that respect.
Lord McNally (LD)
I am not surprised that my noble friend refers to his experience on the Joint Committee. He will not be surprised that I am about to refer to my experience on the Puttnam committee in 2003, which recommended media literacy as a priority for Ofcom. The sad fact is that media literacy was put on the back burner by Ofcom for almost 20 years. While I listen to this House, I think that my noble friend is quite right to accuse the Government, hard as the Minister has tried, of a paucity of ambition and—more than that—of letting us slip into the same mistake made by Ofcom after 2003 and allowing this to be a narrow, marginal issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has reminded us time and again that unless we educate those who are using these technologies, these abuses will proliferate.
Therefore, with what my noble friend is advocating and what we will keep an eye on as the Bill is implemented—and I now literally speak over the Minister’s head, to the Member behind—Ofcom must take media literacy seriously and be a driving force in its implementation, for the very reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to. We do not want everybody protected by regulations and powers—we want people protected by their own knowledge of what they are dealing with. This is where there is a gap between what has been pressed on the Government and what they are offering.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that intervention.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House that, as we are on Report, interventions on current speakers should be for direct questions or points of elucidation.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sure my noble friend with 30 years’ experience stands duly corrected. He has reminded us that we have 20 years’ experience of something being on the statute book without really cranking up the powers and duties that are on it or giving Ofcom appropriate resources in the media literacy area. If that was about offline—the original 2003 duty—we know that it is even more important online to have these media literacy duties in place. I very much hope that the Minister can give us, in a sense, a token of earnest—that it is not just about putting these duties on the statute book but about giving Ofcom the resources to follow this up. Of course, it is also relevant to other regulators, which was partly the reason for having a duty of co-operation. Perhaps he will also, at the same time, describe how regulators such as Ofsted will have a role in media literacy.
I shall briefly talk about Amendment 269AA to Clause 141, which is the clause in the Bill setting up the advisory committee on misinformation and disinformation. I heard very clearly what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, had to say, and I absolutely agree—there is no silver bullet in all this. Establishing provenance is but one way in which to get greater transparency and authentication and exercise judgment; it is not the complete answer, but it is one way of getting to grips more with some of the information coming through online. She may have seen that this is an “and” rather than an “or”, which is why the amendment is phrased as it is.
Of course, it is really important that there are initiatives. The one that I want to mention today about provenance is the Content Authenticity Initiative, which I mentioned in Committee. We need to use the power of such initiatives; it is a global coalition working to increase transparency in digital content through open industry standards, and it was founded four years ago and has more than 1,500 members, with some major companies such as Adobe, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Arm, Intel—I could go on. I very much hope that Ofcom will engage with the Content Authenticity Initiative, whatever the content of the Bill. In a sense, I am raising the issue for the Minister to give us assurances that this is within the scope of what the committee will be doing—that it is not just a question of doing what is in the Bill, and this will be included in the scope of the advisory committee’s work.
Thea AI has been an industry-led initiative that has developed content credentials which encode important metadata into pieces of content. Those pieces of information reside indefinitely in the content, wherever it is used, published or stored, and, as a result, viewers are able to make more informed decisions about whether or not to trust the content. The advisory committee really should consider the role of provenance tools such as content credentials to enable users to have the relevant information to decide what is real and what is disinformation or misinformation online. That would entirely fit the strategy of this Bill to empower adult users.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have moved on this issue, and I very much welcome that. I am grateful to the Minister for listening and for the fact that we now have Section 11 of the Communications Act being brought into the digital age through the Government’s Amendments 274B and 274C. The public can now expect to be informed and educated about content-related harms, reliability and accuracy; technology companies will have to play their part; and Ofcom will have to regularly report on progress, and will commission and partner with others to fulfil those duties. That is great progress.
The importance of this was underscored at a meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council just two weeks. Nada Al-Nashif, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights in an opening statement said that media and digital literacy empowered individuals and
“should be considered an integral part of education efforts”.
Tawfik Jelassi, the assistant director-general of UNESCO, in a statement attached to that meeting, said that
“media and information literacy was essential for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression”—
I put that in to please the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—and
“enabled access to diverse information, cultivated critical thinking, facilitated active engagement in public discourse, combatted misinformation, and safeguarded privacy and security, while respecting the rights of others”.
If only the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, was in his place to hear me use the word privacy. He continued:
“Together, the international community could ensure that media and information literacy became an integral part of everyone’s lives, empowering all to think critically, promote digital well-being, and foster a more inclusive and responsible global digital community”.
I thought those were great words, summarising why we needed to do this.
I am grateful to Members on all sides of the House for the work that they have done on media literacy. Part of repeating those remarks was that this is so much more about empowerment than it is about loading safety on to individuals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly said in her comments.
Nevertheless, we want the Minister to reflect on a couple of tweaks. Amendment 269C in my name is around an advisory committee being set up within six months and in its first report assessing the need for a code on misinformation. I have a concern that, as the regime that we are putting in place with this Bill comes into place and causes some of the harmful content that people find engaging to be suppressed, the algorithms will go to something else that is engaging, and that something else is likely to be misinformation and disinformation. I have a fear that that will become a growing problem that the regulator will need to be able to address, which is why it should be looking at this early.
Incidentally, that is why the regulator should also look at provenance, as in Amendment 269AA from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It was tempting in listening to him to see whether there was an AI tool that could trawl across all the comments that he has made during the deliberations on this Bill to see whether he has quoted the whole of the joint report—but that is a distraction.
My Amendment 269D goes to the need for media literacy on systems, processes and business models, not just on content. Time and again, we have emphasised the need for this Bill to be as much about systems as content. There are contexts where individual, relatively benign pieces of content can magnify if part of a torrent that then creates harm. The Mental Health Foundation has written to many of us to make this point. In the same way that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, asked about ensuring that those with disability have their own authentic voice heard as these media literacy responsibilities are played out, so the Mental Health Foundation wanted the same kind of involvement from young people; I agree with both. Please can we have some reassurance that this will be very much part of the literacy duties on Ofcom and the obligations it places on service providers?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments, and for the recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, of the changes that we have made. I am particularly grateful to him for having raised media literacy throughout our scrutiny of this Bill.
His Amendments 269C and 269D seek to set a date by which the establishment of the advisory committee on misinformation and disinformation must take place and to set requirements for its first report. Ofcom recognises the valuable role that the committee will play in providing advice in relation to its duties on misinformation and disinformation, and has assured us that it will aim to establish the committee as soon as is reasonably possible, in recognition of the threats posed by misinformation and disinformation online.
Given the valuable role of the advisory committee, Ofcom has stressed how crucial it will be to have appropriate time to appoint the best possible committee. Seeking to prescribe a timeframe for its implementation risks impeding Ofcom’s ability to run the thorough and transparent recruitment process that I am sure all noble Lords want and to appoint the most appropriate and expert members. It would also not be appropriate for the Bill to be overly prescriptive on the role of the committee, including with regard to its first report, in order for it to maintain the requisite independence and flexibility to give us the advice that we want.
Amendment 269AA from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seeks to add advice on content provenance to the duties of the advisory committee. The new media literacy amendments, which update Ofcom’s media literacy duties, already include a requirement for Ofcom to take steps to help users establish the reliability, accuracy and authenticity of content found on regulated services. Ofcom will have duties and mechanisms to be able to advise platforms on how they can help users to understand whether content is authentic; for example, by promoting tools that assist them to establish the provenance of content, where appropriate. The new media literacy duties will require Ofcom to take tangible steps to prioritise the public’s awareness of and resilience to misinformation and disinformation online. That may include enabling users to establish the reliability, accuracy and authenticity of content, but the new duties will not remove content online; I am happy to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on that.
The advisory committee is already required under Clause 141(4)(c) to advise Ofcom on its exercise of its media literacy functions, including its new duties relating to content authenticity. The Bill does not stipulate what tools service providers should use to fulfil their duties, but Ofcom will have the ability to recommend in its codes of practice that companies use tools such as provenance technologies to identify manipulated media which constitute illegal content or content that is harmful to children, where appropriate. Ofcom is also required to take steps to encourage the development and use of technologies that provide users with further context about content that they encounter online. That could include technologies that support users to establish content provenance. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the advisory committee will already be required to advise on the issues that he has raised in his amendment.
On media literacy more broadly, Ofcom retains its overall statutory duty to promote media literacy, which remains broad and non-prescriptive. The new duties in this Bill, however, are focused specifically on harm; that is because the of nature of the Bill, which seeks to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online and is necessarily focused on tackling harms. To ensure that Ofcom succeeds in the delivery of these new specific duties with regard to regulated services, it is necessary that the regulator has a clearly defined scope. Broadening the duties would risk overburdening Ofcom by making its priorities less clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull—who has been translated to the Woolsack while we have been debating this group—raised media literacy for more vulnerable users. Under Ofcom’s existing media literacy programme, it is already delivering initiatives to support a range of users, including those who are more vulnerable online, such as people with special educational needs and people with disabilities. I am happy to reassure her that, in delivering this work, Ofcom is already working not just with expert groups including Mencap but with people with direct personal experiences of living with disabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised Ofsted. Effective regulatory co-ordination is essential for addressing the crosscutting opportunities and challenges posed by digital technologies and services. Ofsted will continue to engage with Ofcom through its existing mechanisms, including engagement led by its independent policy team and those held with Ofcom’s online safety policy director. In addition to that, Ofsted is considering mechanisms through which it can work more closely with Ofcom where appropriate. These include sharing insights from inspections in an anonymised form, which could entail reviews of its inspection bases and focus groups with inspectors, on areas of particular concern to Ofcom. Ofsted is committed to working with Ofcom’s policy teams to work these plans up in more detail.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, could I ask the Minister a question? He has put his finger on one of the most important aspects of this Bill: how it will integrate with the Department for Education and all its responsibilities for schools. Again, talking from long experience, one of the worries is the silo mentality in Whitehall, which is quite often strongest in the Department for Education. Some real effort will be needed to make sure there is a crossover from the powers that Ofcom has to what happens in the classroom.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I hope what I have said about the way that Ofsted and Ofcom are working together gives the noble Lord some reassurance. He is right, and it is not just in relation to the Department for Education. In my own department, we have discussed in previous debates on media literacy the importance of critical thinking, equipping people with the sceptical, quizzical, analytic skills they need—which art, history and English literature do as well. The provisions in this Bill focus on reducing harm because the Bill is focused on making the UK the safest place to be online, but he is right that media literacy work more broadly touches on a number of government departments.
Amendment 274BA would require Ofcom to promote an understanding of how regulated services’ business models operate, how they use personal data and the operation of their algorithmic systems and processes. We believe that Ofcom’s existing duty under the Communications Act already ensures that the regulator can cover these aspects in its media literacy activities. The duty requires Ofcom to build public awareness of the processes by which material on regulated services is selected or made available. This enables Ofcom to address the platform features specified in this amendment.
The Government’s amendments include extensive new objectives for Ofcom, which apply to harmful ways in which a service is used as well as harmful content. We believe it important not to add further to this duty when the outcomes can already be achieved through the existing duty. We do not wish to limit, by implication, Ofcom’s media literacy duties in relation to other, non-regulated services.
We also judge that the noble Lord’s amendment carries a risk of confusing the remits of Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office. UK data protection law already confers a right for people to be informed about how their personal data are being used, making this aspect of the amendment superfluous.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I do not believe that the Minister has dealt with the minimum standards issue.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not think that the noble Lord was listening to that point, but I did.
Lord Clement-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove Clause 158 (Directions in special circumstances) from the Bill and is intended to further probe the Secretary of State’s power in this area.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, Clause 158 is one of the more mysterious clauses in the Bill and it would greatly benefit from a clear elucidation by the Minister of how it is intended to work to reduce harm. I thank him for having sent me an email this afternoon as we started on the Bill, for which I am grateful; I had only a short time to consider it but I very much hope that he will put its content on the record.
My amendment is designed to ask how the Minister envisages using the power to direct if, say, there is a new contagious disease or riots, and social media is a major factor in the spread of the problem. I am trying to erect some kind of hypothetical situation through which the Minister can say how the power will be used. Is the intention, for example, to set Ofcom the objective of preventing the spread of information on regulated services injurious to public health or safety on a particular network for six months? The direction then forces the regulator and the social media companies to confront the issue and perhaps publicly shame an individual company into using their tools to slow the spread of disinformation. The direction might give Ofcom powers to gather sufficient information from the company to make directions to the company to tackle the problem.
If that is envisaged, which of Ofcom’s media literacy powers does the Minister envisage being used? Might it be Section 11(1)(e) of the Communications Act 2003, which talks about encouraging
“the development and use of technologies and systems for regulating access to such material, and for facilitating control over what material is received, that are both effective and easy to use”.
By this means, Ofcom might encourage a social media company to regulate access to and control over the material that is a threat.
Perhaps the Minister could set out clearly how he intends all this to work, because on a straight reading of Clause 158, we on these Benches have considerable concerns. The threshold for direction is low—merely having
“reasonable grounds for believing that circumstances exist”—
and there is no sense here of the emergency that the then Minister, Mr Philp, cited in the Commons Public Bill Committee on 26 May 2022, nor even of the exceptional circumstances in Amendment 138 to Clause 39, which the Minister tabled recently. The Minister is not compelled by the clause to consult experts in public health, safety or national security. The Minister can set any objectives for Ofcom, it seems. There is no time limit for the effect of the direction and it seems that the direction can be repeatedly extended with no limit. If the Minister directs because they believe there is a threat to national security, we will have the curious situation of a public process being initiated for reasons the Minister is not obliged to explain.
Against this background, there does not seem to be a case for breaching the international convention of the Government not directing a media regulator. Independence of media regulators is the norm in developed democracies, and the UK has signed many international statements in this vein. As recently as April 2022, the Council of Europe stated:
“Media and communication governance should be independent and impartial to avoid undue influence on policymaking or”
the discriminatory and
“preferential treatment of powerful groups”,
including those with significant political or economic power. The Secretary of State, by contrast, has no powers over Ofcom regarding the content of broadcast regulation and has limited powers to direct over radio spectrum and wireless, but not content. Ofcom’s independence in day-to-day decision-making is paramount to preserving freedom of expression. There are insufficient safeguards in this clause, which is why I argue that it should not stand part of the Bill.
I will be brief about Clause 159 because, by and large, we went through it in our debate on a previous group. Now that we can see the final shape of the Bill, it really does behove us to stand back and see where the balance has settled on Ofcom’s independence and whether this clause needs to stand part of the Bill. The Secretary of State has extensive powers under various other provisions in the Bill. The Minister has tabled welcome amendments to Clause 39, which have been incorporated into the Bill, but Clause 155 still allows the Secretary of State to issue a “statement of strategic priorities”, including specific outcomes, every five years.
Clause 159 is in addition to this comprehensive list, but the approach in the clause is incredibly broad. We have discussed this, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has tabled an amendment that would require parliamentary scrutiny. The Secretary of State can issue guidance to Ofcom on more or less anything encompassed by the exercise of its functions under this Act, with no consultation of the public or Parliament prior to making such guidance. The time limit for producing strategic guidance is three years rather than five. Even if it is merely “have regard” guidance, it represents an unwelcome intervention in Ofcom going about its business. If the Minister responds that the guidance is merely “to have regard”, I will ask him to consider this: why have it all, then, when there are so many other opportunities for the Government to intervene? For the regulated companies, it represents a regulatory hazard of interference in independent regulation and a lack of stability. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, said in Committee, a clear benefit of regulatory independence is that it reduces lobbying of the Minister by powerful corporate interests.
Now that we can see it in context, I very much hope that the Minister will agree that Clause 159 is a set of guidance too many that compromises Ofcom’s independence and should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I will add to my noble friend’s call for us to consider whether Clause 158 should be struck from the Bill as an unnecessary power for the Secretary of State to take. We have discussed powers for the Secretary of State throughout the Bill, with some helpful improvements led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. This one jars in particular because it is about media literacy; some of the other powers related to whether the Secretary of State could intervene on the codes of practice that Ofcom would issue. The core question is whether we trust Ofcom’s discretion in delivering media literacy and whether we need the Secretary of State to have any kind of power to intervene.
I single out media literacy because the clue is in the name: literacy is a generic skill that you acquire about dealing with the online world; it is not about any specific text. Literacy is a broader set of skills, yet Clause 158 has a suggestion that, in response to specific forms of content or a specific crisis happening in the world, the Secretary of State would want to takesb this power to direct the media literacy efforts. To take something specific and immediate to direct something that is generic and long-term jars and seems inappropriate.
I have a series of questions for the Minister to elucidate why this power should exist at all. It would be helpful to have an example of what kind of “public statement notice”—to use the language in the clause—the Government might want to issue that Ofcom would not come up with on its own. Part of the argument we have been presented with is that, somehow, the Government might have additional information, but it seems quite a stretch that they could come up with that. In an area such as national security, my experience has been that companies often have a better idea of what is going on than anybody in government.
Thousands of people out there in the industry are familiar with APT 28 and APT 29 which, as I am sure all noble Lords know, are better known by their names Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. These are agents of the Russian state that put out misinformation. There is nothing that UK agencies or the Secretary of State might know about them that is not already widely known. I remember talking about the famous troll factory run by Prigozhin, the Internet Research Agency, with people in government in the context of Russian interference—they would say “Who?” and have to go off and find out. In dealing with threats such as that between the people in the companies and Ofcom, you certainly want a media literacy campaign which tells you about these troll agencies and how they operate and gives warnings to the public, but I struggle to see why you need the Secretary of State to intervene as opposed to allowing Ofcom’s experts to work with company experts and come up with a strategy to deal with those kinds of threat.
The other example cited of an area where the Secretary of State might want to intervene is public health and safety. It would be helpful to be specific; had they had it, how would the Government have used this power during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021? Does the Minister have examples of what they were frustrated about and would have done with these powers that Ofcom would not do anyway in working with the companies directly? I do not see that they would have had secret information which would have meant that they had to intervene rather than trusting Ofcom and the companies to do it.
Perhaps there has been an interdepartmental workshop between DHSC, DCMS and others to cook up this provision. I assume that Clause 158 did not come from nowhere. Someone must have thought, “We need these powers in Clause 158 because we were missing them previously”. Are there specific examples of media literacy campaigns that could not be run, where people in government were frustrated and therefore wanted a power to offer it in future? It would be really helpful to hear about them so that we can understand exactly how the Clause 158 powers will be used before we allow this additional power on to the statute book.
In the view of most people in this Chamber, the Bill as a whole quite rightly grants the Government and Ofcom, the independent regulator, a wide range of powers. Here we are looking specifically at where the Government will, in a sense, overrule the independent regulator by giving it orders to do something it had not thought of doing itself. It is incumbent on the Government to flesh that out with some concrete examples so that we can understand why they need this power. At the moment, as noble Lords may be able to tell, these Benches are not convinced that they do.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be very brief. The danger with Clause 158 is that it discredits media literacy as something benign or anodyne; it will become a political plaything. I am already sceptical, but if ever there was anything to add to this debate then it is that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the need for Clauses 158 and 159. The amendments in this group consider the role of government in two specific areas: the power for the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom about its media literacy functions in special circumstances and the power for the Secretary of State to issue non-binding guidance to Ofcom. I will take each in turn.
Amendment 219 relates to Clause 158, on the Secretary of State’s power to direct Ofcom in special circumstances. These include where there is a significant threat to public safety, public health or national security. This is a limited power to enable the Secretary of State to set specific objectives for Ofcom’s media literacy activity in such circumstances. It allows the Secretary of State to direct Ofcom to issue public statement notices to regulated service providers, requiring providers to set out the steps they are taking to address the threat. The regulator and online platforms are thereby compelled to take essential and transparent actions to keep the public sufficiently informed during crises. The powers ensure that the regulatory framework is future-proofed and well equipped to respond in such circumstances.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, outlined, I corresponded with him very shortly before today’s debate and am happy to set out a bit more detail for the benefit of the rest of the House. As I said to him by email, we expect the media literacy powers to be used only in exceptional circumstances, where it is right that the Secretary of State should have the power to direct Ofcom. The Government see the need for an agile response to risk in times of acute crisis, such as we saw during the Covid-19 pandemic or in relation to the war in Ukraine. There may be a situation in which the Government have access to information, through the work of the security services or otherwise, which Ofcom does not. This power enables the Secretary of State to make quick decisions when the public are at risk.
Our expectation is that, in exceptional circumstances, Ofcom would already be taking steps to address harm arising from the provision of regulated services through its existing media literacy functions. However, these powers will allow the Secretary of State to step in if necessary to ensure that the regulator is responding effectively to these sudden threats. It is important to note that, for transparency, the Secretary of State will be required to publish the reasons for issuing a direction to Ofcom in these circumstances. This requirement does not apply should the circumstances relate to national security, to protect sensitive information.
The noble Lord asked why we have the powers under Clause 158 when they do not exist in relation to broadcast media. We believe that these powers are needed with respect to social media because, as we have seen during international crises such as the Covid-19 pandemic, social media platforms can sadly serve as hubs for low-quality, user-generated information that is not required to meet journalistic standards, and that can pose a direct threat to public health. By contrast, Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code ensures that broadcast news, in whatever form, is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. Ofcom can fine, or ultimately revoke a licence to broadcast in the most extreme cases, if that code is breached. This means that regulated broadcasters can be trusted to strive to communicate credible, authoritative information to their audiences in a way that social media cannot.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
We established in our last debate that the notion of a recognised news publisher will go much broader than a broadcaster. I put it to the Minister that we could end up in an interesting situation where one bit of the Bill says, “You have to protect content from these people because they are recognised news publishers”. Another bit, however, will be a direction to the Secretary of State saying that, to deal with this crisis, we are going to give a media literacy direction that says, “Please get rid of all the content from this same news publisher”. That is an anomaly that we risk setting up with these different provisions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
On the previous group, I raised the issue of legal speech that was labelled as misinformation and removed in the extreme situation of a public health panic. This was seemingly because the Government were keen that particular public health information was made available. Subsequently, we discovered that those things were not necessarily untrue and should not have been removed. Is the Minister arguing that this power is necessary for the Government to direct that certain things are removed on the basis that they are misinformation—in which case, that is a direct attempt at censorship? After we have had a public health emergency in which “facts” have been contested and shown to not be as black and white or true as the Government claimed, saying that the power will be used only in extreme circumstances does not fill me with great confidence.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am happy to make it clear, as I did on the last group, that the power allows Ofcom not to require platforms to remove content, only to set out what they are doing in response to misinformation and disinformation—to require platforms to make a public statement about what they are doing to tackle it. In relation to regulating news providers, we have brought the further amendments forward to ensure that those subject to sanctions cannot avail themselves of the special provisions in the Bill. Of course, the Secretary of State will be mindful of the law when issuing directions in the exceptional circumstances that these clauses set out.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
While the Minister is describing that, can he explain exactly which media literacy power would be invoked by the kind of example I gave when I was introducing the amendment and in the circumstances he has talked about? Would he like to refer to the Communications Act?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
It depends on the circumstances. I do not want to give one example for fear of being unnecessarily restrictive. In relation to the health misinformation and disinformation we saw during the pandemic, an example would be the suggestions of injecting oneself with bleach; that sort of unregulated and unhelpful advice is what we have in mind. I will write to the noble Lord, if he wants, to see what provisions of the Communications Act we would want invoked in those circumstances.
In relation to Clause 159, which is dealt with by Amendment 222, it is worth setting out that the Secretary of State guidance and the statement of strategic priorities have distinct purposes and associated requirements. The purpose of the statement of strategic priorities is to enable the Secretary of State to specifically set out priorities in relation to online safety. For example, in the future, it may be that changes in the online experience mean that the Government of the day wish to set out their high-level overarching priorities. In comparison, the guidance allows for clarification of what Parliament and Government intended in passing this legislation—as I hope we will—by providing guidance on specific elements of the Bill in relation to Ofcom’s functions. There are no plans to issue guidance under this power but, for example, we are required to issue guidance to Ofcom in relation to the fee regime.
On the respective requirements, the statement of strategic priorities requires Ofcom to explain in writing what it proposes to do in consequence of the statement and publish an annual review of what it has done. Whereas Ofcom must “have regard” to the guidance, the guidance itself does not create any statutory requirements.
This is a new regime and is different in its nature from other established areas of regulations, such as broadcasting. The power in Clause 159 provides a mechanism to provide more certainty, if that is considered necessary, about how the Secretary of State expects Ofcom to carry out its statutory functions. Ofcom will be consulted before guidance is issued, and there are checks on how often it can be issued and revised. The guidance document itself, as I said, does not create any statutory requirements, so Ofcom is required only to “have regard” to it.
This will be an open and transparent way to put forward guidance appropriately with safeguards in place. The independence of the regulator is not at stake here. The clause includes significant limitations on the power, and the guidance cannot fetter Ofcom’s operational independence. We feel that both clauses are appropriate for inclusion in the Bill, so I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I thank the Minister for that more extended reply. It is a more reassuring response on Clause 159 than we have had before. On Clause 158, the impression I get is that the media literacy power is being used as a smokescreen for the Government telling social media what it should do, indirectly via Ofcom. That seems extraordinary. If the Government were telling the mainstream media what to do in circumstances like this, we would all be up in arms. However, it seems to be accepted as a part of the Bill and that we should trust the Government. The Minister used the phrase “special circumstances”. That is not the phraseology in the clause; it is that “circumstances exist”, and then it goes on to talk about national security and public health. The bar is very low.
I am sure everyone is getting hungry at this time of day, so I will not continue. However, we still have grave doubts about this clause. It seems an extraordinary indirect form of censorship which I hope is never invoked. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 161 is about a review by the Secretary of State of the regulatory framework established by this Bill. This amendment inserts a reference to Chapter 3A, which is the new Chapter containing the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name.
Lord Moylan
“Transparency of government representations to regulated service providers
(1) The Secretary of State must produce a report setting out any relevant representations His Majesty’s Government have made to providers of Part 3 services to tackle the presence of misinformation and disinformation on Part 3 services.(2) In this section “relevant representations” are representations that could reasonably be considered to be intended to persuade or encourage a provider of a Part 3 service to—(a) modify the terms of service of a regulated service in an effort to address misinformation or disinformation,(b) restrict or remove a particular user’s access to accounts used by them on a regulated service, or(c) take down, reduce the visibility of, or restrict access to content that is present or may be encountered on a regulated service.(3) The first report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament within six months of this Act being passed.(4) Subsequent reports must be laid before both Houses of Parliament at intervals not exceeding six months.(5) The Secretary of State is not required by this section to include in the report information that the Secretary of State considers would be against the interests of national security.(6) If the Secretary of State relies upon subsection (5) they must as soon as reasonably practicable send a report containing that information to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment addresses government influence on content moderation, for example by way of initiatives like the Government’s Counter Disinformation Unit.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, continuing the rather radical approach of debating an amendment that has already been debated in Committee and has not just been introduced, and picking up on the theme of our debate immediately before we adjourned, I move an amendment that seeks to address the question of the Government’s activities in interacting with providers when they seek to influence providers on what is shown on their sites.
It might be a matter of interest that according to the Daily Telegraph, which I implicitly trust, only on Tuesday of last week, a judge in Louisiana in the United States issued an injunction forbidding a lengthy list of White House officials from making contact with social media companies to report misinformation. I say this not because I expect the jurisprudence of the state of Louisiana to have any great influence in your Lordships’ House but simply to show how sensitive and important this issue is. The judge described what he had heard and seen as one of the greatest assaults on free speech in the history of the United States.
We are not necessarily quite in that territory, and nor does my amendment do anything so dramatic as to prevent the Government communicating with providers with a view to influencing their content, but Amendment 225 requires the Secretary of State to produce a report within six months of the passing of the Act, and every six months thereafter, in which he sets out
“any relevant representations His Majesty’s Government have made to providers”
that are
“intended to persuade or encourage a provider”
to do one of three things. One is to
“modify the terms of service of a regulated service in an effort to address misinformation or disinformation”;
one is to
“restrict or remove a particular user’s access to accounts used by them”;
and the third is to
“take down, reduce the visibility of, or restrict access to content that is present or may be encountered on a regulated service”.
None of these things would be prohibited or prevented by this amendment, but it would be required that His Majesty’s Government produce a report saying what they have done every six months.
Very importantly there is an exception, in that there would be no obligation on the Secretary of State to disclose publicly any information that affected national security, but he would be required in that case to make a report to the Intelligence and Security Committee here in Parliament. As I said, this is a very sensitive subject, and remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in the previous debate referred in particular to this subject in connection with the pandemic. While that is in the memory, other topics may easily come up and need to be addressed, where the Government feel obliged to move and take action.
We know nothing about those contacts, because they are not instructions or actions taken under law. They are simply nudges, winks and phone conversations with providers that have an effect and, very often, the providers will act on them. Requiring the Government to make a report and say what they have done seems a modest, proportionate and appropriate means to bring transparency to this exercise, so that we all know what is going on.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to this very important amendment—all the more important because of the previous discussions we have had about the difficulties around misinformation or potential government interference in decisions about what is online and what is not online. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is right to indicate that this is a very modest and moderate amendment; it addresses the problems of government influence or government moderation, or at least allows those of us who are concerned about it to keep our eye on it and make sure that the country and Parliament know what is going on.
The original idea of disinformation came from an absolutely rightful concern about foreign disinformation between states. People were rightly concerned about security; we all should be and nobody wants to be taken in, in that way. But there has been a worry when agencies designed to combat those threats increasingly turn inward against the public, in a wide range of countries. Although that might not be exactly what has happened in the UK, we should note that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted that the US Government asked Facebook to suppress true information. In a recent interview, he said that the scientific establishment
“asked for a bunch of things to be censored that, in retrospect, ended up being more debatable or true”.
We should all be concerned about this. It is not just a matter for those of us who are worried about free speech or raise the issue. If we are genuinely worried about misinformation or fake news, we have to make sure that we are equally concerned if it comes from other sources, not just from malign players.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, mentioned the American court case Missouri v Biden. In his 155-page ruling, Judge Doughty depicted quite a dystopian scene when he said that, during the pandemic, the US Government seem
“to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’”.
I do not think we want to emulate the worst of what is happening in the US here.
The judge there outlined a huge complex of government agencies and officials connected with big tech and an army of bureaucrats hired to monitor websites and flag and remove problematic posts. It is not like that in the UK, but some of us were quite taken aback to discover that the Government ran a counter-disinformation policy forum during the lockdown, which brought tech giants together to discuss how to deal with Covid misinformation, as it was said. There was a worry about political interference then.
I do not think that this is just paranoia. Since then, Big Brother Watch and its investigative work have shown that the UK Government had a secret unit that worked with social media companies to monitor and prevent speech critical of Covid lockdown policies, in the shape of the Counter Disinformation Unit, which was set up by Ministers to deal with groups and individuals who criticised policies such as lockdowns, school closures, vaccine mandates or what have you.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, I do not want to get stuck on what happened during lockdown. That was an exceptional, extreme situation. None the less, the Counter Disinformation Unit—which works out of the Minister’s own department, the DCMS—is still operating. It seems to be able to get content fast-tracked for possible moderation by social media firms such as Facebook and Twitter. It used an AI firm to search social media posts—we need to know the details of that.
I think, therefore, that to have the transparency which the Government and the Minister have constantly stressed is hugely important for the credibility of the Bill, it is important that there is transparency about the likes of the Counter Disinformation Unit and any government attempts at interfering in what we are allowed to see, read or have access to online.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have a very strong point to make with this amendment. I have tried in our discussions to bring some colour to the debate from my own experience so I will tell your Lordships that in my former professional life I received representations from many Ministers in many countries about the content we should allow or disallow on the Facebook platform that I worked for.
That was a frequent occurrence in the United Kingdom and extended to Governments of all parties. Almost as soon as I moved into the job, we had a Labour Home Secretary come in and suggest that we should deal with particular forms of content. It happened through the coalition years. Indeed, I remember meeting the Minister’s former boss at No. 10 in Davos, of all places, to receive some lobbying about what the UK Government thought should be on or off the platform at that time. In that case it was to do with terrorist content; there was nothing between us in terms of wanting to see that content gone. I recognise that this amendment is about misinformation and disinformation, which is perhaps a more contentious area.
As we have discussed throughout the debate, transparency is good. It keeps everybody on the straight and narrow. I do not see any reason why the Government should not be forthcoming. My experience was that the Government would often want to go to the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail or some other upright publication and tell it how they had been leaning on the internet companies—it was part of their communications strategy and they were extremely proud of it—but there will be other circumstances where they are doing it more behind the scenes. Those are the ones we should be worried about.
If those in government have good reason to lean on an internet company, fine—but knowing that they have to be transparent about it, as in this amendment, will instil a certain level of discipline that would be quite healthy.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, clearly, there is a limited number of speakers in this debate. We should thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling this amendment because it raises a very interesting point about the transparency—or not—of the Counter Disinformation Unit. Of course, it is subject to an Oral Question tomorrow as well, which I am sure the noble Viscount will be answering.
There is some concern about the transparency of the activities of the Counter Disinformation Unit. In its report, Ministry of Truth, which deals at some length with the activities of the Counter Disinformation Unit, Big Brother Watch says:
“Giving officials an unaccountable hotline to flag lawful speech for removal from the digital public square is a worrying threat to free speech”.
Its complaint is not only about oversight; it is about the activities. Others such as Full Fact have stressed the fact that there is little or no parliamentary scrutiny. For instance, freedom of information requests have been turned down and Written Questions which try to probe what the activities of the Counter Disinformation Unit are have had very little response. As it says, when the Government
“lobby internet companies about content on their platforms … this is a threat to freedom of expression”.
We need proper oversight, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government share the view of my noble friend Lord Moylan about the importance of transparency in protecting freedom of expression. I reassure him and other noble Lords that these principles are central to the Government’s operational response to addressing harmful disinformation and attempts artificially to manipulate our information environment.
My noble friend and others made reference to the operational work of the Counter Disinformation Unit, which is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, the responsibility of my department but of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The Government have always been transparent about the work of the unit; for example, recently publishing a factsheet on GOV.UK which sets out, among other things, how the unit works with social media companies.
I reassure my noble friend that there are existing processes governing government engagements with external parties and emphasise to him that the regulatory framework that will be introduced by the Bill serves to increase transparency and accountability in a way that I hope reassures him. Many teams across government regularly meet industry representatives on a variety of issues from farming and food to telecoms and digital infrastructure. These meetings are conducted within well-established transparency processes and frameworks, which apply in exactly the same way to government meetings with social media companies. The Government have been open about the fact that the Counter Disinformation Unit meets social media companies. Indeed, it would be surprising if it did not. For example, at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Government worked with social media companies in relation to narratives which were being circulated attempting to deny incidents leading to mass casualties, and to encourage the promotion of authoritative sources of information. That work constituted routine meetings and was necessary in confirming the Government’s confidence in the preparedness and ability of platforms to respond to new misinformation and disinformation threats.
To require additional reporting on a sector-by-sector or department-by-department basis beyond the standardised transparency processes, as proposed in my noble friend’s amendment, would be a disproportionate and unnecessary response to what is routine engagement in an area where the Government have no greater powers or influence than in others. They cannot compel companies to alter their terms of service; nor can or do they seek to mandate any action on specific pieces of content.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the Counter Disinformation Unit does not monitor individual people, nor has it ever done so; rather, it tracks narratives and trends using publicly available information online to protect public health, public safety and national security. It has never tracked the activity of individuals, and there is a blanket ban on referring any content from journalists or parliamentarians to social media performs. The Government have always been clear that the Counter Disinformation Unit refers content for consideration only where an assessment has been made that it is likely to breach the platform’s own terms of service. It has no role in deciding what action, if any, to take in response, which is entirely a matter for the platform concerned.
As I said, the Bill will introduce new transparency, accountability and freedom of expression duties for category 1 services which will make the process for any removal or restriction of user-generated content more transparent by requiring category 1 services to set terms of service which are clear, easy for users to understand and consistently enforced. Category 1 services will be prohibited from removing or restricting user-generated content or suspending or banning users where this does not align with those terms of service. Any referrals from government will not, and indeed cannot, supersede these duties in the Bill.
Although I know it will disappoint my noble friend that another of his amendments has not been accepted, I hope I have been able to reassure him about the Government’s role in these processes. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, noted, my noble friend Lord Camrose is answering a Question on this in your Lordships’ House tomorrow, further underlining the openness and parliamentary accountability with which we go about this work. I hope my noble friend will, in a similarly post-prandial mood of generosity, suppress his disappointment and feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Before the Minister sits down, I think that it is entirely appropriate for him to say—I have heard it before—“Oh no, nothing was taken down. None of this is believable. No individuals were targeted”. However, that is not the evidence I have seen, and it might well be that I have been shown misinformation. But that is why the Minister has to acknowledge that one of the problems here is that indicated by Full Fact—which, as we know, is often endorsed by government Ministers as fact-checkers. It says that because the Government are avoiding any scrutiny for this unit, it cannot know. It becomes a “he said, she said” situation. I am afraid that, because of the broader context, it would make the Minister’s life easier, and be clearer to the public—who are, after all, worried about this—if he accepted the ideas in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. We would then be clear and it would be out in the open. If the FOIs and so on that have been constantly put forward were answered, would that not clear it up?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I have addressed the points made by the noble Baroness and my noble friend already. She asks the same question again and I can give her the same answer. We are operating openly and transparently here, and the Bill sets out further provisions for transparency and accountability.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I see what my noble friend did there, and it was very cunning. He gave us a very worthwhile account of the activities of the Counter Disinformation Unit, a body I had not mentioned at all, as if the Counter Disinformation Unit was the sole locus of this sort of activity. I had not restricted it to that. We know, in fact, that other bodies within government have been involved in undertaking this sort of activity, and on those he has given us no answer at all, because he preferred to answer about one particular unit. He referred also to its standardised transparency processes. I can hardly believe that I am reading out words such as those. The standardised transparency process allows us all to know that encounters take place but still refuses to let us know what actually happens in any particular encounter, even though there is a great public interest in doing so. However, I will not press it any further.
My noble friend, who is genuinely a friend, is in danger of putting himself, at the behest of civil servants and his ministerial colleagues, in some danger. We know what happens in these cases. The Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says “This has never happened; it never normally happens; it will not happen. Individuals are never spoken of, and actions of this character are never taken”. Then of course, a few weeks or months later, out pour the leaked emails showing that all these things have been happening all the time. The Minister then has to resign in disgrace and it is all very sad. His friends, like myself, rally round and buy him a drink, before we never see him again.
Anyway, I think my noble friend must be very careful that he does not put himself in that position. I think he has come close to doing so this evening, through the assurances he has given your Lordships’ House. Although I do not accept those assurances, I will none the less withdraw the amendment, with the leave of the House.
(c) an assessment required to be carried out by section (Assessment duties: user empowerment),”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Clause 173, which is about the approach to be taken by providers to judgements about the status of content, applies to assessments under the new Clause proposed after Clause 11 in my name.
Lord Allan of Hallam
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a requirement on providers which could encourage excessive content removal in borderline cases of illegality.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, we are coming to some critical amendments on a very important issue relatively late in the Bill, having had relatively little discussion on it. It is not often that committees of this House sit around and say, “We need more lawyers”, but this is one of those areas where that was true.
Notwithstanding the blushes of my noble friend on the Front Bench here, interestingly we have not had in our debate significant input from people who understand the law of freedom of expression and wish to contribute to our discussions on how online platforms should deal with questions of the legality of content. These questions are crucial to the Bill, which, if it does nothing else, tells online platforms that they have to be really robust in taking action against content that is deemed to be illegal under a broad swathe of law in the United Kingdom that criminalises certain forms of speech.
We are heavy with providers, and we are saying to them, “If you fail at this, you’re in big trouble”. The pressure to deal with illegal content will be huge, yet illegality itself covers a broad spectrum, from child sexual exploitation and abuse material, where in many cases it is obvious from the material that it is illegal and there is strict liability—there is never any excuse for distributing that material—and pretty much everyone everywhere in the world would agree that it should be criminalised and removed from the internet, through to things that we discussed in Committee, such as public order offences, where, under some interpretations of Section 5 of the Public Order Act, swearing at somebody or looking at them in a funny way in the street could be deemed alarming and harassing. There are people who interpret public order offences in this very broad sense, where there would be a lot less agreement about whether a specific action is or is not illegal and whether the law is correctly calibrated or being used oppressively. So we have this broad spectrum of illegality.
The question we need to consider is where we want providers to draw the line. They will be making judgments on a daily basis. I said previously that I had to make those judgments in my job. I would write to lawyers and they would send back an expensive piece of paper that said, “This is likely to be illegal”, or, “This is likely not to be illegal”. It never said that it was definitely illegal or definitely not illegal, apart from the content I have described, such as child sexual abuse. You would not need to send that, but you would send the bulk of the issues that we are dealing with to a lawyer. If you sent it to a second lawyer, you would get another “likely” or “not likely”, and you would have to come to some kind of consensus view as to the level of risk you wished to take on that particular form of speech or piece of content.
This is really challenging in areas such as hate speech, where exactly the same language has a completely different meaning in different contexts, and may or may not be illegal. Again, to give a concrete example, we would often deal with anti-Semitic content being shared by anti-anti-Semitic groups—people trying to raise awareness of anti-Semitic speech. Our reviewers would quite commonly remove the speech: they would see it and it would look like grossly violating anti-Semitic speech. Only later would they realise that the person was sharing it for awareness. The N-word is a gross term of racial abuse, but if you are an online platform you permit it a lot of the time, because if people use it self-referentially they expect to be able to use it. If you start removing it they would naturally get very upset. People expect to use it if it is in song lyrics and they are sharing music. I could give thousands of examples of speech that may or may not be illegal depending entirely on the context in which it is being used.
We will be asking platforms to make those judgments on our behalf. They will have to take it seriously, because if they let something through that is illegal they will be in serious trouble. If they misjudged it and thought the anti-Semitic hate speech was being circulated by Jewish groups to promote awareness but it turned out it was being circulated by a Nazi group to attack people and that fell foul of UK law, they would be in trouble. These judgments are critical.
We have the test in Clause 173, which says that platforms should decide whether they have “reasonable grounds to infer” that something is illegal. In Committee, we debated changing that to a higher bar, and said that we wanted a stronger evidential basis. That did not find favour with the Government. We hoped they might raise the bar themselves unilaterally, but they have not. However, we come back again in a different way to try to be helpful, because I do not think that the Government want excessive censorship. They have said throughout the Bill’s passage that they are not looking for platforms to be overly censorious. We looked at the wording again and thought about how we could ensure that the bar is not operated in a way that I do not think that the Government intend. We certainly would not want that to happen.
We look at the current wording in Clause 173 and see that the test there has two elements. One is: “Do you have reasonable grounds to infer?” and then a clause in brackets after that says, “If you do have reasonable grounds to infer, you must treat the content as illegal”. In this amendment we seek to remove the second part of that phrasing because it seems problematic. If we say to the platform, “Reasonable grounds to infer, not certainty”—and it is weird to put “inference”, which is by definition mushy, with “must”, which is very certain, into the same clause—we are saying, “If you have this mushy inference, you must treat it as illegal”, which seems quite problematic. Certainly, if I were working at a platform, the way I would interpret that is: “If in doubt, take it out”. That is the only way you can interpret that “must”, and that is really problematic. Again, I know that that is not the Government’s intention, and if it were child sexual exploitation material, of course you “must”. However, if it is the kind of abusive content that you have reasonable grounds to infer may be an offence under the Public Order Act, “must” you always treat that as illegal? As I read the rest of the Bill, if you are treating it as illegal, the sense is that you should remove it.
That is what we are trying to get at. There is a clear understanding from the Government that their intention is “must” when it comes to that hard end of very bad, very clearly bad content. However, we need something else—a different kind of behaviour where we are dealing with content where it is much more marginal. Otherwise, the price we will pay will be in freedom of expression.
People in the United Kingdom publish quite robust, sweary language. I sometimes think that some of the rules we apply penalise the vernacular. People who use sweary, robust language may be doing so entirely legally—the United Kingdom does not generally restrict people from using that kind of language. However, we risk heading towards a scenario where people post such content in future, and they will find that the platform takes it down. They will complain to the platform, saying, “Why the hell did you take my content down?”—in fact, they will probably use stronger words than that to register their complaint. When they do, the platform will say, “We had reasonable grounds to infer that that was in breach of the Public Order Act, for example, because somebody might feel alarmed, harassed or distressed by it. Oh, and look—in this clause, it says we ‘must’ treat it as illegal. Sorry—there is nothing else we can do. We would have loved to have been able to exercise the benefit of the doubt and to allow you to carry on using that kind of language, because we think there is some margin where you have not behaved in an illegal way. But unfortunately, because of the way that Clause 173 has been drafted, our lawyers tell us we cannot afford to take the risk”.
In the amendment we are trying to—I think—help the Government to get out of a situation which, as I say, I do not think they want. However, I fear that the totality of the wording of Clause 173, this low bar for the test and the “must treat as” language, will lead to that outcome where platforms will take the attitude: “Safety first; if in doubt, take it out”, and I do not think that that is the regime we want. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I regret I was unable to be present in Committee to deliver my speech about the chilling effect that the present definition of illegality in the Bill will have on free speech on the internet.
I am still concerned about Clause 173, which directs platforms how to come to the judgment on what is illegal. My concern is that the criterion for illegality, “reasonable grounds to infer” that elements of the content are illegal, will encourage the tech companies to take down content which is not necessarily illegal but which they infer could be. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Allan, gave us a whole list of examples of where that might happen. Unfortunately, in Committee there was little support for a higher bar when asking the platforms to judge what illegal content is. However, I have added my name to Amendment 228, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Allan, because, as he has just said, it is a much less radical way of enhancing free speech when platforms are not certain whether to take down content which they infer is illegal.
The deletion of part of Clause 173(5) is a moderate proposal. It still leaves intact the definition for the platforms of how they are to make the judgment on the illegality of content, but it takes out the compulsory element in this judgment. I believe that it will have the biggest impact on the moderation system. Some of those systems are run by machines, but many of the moderation processes, such as Meta’s Facebook, involve thousands of human beings. The deletion of the second part of Clause 173(5), which demands that they take down content that they infer is illegal, will give them more leeway to err on the side of freedom of speech. I hope that this extra leeway to encourage free speech will also be included in the way that algorithms moderate our content.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is all quite exciting now, is it not? I can say “hear, hear!” a lot; everyone is talking about freedom of expression. I cannot tell noble Lords how relieved and pleased I was both to hear the speeches and to see Amendment 228 from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who both explained well why this is so important. I am so glad that, even late in our discussions on Report, it has returned as an important issue.
We have already discussed how in many cases, especially when it comes to what is seen as illegal speech, decisions about illegality are very complicated. They are complicated in the law courts and offline, and that is when they have the full power of lawyers, the criminal justice system and so on trying to make decisions. Leaving it up to people who, through no fault of their own, are not qualified but who work in a social media company to try to make that decision in a climate of quite onerous obligations—and having phrases such as “reasonable grounds to infer”—will lead to lawful expression being overmoderated. Ultimately, online platforms will use an abundance of caution, which will lead to a lot of important speech—perfectly lawful if not worthy speech; the public’s speech and the ability to speak freely—being removed. That is not a trivial side issue; it will discredit the Bill, if it has not done so already.
Whenever noble Lords make contributions about why a wide range of amendments and changes are needed—particularly in relation to protecting children, harm and so on—they constantly tell us that the Bill should send an uncompromising message. The difficulty I have is with the danger that the Bill will send an uncompromising message that freedom of expression is not important. I urge the Minister to look carefully at the amendment, because the message should be that, while the Bill is trying to tackle online harm and to protect children in particular—which I have never argued against—huge swathes of it might inadvertently silence people and deprive them of the right to information that they should be able to have.
My Amendment 229—I am not sure why it is in this group, but that is nothing new in the way that the groupings have worked—is about lawful speech and about what content is filtered by users. I have already argued for the replacement of the old legal but harmful duty, but the new duty of user empowerment is welcome, and at face value it puts users in the driving seat and allows adults to judge for themselves what they want and do not want to see. But—and it is a large but—that will work only if users and providers agree about when content should be filtered and what content is filtered.
As with all decisions on speech, as I have just mentioned, in the context particularly of a heightened climate of confusion and sensitivity regarding identity politics and the cancel-culture issues that we are all familiar with, there are some problems with the way that things stand in the Bill. I hope I am using the term “reasonable grounds to infer” in a better way than it is used in terms of illegality. My amendment specifies that companies need to have reasonable grounds to infer that content is abusive or inciting hatred when filtering out content in those user empowerment tools. Where a user chooses to filter out hateful content based on race, on being a woman or whatever, it should catch only content that genuinely falls under those headings. There is a risk that, without this amendment, technologies or individuals working for companies could operate in a heavy-handed way in filtering out legitimate content.
I shall give a couple of examples. Say that someone chooses to filter out abusive content targeting the protected characteristic of race. I imagine that they would have a reasonable expectation that that filter would target aggressive, unpleasant content demeaning to a person because of their race, but does the provider agree with that? Will it interpret my filtering choice as a user in the most restrictive way possible in a bid to protect my safety or by seeing my sensibilities as having a low threshold for what it might consider to be abuse?
The race issue illustrates where we get into difficulties. Will the filterers take their cue from the document that has just been revealed, which was compiled by the Diocese of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, which the anti-racist campaigning group Don’t Divide Us has just released, and which is being used in 87 schools? Under the heading of racism we have ideas like passive racism includes agreeing that
“There are two sides to every story”,
or if you deny white privilege or if you start a sentence saying, “Not all white people”. “Veiled racism” in this document—which, as I say, is being used in schools for that particular reason by the Church of England—includes a “Euro-centric curriculum” or “cultural appropriation”. “Racist discrimination” includes “anti- immigration policies”, which, as I pointed out before, would indicate that some people would call the Government’s own Bill tonight racist.
The reason why I mention that is that you might think, “I am going to have racism filtered out”, but if there is too much caution then you will have filtered out very legitimate discussions on immigration and cultural appropriation. You will be protected, but if, for example, the filterer follows certain universities that have deemed the novels of Walter Scott, the plays of William Shakespeare or Enid Blyton’s writing as racist, then you can see that we have some real problems. When universities have said there is misogynistic bullying and sexual abuse in “The Great Gatsby” and Ovid’s “Metamorphoses”, I just want to make sure that we do not end up in a situation where there is oversensitivity by the filterers. Perhaps the filtering will take place by algorithm, machine learning and artificial intelligence, but the EHRC has noted that algorithms just cannot cope with the context, cultural difference and complexity of language within the billions of items of content produced every day.
Amendment 229 ensures that there is a common standard—a standard of objective reasonableness. It is not perfect at all; I understand that reasonableness itself is open to interpretation. However, it is an attempt to ensure that the Government’s concept of user empowerment is feasible by at least aspiring to a basic shared understanding between users and providers as to what will be filtered and what will not, and a check against providers’ filter mechanisms removing controversial or unpopular content in the name of protecting users. Just as I indicated in terms of sending a message, if the Government could indicate to the companies that rather than taking a risk-averse attitude, they had to bear in mind freedom of expression, not be oversensitive and not be too risk-averse or overcautious, we might begin to get some balance. Otherwise, an awful lot of lawful material will be removed that is not even harmful.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 228. I spoke on this issue to the longer amendment in Committee. To decide whether something is illegal without the entire apparatus of the justice system, in which a great deal of care is taken to decide whether something is illegal, at high volume and high speed, is very worrying. It strikes me as amusing because someone commented earlier that they like a “must” instead of a “maybe”. In this case, I caution that a provider should treat the content as content of the kind in question accordingly, that something a little softer is needed, not a cliff edge that ends up in horrors around illegality where someone who has acted in self-defence is accused of a crime of violence, as happens to many women, and so on and so forth. I do not want to labour the point. I just urge a gentle landing rather than, as it is written, a cliff edge.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Beyond peradventure my noble friend Lord Allan and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have demonstrated powerfully the perils of this clause. “Lawyers’ caution” is one of my noble friend’s messages to take away, as is the complexities in making these judgments. It was interesting when he mentioned the sharing for awareness’s sake of certain forms of content and the judgments that must be taken by platforms. His phrase “If in doubt, take it out” is pretty chilling in free speech terms—I think that will come back to haunt us. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, the wrong message is being delivered by this clause. It is important to have some element of discretion here and not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, a cliff edge. We need a gentler landing. I very much hope that the Minister will land more gently.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a good debate. It is very hard to see where one would want to take it. If it proves anything, it is that the decision to drop the legal but harmful provisions in the Bill was probably taken for the wrong reasons but was the right decision, since this is where we end up—in an impossible moral quandary which no amount of writing, legalistic or otherwise, will get us out of. This should be a systems Bill, not a content Bill.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying that accurate systems and processes for content moderation are crucial to the workability of this Bill and keeping users safe from harm. Amendment 228 from the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam, seeks to remove the requirement for platforms to treat content as illegal or fraudulent content if reasonable grounds for that inference exist. The noble Lord set out his concerns about platforms over-removing content when assessing illegality.
Under Clause 173(5), platforms will need to have reasonable grounds to determine whether content is illegal or a fraudulent advertisement. Only when a provider has reasonable grounds to infer that said content is illegal or a fraudulent advertisement must it then comply with the relevant requirements set out in the Bill. This would mean removing the content or preventing people from encountering it through risk-based and proportionate systems and processes.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I remain concerned that people who use more choice words of Anglo-Saxon origin will find their speech more restricted than those who use more Latinate words, such as “inference” and “reasonable”, but the Minister has given some important clarifications.
The first is that no single decision could result in a problem for a platform, so it will know that it is about a pattern of bad decision-making rather than a single decision; that will be helpful in terms of taking a bit of the pressure off. The Minister also gave an important clarification around—I hate this language, but we have to say it—priority versus primary priority. If everything is a priority, nothing is a priority but, in this Bill, some things are more of a priority than others. The public order offences are priority offences; therefore, they have a little bit more leeway over those offences than they do over primary priority offences, which include the really bad stuff that we all agree we want to get rid of.
As I say, I do not think that we are going to get much further in our debates today although those were important clarifications. The Minister is trying to give us reasonable grounds to infer that the guidance from Ofcom will result in a gentle landing rather than a cliff edge, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly suggested is what we want. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Time for publishing first guidance under certain provisions of this Act
(1) OFCOM must publish guidance to which this section applies within the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (2) This section applies to—(a) the first guidance under section 47(2)(a) (record-keeping and review);(b) the first guidance under section 47(2)(b) (children’s access assessments);(c) the first guidance under section 48(1) (content harmful to children);(d) the first guidance under section 73 (provider pornographic content);(e) the first guidance under section 90(1) (illegal content risk assessments under section 8);(f) the first guidance under section 90(2) (illegal content risk assessments under section 22);(g) the first guidance under section 90(3) (children’s risk assessments);(h) the first guidance under section 140 (enforcement);(i) the first guidance under section 174 relating to illegal content judgements within the meaning of subsection (2)(a) of that section (illegal content and fraudulent advertisements).(3) If OFCOM consider that it is necessary to extend the period mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to guidance mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (i) of subsection (2), OFCOM may extend the period in relation to that guidance by up to 12 months by making and publishing a statement.But this is subject to subsection (6).(4) A statement under subsection (3) must set out—(a) the reasons why OFCOM consider that it is necessary to extend the period mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to the guidance concerned, and(b) the period of extension.(5) A statement under subsection (3) may be published at the same time as (or incorporate) a statement under section 38(12) (extension of time to prepare certain codes of practice).(6) But a statement under subsection (3) may not be made in relation to guidance mentioned in a particular paragraph of subsection (2) if—(a) a statement has previously been made under subsection (3) (whether in relation to guidance mentioned in the same or a different paragraph of subsection (2)), or(b) a statement has previously been made under section 38(12).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that OFCOM must prepare the first guidance under certain provisions of the Bill within 18 months of Royal Assent, unless they consider a longer period to be necessary in which case OFCOM may (on one occasion only) extend the period and set out why in a published statement.
“(ga) Chapter 3A of Part 4 (deceased child users);”Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 176 is about liability of providers who are individuals. This amendment inserts a reference to Chapter 3A, which is the new Chapter containing the new duties imposed by the Clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name, so that individuals may be jointly and severally liable for the duties imposed by that clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a minor change to ensure consistency of tenses.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a minor change to ensure consistency of tenses.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
232: Schedule 17, page 247, line 35, at end insert—
“(ba) section (Assessment duties: user empowerment) (assessments related to the adult user empowerment duty set out in section 12(2)), and”
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 the new clause proposed after Clause 11 in my name to carry out assessments for the purposes of the user empowerment duties in Clause 12(2).
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 inserted in Clause 19 (see the amendments of that Clause proposed in my name) to keep records of the new assessments.
234: Schedule 17, page 248, line 20, at end insert—
“(ea) the duties set out in section (Disclosure of information about use of service by deceased child users) (deceased child users);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that services already regulated under Part 4B of the Communications Act 2003 (video-sharing platform services) are not required to comply with the new duties imposed by the clause proposed after Clause 67 in my name during the transitional period.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a technical drafting change related to the new Clause proposed after Clause 11 in my name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a technical drafting change related to the new Clause proposed after Clause 11 in my name.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
236A: After Clause 194, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to regulate app stores
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section and section (Power to regulate app stores: supplementary), the Secretary of State may by regulations amend any provision of this Act to make provision for or in connection with the regulation of internet services that are app stores.
(2) Regulations under this section may not be made before OFCOM have published a report under section (OFCOM’s report about use of app stores by children)(report about use of app stores by children).
(3) Regulations under this section may be made only if the Secretary of State, having considered that report, considers that there is a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children presented by either of the following, or by both taken together—
(a) harmful content present on app stores, or
(b) harmful content encountered by means of regulated apps available in app stores.
(4) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent providers of app stores,
(b) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of children (generally or with particular reference to online safety matters),
(c) OFCOM,
(d) the Information Commissioner,
(e) the Children’s Commissioner, and
(f) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(5) In this section and in section (Power to regulate app stores: supplementary)—
“amend” includes repeal and apply (with or without modifications);
“app” includes an app for use on any kind of device, and “app store” is to be read accordingly;
“content that is harmful to children” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 54);
“harmful content” means—
(a) content that is harmful to children,
(b) search content that is harmful to children, and
(c) regulated provider pornographic content;
“regulated app” means an app for a regulated service;
“regulated provider pornographic content” has the same meaning as in Part 5 (see section 70);
“search content” has the same meaning as in Part 3 (see section 51).
(6) In this section and in section (Power to regulate app stores: supplementary) references to children are to children in the United Kingdom.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations amending this Bill so as to bring app stores within its scope. The regulations may not be made until OFCOM have published their report about the use of app stores by children (see the new Clause proposed to be inserted after Clause 147 in my name).
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we have had some productive discussions on application stores, commonly known as “app stores”, and their role as a gateway for children accessing online services. I am grateful in particular to my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe for her detailed scrutiny of this area and the collaborative approach she has taken in relation to it and to her amendments, to which I will turn in a moment. These share the same goals as the amendments tabled in my name in seeking to add evidence-based duties on app stores to protect children.
The amendments in my name will do two things. First, they will establish an evidence base on the use of app stores by children and the role that app stores play in children encountering harmful content online. Secondly, following consideration of this evidence base, the amendments also confer a power on the Secretary of State to bring app stores into scope of the Bill should there be a material risk of significant harm to children on or through them.
On the evidence base, Amendment 272A places a duty on Ofcom to publish a report on the role of app stores in children accessing harmful content on the applications of regulated services. To help build a greater evidence base about the types of harm available on and through different kinds of app stores, the report will consider a broad range of these stores, which could include those available on various devices, such as smartphones, gaming devices and smart televisions. The report will also assess the use and effectiveness of age assurance on app stores and consider whether the greater use of age assurance or other measures could protect children further.
Publication of the report must be two to three years after the child safety duties come into force so as not to interfere with the Bill’s implementation timelines. This timing will also enable the report to take into account the impact of the regulatory framework that the Bill establishes.
Amendment 274A is a consequential amendment to include this report in the Bill’s broader confidentiality provisions, meaning that Ofcom will need to exclude confidential matters—for example, commercially sensitive information—from the report’s publication.
Government Amendments 236A, 236B and 237D provide the Secretary of State with a delegated power to bring app stores into the scope of regulation following consideration of Ofcom’s report. The power will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations putting duties on app stores to reduce the risks of harm presented to children from harmful content on or via app stores. The specific requirements in these regulations will be informed by the outcome of the Ofcom report I have mentioned.
As well as setting out the rules for app stores, the regulations may also make provisions regarding the duties and functions of Ofcom in regulating app stores. This may include information-gathering and enforcement powers, as well as any obligations to produce guidance or codes of practice for app store providers.
By making these amendments, our intention is to build a robust evidence base on the potential risks of app stores for children without affecting the Bill’s implementation more broadly. Should it be found that duties are required, the Secretary of State will have the ability to make robust and comprehensive duties, which will provide further layers of protection for children. I beg to move.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, before speaking to my Amendment 239A, I thank my noble friend the Minister, the Secretary of State and the teams in both the department and Ofcom for their collaborative approach in working to bring forward this group of amendments. I also thank my cosignatories. My noble friend Lady Stowell cannot be in her place tonight but she has been hugely helpful in guiding me through the procedure, as have been the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Knight, not to mention the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It has been a proper cross-House team effort. Even the noble Lord, Lord Allan, who started out quite sceptical, has been extremely helpful in shaping the discussion.
I also thank the NSPCC and Barnardo’s for their invaluable advice and support, as well as Snap and Match—two companies which have been willing to stick their heads above the parapet and challenge suppliers and providers on which they are completely dependent in the shape of the current app store owners, Apple and Google.
I reassure my noble friend the Minister—and everyone else—that I have no intention of dividing the House on my amendment, in case noble Lords were worried. I am simply seeking some reassurance on a number of points where my amendments differ from those tabled by the Government—but, first, I will highlight the similarities.
As my noble friend the Minister has referred to, I am delighted that we have two packages of amendments that in both cases recognise that this was a really significant gap in the Bill as drafted. Ignoring the elements of the ecosystem that sell access to regulated services, decide age guidelines and have the ability to do age assurance was a substantial gap in the framing of the Bill. But we have also recognised together that it is very important that this is an “and” not an “or”—it is not instead of regulating user-to-user services or search but in addition to. It is an additional layer that we can bring to protect children online, and it is very important that we recognise that—and both packages do.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, for her role in bringing this issue forward. I too welcome the government amendments. It is important to underline that adding the potential role of app stores to the Bill is neither an opportunity for other companies to fail to comply and wait for the gatekeepers to do the job nor a one-stop shop in itself. It is worth reminding ourselves that digital journeys rarely start and finish in one place. In spite of the incredible war for our attention, in which products and services attempt to keep us rapt on a single platform, it is quite important for everyone in the ecosystem to play their part.
I have two minor points. First, I was not entirely sure why the government amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult as opposed to Ofcom. Can the Minister reassure me that, whoever undertakes the consultation, it will include children and children’s organisations as well as tech companies? Secondly, like the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, I was a little surprised that the amendment does not define an app store but uses the term “the ordinary meaning of”. That seems like it may have the possibility for change. If there is a good reason for that—I am sure there is—then it must be stated that app stores cannot suddenly rebrand to something else and that that gatekeeper function will be kept absolutely front and centre.
Notwithstanding those comments, and associating myself with the idea that nothing should wait until 2025-26, I am very grateful to the Government for bringing this forward.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I will make a brief contribution because I was the misery guts when this was proposed first time round. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, not just on working with colleagues to come up with a really good solution but on seeking me out. If I heard someone be as miserable as I was, I might try to avoid them. She did not; she came and asked me, “Why are you miserable? What is the problem here?”, and took steps to address it. Through her work with the Government, their amendments address my main concerns.
My first concern, as we discussed in Committee, was that we would be asking large companies to regulate their competitors, because the app stores are run by large tech companies. She certainly understood that concern. The second was that I felt we had not necessarily yet clearly defined the problem. There are lots of problems. Before you can come up with a solution, you need a real consensus on what problem you are trying to address. The government amendment will very much help in saying, “Let’s get really crunchy about the actual problem that we need app stores to address”.
Finally, I am a glass-half-full kind of guy as well as a misery guts—there is a contradiction there—and so I genuinely think that these large tech businesses will start to change their behaviour and address some of the concerns, such as getting age ratings correct, just by virtue of our having this regulatory framework in place. Even if today the app stores are technically outside, the fact that the sector is inside and that this amendment tells them that they are on notice will, I think and hope, have a hugely positive effect and we will get the benefits much more quickly than the timescale envisaged in the Bill. That feels like a true backstop. I sincerely hope that the people in those companies, who I am sure will be glued to our debate, will be thinking that they need to get their act together much more quickly. It is better for them to do it themselves than wait for someone to do it to them.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, on her tenacity, and to the Minister on his flexibility. I believe that where we have reached is pretty much the right balance. There are the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and others have asked of the Minister, and I hope he will answer those, but this is a game-changer, quite frankly. Rightly, the noble Baroness has paid tribute to the companies which have put their head above the parapet. That was not that easy for them to do when you consider that those are the platforms they have to depend on for their services to reach the public.
Unlike the research report, they have reserved powers that the Secretary of State can use if the report is positive, which I hope it will be. I believe this could be a turning point. The digital markets and consumers Bill is coming down the track this autumn and that is going to give greater powers to make sure that the app stores can be tackled—after all, there are only two of them and they are an oligopoly. They are the essence of big tech, and they need to function in a much more competitive way.
The noble Baroness talked about timing, and it needs to be digital timing, not analogue. Four years does seem a heck of a long time. I hope the Minister will address that.
Then there is the really important aspect of harmful content. In the last group, the Minister reassured us about systems and processes and the illegality threshold. Throughout, he has tried to reassure us that this is all about systems and processes and not so much about content. However, every time we look, we see that content is there almost by default, unless the subject is raised. We do not yet have a Bill that is actually fit for purpose in that sense. I hope the Minister will use his summer break wisely and read through the Bill to make sure that it meets its purpose, and then come back at Third Reading with a whole bunch of amendments that add functionalities. How about that for a suggestion? It is said in the spirit of good will and summer friendship.
The noble Baroness raised a point about transparency when it comes to Ofcom publishing its review. I hope the Minister can give that assurance as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked about the definition of app store. That is the gatekeeper function, and we need to be sure that that is what we are talking about.
I end by congratulating once again the noble Baroness and the Minister on where we have got to so far.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I will start with the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I remind him that, beyond the world of the smartphone, there is a small company called Microsoft that also has a store for software—it is not just Google and Apple.
Principally, I say well done to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in deploying all of her “winsome” qualities to corral those of us who have been behind her on this and then persuade the Minister of the merits of her arguments. She also managed to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Misery Guts, that this was a good idea. The sequence of research, report, regulation and regulate is a good one, and as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, reminded us it is being deployed elsewhere in the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness about the timing: I much prefer two years to four years. I hope that at least Ofcom would have the power to accelerate this if it wanted to do so.
I was reminded of the importance of this in an article I read in the Guardian last week, headed:
“More than 850 people referred to clinic for video game addicts”.
This was in reference to the NHS-funded clinic, the National Centre for Gaming Disorders. A third of gamers receiving treatment there were spending money on loot boxes in games such as “Fortnite”, “FIFA”, “Minecraft”, “Call of Duty” and “Roblox”—all games routinely accessed by children. Over a quarter of those being treated by the centre were children.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the strength of support and echo the tributes that have been paid to my noble friend Lady Harding—the winsome Baroness from Winscombe —for raising this issue and working with us so collaboratively on it. I am particularly glad that we were able to bring these amendments on Report; as she knows, it involved some speedy work by the Bill team and some speedy drafting by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, but I am glad that we were able to do it on Report, so that I can take it off my list of things to do over the summer, which was kindly written for me by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
My noble friend’s amendments were laid before the Government’s, so she rightly asked a couple of questions on where they slightly differ. Her amendment seeks to ensure that other websites or online marketplaces that allow users to download apps are also caught by these duties. I reassure her that the Government’s amendments would capture these types of services. We have intentionally not provided detail about what constitutes an app store to ensure that the Bill remains future-proof. I will say a bit more about that in a moment. Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this power will be able to specify thresholds for which app stores are in scope, giving clarity to providers and users about the application of the duties.
On questions of definition, we are intentionally choosing not to define app stores in these amendments. The term is generally understood as meaning a service that makes applications available, which means that the Secretary of State will be able to impose duties on any such service. Any platform that enables apps to be downloaded can therefore be considered an app store for the purpose of this duty, regardless of whether or not it calls itself one. Regulations will clearly set out which providers are in scope of the duties. The ability to set threshold conditions will also ensure that any duties capture only those that pose the greatest risk of children accessing harmful content.
We touched on the long-running debate about content and functionality. We have made our position on that clear; it will be caught by references to content. I am conscious that we will return to this on Wednesday, when we will have a chance to debate it further.
On timing, as I said, I am glad that we were able to bring these amendments forward at this stage. The publication date for Ofcom’s report is to ensure that Ofcom can prioritise the implementation of the child safety duties and put in place the Bill’s vital protections for children before turning to its research on app stores.
That timing also allows the Secretary of State to base his or her decision on commencement on the effectiveness of the existing framework and to use the research of Ofcom’s report to set out a more granular approach to issues such as risk assessment and safety duties. It is necessary to await the findings of Ofcom’s report before those duties are commenced.
To the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others about the consultation for that report by Ofcom, we expect Ofcom to consult widely and with all relevant parties when producing its report. We do not believe that there is a need for a specific list of consultees given Ofcom’s experience and expertise in this area as well as the great experience it will have through its existing enforcement and wider consultation requirements. In addition, the Secretary of State, before making regulations, will be required to consult a range of key parties, such as the Children’s Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, and those who represent the interests of children, as well as providers of app stores. That can include children themselves.
On the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, on loot boxes, he is right that this piece of work is being led by my department. We want to see the games industry take the lead in strengthening protections for children and adults to mitigate the risk of harms. We are pursuing that through a DCMS-led technical working group, and we will publish an update on progress in the coming months. I again express my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Harding and other noble Lords who have expressed their support.
“Power to regulate app stores: supplementary
(1) In this section (except in subsection (4)(c)) “regulations” means regulations under section (Power to regulate app stores)(1).(2) Provision may be made by regulations only for or in connection with the purposes of minimising or mitigating the risks of harm to children presented by harmful content as mentioned in section (Power to regulate app stores)(3)(a) and (b).(3) Regulations may not have the effect that any body other than OFCOM is the regulator in relation to app stores.(4) Regulations may—(a) make provision exempting specified descriptions of app stores from regulation under this Act;(b) make provision amending Part 2, section 49 or Schedule 1 in connection with provision mentioned in paragraph (a);(c) make provision corresponding or similar to provision which may be made by regulations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 (“threshold conditions”), with the effect that only app stores which meet specified conditions are regulated by this Act.(5) Regulations may make provision having the effect that app stores provided from outside the United Kingdom are regulated by this Act (as well as app stores provided from within the United Kingdom), but, if they do so, must contain provision corresponding or similar to section 3(5) and (6)(UK links).(6) The provision that may be made by regulations includes provision—(a) imposing on providers of app stores duties corresponding or similar to duties imposed on providers of Part 3 services by—(i) section 10 or 11 (children’s online safety: user-to-user services) or any of sections 16 to 19 so far as relating to section 10 or 11;(ii) section 24 or 25 (children’s online safety: search services) or any of sections 26 to 29 so far as relating to section 24 or 25;(b) imposing on providers of app stores duties corresponding or similar to duties imposed on providers of internet services within section 71(2) by section 72 (duties about regulated provider pornographic content);(c) imposing on providers of app stores requirements corresponding or similar to requirements imposed on providers of regulated services by, or by OFCOM under, Part 6 (fees); (d) imposing on OFCOM duties in relation to app stores corresponding or similar to duties imposed in relation to Part 3 services by Chapter 3 of Part 7 (OFCOM’s register of risks, and risk profiles);(e) conferring on OFCOM functions in relation to app stores corresponding or similar to the functions that OFCOM have in relation to regulated services under—(i) Chapter 4 of Part 7 (information), or(ii) Chapter 6 of Part 7 (enforcement), including provisions of that Chapter conferring power for OFCOM to impose monetary penalties;(f) about OFCOM’s production of guidance or a code of practice relating to any aspect of the regulation of app stores that is included in the regulations.(7) The provision that may be made by regulations includes provision having the effect that app stores fall within the definition of “Part 3 service” or “regulated service” for the purposes of specified provisions of this Act (with the effect that specified provisions of this Act which apply in relation to Part 3 services or regulated services, or to providers of Part 3 services or regulated services, also apply in relation to app stores or to providers of app stores).(8) Regulations may not amend or make provision corresponding or similar to—(a) Chapter 2 of Part 4 (reporting CSEA content),(b) Chapter 5 of Part 7 (notices to deal with terrorism content and CSEA content), or(c) Part 10 (communications offences).(9) Regulations may make different provision with regard to app stores of different kinds.(10) In this section “specified” means specified in regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about the purpose and contents of regulations to regulate app stores which may be made by the Secretary of State under the preceding new Clause proposed to be inserted in my name.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned and that the House be adjourned during pleasure until 10.15 pm.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, seen paragraph 3.1 of the Companion? In case he has not—I know he is very new to this House—it states:
“It is a firm convention”—
not any old convention, but a firm convention—
“that the House normally rises by about 10pm on Mondays to Wednesdays”.
Can he explain why today is so different?
Lord Harlech (Con)
I take the noble Lord’s points on board. I think that my noble friend the Chief Whip answered those points at the Dispatch Box earlier today.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I appreciate that the noble Lord is put in a difficult position, but all the Chief Whip said was that this is usual. When was the last occasion that this had to happen in the way that it is happening tonight?
Lord Harlech (Con)
Perhaps this is something to discuss with my noble friend the Chief Whip while the House adjourns during pleasure.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 17th July 2023
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 July 2023 - (17 Jul 2023)
22:33 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 217 - Motion A1 disagreed.
23:09 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 213 - Motion B1 disagreed.
23:21 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 207 - Motion D1 disagreed.
00:06 - Division on Motion F1 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 205 - Motion F1 disagreed.
00:18 - Division on Motion H1 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 201 - Motion H1 disagreed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1B, 7B and 90D to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 90E.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, before I get into the detail of the amendments, it is worth reiterating why we are here again debating this Bill late at night. The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing protection to those who genuinely need it through our safe and legal routes. The United Kingdom is one of the largest recipients of UNHCR-referred refugees globally, having resettled 28,000 through UNHCR resettlement schemes between 2015 and 2022. This places the United Kingdom second only to Sweden in Europe.
However, the volume of illegal small boat arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. We have a duty to house those arriving illegally, but that is now costing £6 million a day and £3.6 billion a year. With over 45,000 people making dangerous channel crossings last year, this is simply no longer sustainable. If people know there is no way for them to stay in the UK, they will not risk their lives and pay criminals thousands of pounds to arrive here illegally. It is therefore only right that we stop the boats and break the business model of the criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people, ultimately enabling the Government to have greater capacity to provide a safe haven for those at risk of war and persecution.
We have spent many an hour debating these issues. That is, of course, as it should be, but your Lordships will have also seen that the elected House has today reconsidered amendments a second time, and by a significant majority disagreed with the Lords amendments. I suggest we therefore respect the will of the elected House and the British people by passing this Bill.
I turn to the amendments. As I have set out throughout the passage of the Bill, and as the Immigration Minister has set out in the other place, the Government take their international obligations, including under the European Convention on Human Rights, very seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with the United Kingdom’s international obligations.
In her speech last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in referring to her revised amendment, talked of “softening its requirements”, but the words in Amendment 1B,
“and any acts and omissions made as a result”,
mean that it was not simply an interpretive clause. The effect of those words would be that these conventions would, in effect, be incorporated into our domestic law. A Lords amendment to a purported interpretation provision is not the right place to effect something so constitutionally significant.
Amendment 90F seeks to address this concern by substituting new wording, namely:
“In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the United Kingdom’s obligations under”
the various specified conventions. I suggest that the revised wording still presents the same challenges I outlined earlier. Either the new clause has substantive effect or it serves no purpose, and the noble Baroness’s intent is clearly the former.
On Amendment 90H, the Bill creates a bespoke suspensive claim and appeals process which will allow illegal migrants to make a suspensive claim if they consider that a mistake has been made in applying the duty, or if they would face a risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed to a third country. These are the only claims that should suspend removal, and limiting the ability of any other claims to prevent removal is necessary to deliver the essence of the Bill, ensuring that illegal entrants are promptly removed following the determination of any suspensive claim and appeal.
The Commons has now considered and rejected amendments similar to this on three occasions. It is time to restore the original Clause 1 to the Bill, with its clear statement of purpose: to avoid and deter unlawful migration, and to create certainty. It is time to respect the clearly expressed view of the elected House by endorsing Motion A. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Chakrabarti
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 90F, 90G and 90H in lieu—
“IntroductionIn interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the United Kingdom’s obligations under—(a) the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;(b) the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees including the Protocol to that Convention;(c) the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions on the Reduction of Statelessness;(d) the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;(e) the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking Human Beings.”
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this Bill was not a manifesto commitment at the last election; it is rather the extended version of a populist slogan for the upcoming one. That distinction is even more constitutionally significant when the Executive propose to expunge the age-old common law jurisdiction of His Majesty’s courts to issue interim relief in expulsion cases, the judicial practice of considering international obligations, and the Human Rights Act 1998 duty to interpret legislation compatibly with convention rights and freedoms where possible.
Noble Lords, and in particular the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Etherton, rejected the Government’s suggestion that the previous amendment to Clause 1 offended our legal traditions. None the less, we have softened it still further, removing references to “acts and omissions” and intended compliance only in the spirit of dialogue with the other place. Now, it merely requires that those interpreting this measure give regard to the human rights treaties mentioned. Without this amendment, an eventual illegal migration Act 2023 could become effectively exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights under domestic law as soon as its provisions are brought into force.
Again, in attempted dialogue with the other place we have clarified the amendment to Clause 4 to ensure that the duty to remove—so central to the Government’s scheme—is revived the moment a first instance court dismisses an application unless permission to an appeal court is granted. Without this amendment, the duty to remove applicants would continue, even where our higher courts are still considering the safety of a third country such as Rwanda.
The amendment to Clause 52 has been tightened to provide that courts must not only attempt but ensure that they give reasonable opportunity to the Secretary of State to object before granting interim injunctions preventing removal. Without this amendment, no British court would retain its common law power to prevent removal, despite grave risk to a person subject to ongoing legal proceedings. Noble Lords will remember that the Government have already taken the power to ignore Strasbourg interim relief under Clause 53.
In summary, without these amendments, the Government could argue a power, or even a duty, to remove new arrivals—potentially even as we rest this summer—before the Supreme Court hears the Rwanda test case in relation to past arrivals this autumn. That is what is at stake: one of the gravest executive power grabs and abrogations of the rule of law in living memory. That is why the, yes, unelected but more independent Chamber should exceptionally stand firm to protect the constitutional role of our courts and the rule of law.
In a state of sadness and some disbelief that things have come to this in our beloved land of rights advancement, from Magna Carta to the post-war settlement, I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I would just like to say, if I may, that I am surprised that the Government do not like this amendment. Quite honestly, it strengthens the Bill when it comes to legal procedure, and they would have fewer legal challenges to all their cases if it goes through. They should welcome it, particularly if there is no conflict with international law, as the Minister told us earlier, in order to restore certainty. The Government should support this amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am speaking for these Benches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has eloquently explained why these amendments are necessary to uphold key rule of law and constitutional principles. Quite honestly, in the Minister’s argument about Amendment 90F, on regard being had to international obligations, he keeps regurgitating this idea of backdoor incorporation. That was thoroughly demolished by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, last week—let us remember that he was Deputy President of the Supreme Court—when he said:
“This a pure interpretation provision, and it is entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions … I support the amendment because it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle”.—[Official Report, 12/7/23; col. 1817.]
That was about the previous version, and as the noble Baroness explained, the new version is even more about reinforcing the interpretation. Quite honestly, the Minister’s argument holds no water.
Since the Government have been unable to vouch for the compatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights because it is too novel and untested to evaluate, we need this safeguard in the Bill to ensure that the Government are kept to the straight and narrow.
The other points about the jurisdiction of the courts are straightforward rule of law issues. Is it the courts or the Executive who will have the final say on what happens to people, whether they are deported, detained or safe? It should be the courts.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Motion A1. We believe it to be a very important Motion.
The only comment I will make in response to the Minister’s opening remarks on the passage of the Bill in the other place is this. We have always said that the Government have a right to get their legislation, but this place also has a right to put forward amendments and to ask for revisions and consideration. It does not help us to believe that this place receives proper consideration of its amendments when the Minister in the other place announced at the end of last week, even before proper consideration, that no concessions would be made with respect to what this House is proposing. That is not the way for business to be conducted. This place has a proper constitutional role to play, which includes sometimes saying to the Government that they should think again, and even sometimes saying it twice.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I simply cannot accept the proposition advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. As the House will remember from the last occasion, a court always has regard, if possible, to the international treaties binding the United Kingdom, as was made clear by Lord Dyson in the Supreme Court in the Assange case.
The noble Baroness’s amendment is simply unnecessary, and, in addition, it would have the effect of changing the constitutional relationship of our law and international law. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept her proposed Motion. I invite noble Lords to vote against it in the event that it is not withdrawn.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords. I have moved Motion A1 and I ask noble Lords to approve it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion B that this House do not insist on its Amendment 9B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9C. I will also speak to Motions C, D and E.
Amendment 9B was rejected by the Commons for the second time earlier today by an increased majority. The elected House agrees that declaring asylum and certain human rights claims to be inadmissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill which must not be reversed. It is not a proportionate or considered amendment and simply creates a perverse incentive whereby people exploit every opportunity, including through protracted legal challenges facilitated by the early amendments, to reach the six-month point.
I note Amendment 9D has an additional provision, but this does not substantially change the effect of the earlier version of this amendment. Having debated this Bill for many hours, we will all be familiar with one of the key objectives of it—to remove illegal entrants in days and weeks, not months or years. That should be our start and end point. As such, this amendment is not only wrong but it is not needed.
I turn to Amendment 23B. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, suggested last week that the Government’s case against this amendment was simply to provide an assurance that,
“this will all come out in the wash”.—[Official Report, 12/7/23; col. 1826.]
There is rather more to it than that. The legislation is clear and affords the necessary protection for LGBT people fearful of persecution if they are removed to a particular country.
Throughout the debates in this House, I have been clear that it is simply not the case that anyone who meets the conditions in Clause 2 can be sent to any of the countries listed in Schedule 1 without further ado. The schedule needs to be read with the provisions in Clause 5, which determine whether a person can be returned to their home country, and with the provisions later in the Bill which enable a person to make a serious harm suspensive claim where they are being removed to a third country.
As to the noble and learned Lord’s point about Rwanda and the ongoing litigation, I point him to the terms of the Commons reason, which states that the amendment is not necessary
“because removal of any person to any country will only be done where the arrangements to do this are lawful”.
The Bill therefore already contains sufficient safeguards. This was recognised by the Commons when they voted for a second time to reject this amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, are doughty defenders of LGBT rights, and I entirely understand their desire to get clarity and certainty on this issue. I believe that the Bill provides the necessary clarity, and on that basis, and in view of the further vote by the Commons to disagree with the amendment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord will now be content to support Motion C.
The detention powers in the Bill are fundamental to achieving its objectives. We need a robust scheme which broadly applies to all and does not allow the system to be gamed. The Bill is designed to be operated both quickly and fairly, and our aim is to ensure that people are not held in detention for longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal from the UK.
With regard to Amendment 33B and the detention of families for no more than 96 hours, or the new Amendment 33D, which sets a time limit of 120 hours, I put it to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that these amendments risk creating a significant loophole in the system. We will see criminal gangs putting together fake family groups, more adults seeking to pass themselves off as children, and genuinely unaccompanied children being put at risk.
On Amendments 36C and 36D, I remind noble Lords that unaccompanied children are not subject to the duty to remove. The power to remove them in Clause 3 will be exercised only in limited circumstances. Therefore, for the most part, unaccompanied children will not be detained under the provisions of the Bill but will instead be quickly transferred to local authority accommodation.
Where an unaccompanied child is detained, this will be for the shortest possible time, in appropriate detention facilities and with relevant support provisions in place. Such a person will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation, as the law already provides. As I informed the House previously, this is already set out in the Detention Centre Rules 2001.
The elected House has now on three occasions endorsed the Government’s positions on the detention powers in the Bill. Indeed, the votes earlier today delivered increased majorities for the Government’s position. Your Lordships’ House should be under no illusion that the position would change if new Amendments 36E and 36F, which only marginally change the earlier amendments, were returned to the other place. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 9D in lieu—
(3A) From the point at which the provisions of subsection (3) apply to a person, no other provision made by or by virtue of this Act applies to that person.(3B) For the purpose of calculating the period of six months under subsection (3), any period during which the person cannot be removed by virtue of section 46 (suspensive claims: duty to remove) is to be disregarded.(3C) Subsection (3) does not apply if the reason that the person has not been removed from the United Kingdom can be attributed to the actions of that person.””
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, when the House last debated this issue, the noble Lord, Lord German, stressed the risk to the public purse as thousands are locked up while the search goes on for further Rwandas to send them to. I will not repeat his arguments. The House found them convincing and supported his Motion by a majority of 61; nor need I remind the House that neither my Motion nor the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, asks that those locked up for over six months be granted asylum. We ask simply that their cases be heard, as the refugee convention requires. Nothing in the Motion pre-judges the asylum adjudication procedure. It simply rules out the possibility—maybe the probability—of limbo, of extended inadmissibility gagged and incarcerated behind barbed wire.
I will make only three points, two new and one sadly familiar. First, the Minister, in arguing against the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord German, advanced only one argument—which he made again tonight. He said that it would simply encourage people to game the system, drawing things out to reach the six-month cut-off date. I suspect that the threat of being sent to Rwanda might be sufficient reason to seek a delay. However, in any case, the Minister’s point is met in the new version of the amendment. With all due respect to him, the change is substantive. The final subsection, proposed new subsection (3C), is new and means that nothing that a detainee does can advance the date on which the Government would have to countenance and begin to consider his application for asylum. Gaming the system would not be possible. If the Government’s concern was real, their objection is really met.
Secondly, the reason that the other place gave tonight for rejecting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and so many other amendments, was that it is contrary to the purpose of the Bill to prevent and deter unlawful migration. However, willing the end does not and cannot mean willing all and every possible means. Capital punishment might be an effective deterrent, as might tarring and feathering or hanging, drawing and quartering. Willing the end does not absolve Parliament from discriminating among possible means, distinguishing the acceptable from the unacceptable. Sine die incarceration, case unheard, surely falls on the wrong side of the line.
My third and final point is that the underlying issue here is simple and sadly familiar. Our debate has not been just about conventions and commitments. It has been about people, about common humanity. It is about whether the House and the country think that locking people up sine die is a fair and reasonable way to treat those fleeing oppression, famine and war—locking them up and denying them any chance to explain why they seek sanctuary here and what it is that they fear back home. Doing that was in no party’s election manifesto. The House has so far taken the view that it is not what the country should do. I hope that we shall maintain that view. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D1. I remind the House that this issue was raised at an earlier stage, either on Report or in ping-pong, by a Member of the Conservative Benches in this House. I also remind the House that how the law will be applied is not what the Minister says; it is what the law actually states. We are hearing from the Minister that in relation to unaccompanied children it will not be used very much, but that is absolutely not good enough. If the law allows unaccompanied children to be detained for well over 28 days—that is, unless the child gets to the tribunal, and how will the child know that he or she is to apply to the tribunal?—then under this law they could remain there indefinitely.
I have four points to make. First, there is a risk to the welfare of the child of this indefinite detention instead of the present 24-hour maximum—a very considerable increase. The Government talk about child-appropriate detention. I just wonder what that really means.
I am afraid that I have banged on to this House again and again about the Children Acts, but I am particularly concerned about the impact of the Children Acts on Home Office detention if the detention goes beyond just two or three days, because there is no parental responsibility. What happens, as a Conservative Peer said much earlier, if a child suffers a serious medical emergency? There is no one, particularly not in the Home Office, with the right to sign the consent form for a child. They would have to go to the court to get an emergency protection order for the child to be able to receive proper medical attention. It would be quite a good idea if the Home Office remembered that. I said it to it earlier, and so did the Conservative Peer, but it does not seem to have put that in its mind.
Secondly, I worry about the Department for Education. To what extent does it know the implications of the Bill? I get the impression that the members of the DfE in this House do not really have any knowledge of it.
Thirdly, there may be disputes between local authorities and the Home Office over a child being removed from local authority care under the Children Acts and taken into detention. What happens if there is a care order where a judge has ordered that a child should be living in a particular place under the care of a local authority? Is the Home Office really going to move the child where there has been a judicial order over where the child lives?
Fourthly, although I know this is not necessarily popular with many people, Article 5 of the human rights convention talks about detention. In due course I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion E1. This Motion, as with Motion D1, concerns vulnerable children being deprived of their freedom—in this case, those accompanied children. I am disappointed that, regardless of the strength of opinion across this Chamber, the Government are still not proposing to set limits on the detention of children in the Bill, whether they are accompanied or unaccompanied. Despite the comments of the Minister about the possibility of fake families earlier in the debate, I wish to press the point.
My amendment, as originally tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester last week, seeks to address and bring forward provisions for children within families. It was the Prime Minister himself who stated that it is not the intention of the Bill to detain children. This amendment seeks to go some way towards ensuring that commitment for all children. It would ensure that for families with children, the children could be detained for no longer than 120 hours—five days—or for no longer than seven days, with ministerial approval. It presents a proportionate response to the possibility of unlimited detention of children that is a compromise on what is in the 2014 Act. Given that the Government intend to deport those meeting the conditions of Clause 2 swiftly, It would not hinder that objective.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support all three amendments, Amendments B1, D1 and E1. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on admissibility is very sensible, because it is in line with the Government’s expectations of the Bill. It is not a wrecking amendment. The Government say that the deterrent impact of the Bill will be sufficient to ensure that everyone being removed will be processed within six months—in fact, the Minister already said this evening that it will be days or weeks, not months. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, does not alter any of the intended deterrents, and any time spent on an appeal pauses the six months. So this amendment protects the indefinite commitment of taxpayers’ money to support people kept in limbo, and it must be the expectation that in their rejection of it, the Government expect people to be detained for six months or more—otherwise they would not be objecting to it.
The amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is very worthy of support. This Government have taken a regressive step without justification and without evidence of it causing a pull factor—even from recent history since the current limits were introduced in 2014. Children should be treated as children first, not by their immigration status. We know enough about detention of children to know that it is not in the child’s best interest, whether they are on their own or with their family. That is why we also support the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol on accompanied children. If we ought to have them, we need proper time limits in the Bill, not permission to make a bail application. This part of the Bill will be a stain on our reputation, and it is not the will of the British people—although people will say it is—to lock up children. We can control immigration without inflicting suffering on children.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has asked me to give a short commentary. He did not put an amendment down, but he wanted me to say, first, that the Government have never denied that the specified countries in the Bill are unsafe for LGBT people, and that includes Rwanda. He also asked me to say that it is reasonable that there should be no removals to Rwanda so long as there is litigation in process, and that prohibition on removal in the case of countries facing a proposal of proceedings under Article 7 is right in principle and mirrors the existing provisions regarding return under Section 80A. He wanted me to make those points even though he has chosen not to table a further amendment.
We have heard all the movers of amendments give a full explanation of their amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, spoke about common humanity—I of course agree with that—and about trying to support people who will potentially be kept in limbo through this Bill. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave four examples of why she will be moving her amendment. The one that resonated most with me was her second point about needing to get an emergency protection order for a medical intervention for a child. As a family magistrate, I occasionally do those orders. I find it really quite shocking that, even for relatively routine orders, the Home Office would have to go to court to get a medical intervention. She made other points as well but that is the one that particularly resonated with me.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol introduced her amendment about a time limit of 120 hours, or up to seven days when authorised by a Minister; we will support the right reverend Prelate should she choose to move to a vote.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government cannot accept any of the proposed amendments. I shall deal first with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in relation to his Motion B1 and his amendment concerning a proposed subsection (3C) where subsection (3) would not apply
“if the reason that the person has not been removed from the United Kingdom can be attributed to the actions of that person”.
I suggest that that phrase would generate a tidal wave of litigation were this amendment to be accepted. It would make the statute wholly uncertain and, I suggest, open a very large loophole in the scheme of the Bill.
I turn to the points raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in relation to the provisions concerning the responsibility in respect of children. I can reassure both the noble and learned Baroness and the right reverend Prelate that we are working closely with DfE on the implementation of this Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the other propositions that they advanced.
Finally, in response to the noble Lord, Lord German, it is not our intention to “lock up children”, as he put it, under this Bill. It is our intention to have the power to do so should that be necessary in very rare circumstances. For those reasons, I invite the House to reject these amendments in the event that they are not withdrawn.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister said at the outset that Motion B1 contained no substantive change. He has now asserted that it contains a change that would be unworkable, wrecking and mammoth. He ought to make up his mind; but I hope the House’s mind is made up that we are not prepared to see sine die incarceration. I ask to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 23B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 23C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 36A and 36B; and do not insist on its Amendments 36C and 36D.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 36A and 36B, do not insist on its Amendments 36C and 36D, and do propose Amendments 36E and 36F in lieu of Amendments 36C and 36D—
“(2E) If the person being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) is an unaccompanied child, then the person may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for more than a period of 72 hours or for more than a period of 96 hours where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).(2EA) Where a person is detained under a provision of this Act and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2E) begins with the point at which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.(2EB) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify time limits of less than a period of 72 hours or less than 96 hours where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975), that apply in relation to the detention of an unaccompanied child under sub-paragraph (2C).”
“(2C) If the person being detained under subsection (2A) is an unaccompanied child, then the person may not be detained under that subsection for more than a period of 72 hours or for more than a period of 96 hours where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).(2CA) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of this Act, or vice versa, the period referred to in subsection (2C) begins with the point at which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.(2CB) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify time limits of less than a period of 72 hours or less than 96 hours where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975), that apply in relation to the detention of an unaccompanied child under subsection (2A).””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 33D in lieu—
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, given the lateness of the hour and the current mind of the House as indicated thus far, with sadness I am minded not to move Motion E1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 56B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 56C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion F, I shall speak also to Motions G, H and J. As regards Amendment 56B, this Bill provides an important exception to the application of the public order disqualification where it is necessary for a potential victim of modern slavery to remain in the United Kingdom for the purpose of co-operating with a law enforcement agency in connection with the investigation of their exploitation.
While there is indeed a presumption that it is not necessary for such co-operation to take place within the United Kingdom, the presumption does not apply where there are compelling circumstances to the contrary. In deciding whether there are such compelling circumstances, caseworkers will be guided by statutory guidance, and we are committed to such guidance having particular regard to persons believed to have been victims of slavery or human trafficking in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will therefore appreciate that this guidance will effectively achieve the aims set out in this amendment.
The guidance will be published ahead of commencement of the relevant provisions of the Act. Statutory guidance assists decision-makers by providing them with detailed information and examples to consider when making judgments. It allows for flexibility in its implementation, which can be adapted to different situations while still adhering to the overarching legal framework, and plays an important role in supporting the interpretation and application of legislation. My noble friend and I are therefore of a similar mind as to the support offered to victims of exploitation that takes place in the UK. The Government’s view is that statutory guidance is the appropriate way to achieve this aim.
Amendment 103B seeks to confer an explicit statutory function on the National Crime Agency to combat organised immigration crime connected to illegal entry into the United Kingdom via the channel. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will be fully aware, the NCA’s functions already extend to combating all types of organised crime, including organised immigration crime. Following the pledge made by the Prime Minister last December to stop the dangerous small boat crossings, the Government have doubled the funding for the next two years for the multiagency organised immigration crime task force, of which the National Crime Agency is a leading component. Our determination to tackle the criminal gangs that facilitate the channel crossings is not in doubt. It remains the case that this amendment is not needed.
We have debated at length what the Government are doing, and by when, to establish additional safe and legal routes. Therefore, in response to Amendment 102B, I will simply repeat what my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart set out last week. These commitments are on behalf of His Majesty’s Government and not just an individual Minister. I therefore hope that this amendment will not be pursued.
Finally, returning to the amendment proposed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, I remain wholly sympathetic to the need for an holistic approach and action in dealing with large-scale displacement crises and the abhorrent crimes of modern slavery and human trafficking. We work relentlessly to identify victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, delivering personalised, needs-based support and assisting recovery to rebuild lives for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Alongside this, we collaborate with a wide range of domestic and international partners to enhance awareness of modern slavery and human trafficking, bolster resilience and minimise opportunity for exploitation, supporting our ability to take a long-term approach to this issue.
The Government have already embedded actions to tackle refugee crises through existing cross-government strategies, including the international development strategy and the humanitarian framework. Much of this work has effectively and appropriately been spearheaded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office due to its focus beyond our borders. We also continue to collaborate with state and non-state actors, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and non-governmental organisations. As noble Lords will be aware, the UNHCR has a global mandate to protect and safeguard the rights of refugees. We will continue to work with the UNHCR, as we have done many times before, to respond to displacement crises globally and offer safe and legal routes to protection in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, we have played a key role in intergovernmental processes that have shaped the way the international community responds to displacement crises, such as through the Global Compact on Refugees adopted by the international community in 2018. We continue to work to find durable solutions for refugees with like-minded international partners.
I agree with many of the points made previously on the Bill by the most reverend Primate and other noble Lords. I wholeheartedly recognise the importance of addressing the underlying drivers and taking a long-term approach to tackle these issues, and believe that our ongoing efforts already embody a commitment to an extensive and strategic approach.
Our dedication to tackling these challenges and to finding sustainable solutions remains unwavering. However, the immediate focus of this Bill is stopping the boats. As I set out at the start of this debate, it is only through stopping the boats that we can enable the Government to have a greater capacity to provide a safe haven for those at risk of war and persecution.
The House has fulfilled its proper role within our constitutional framework in relation to the Bill. Your Lordships have asked the elected House to examine these issues again—not once, but now twice. The answer has again come back from the Commons that it disagrees with the Lords amendments. It is time to leave it there. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Lord Coaker
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 56D in lieu—
“(3A) If the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom, subsection (2) also does not apply in relation to a person—(a) for a period of 14 days following the making of the decision referred to in subsection (1)(b), renewable (more than once) should the Secretary of State deem it necessary for a victim to establish cooperation with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation; and(b) on expiration of the period in paragraph (a), whether or not that period has been renewed, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is cooperating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation for the duration of those criminal proceedings thereafter.(3B) Where subsection (3) or (3A) applies in relation to a person the following do not apply in relation to the person—(a) section 22,(b) section 23, and(c) section 24.(4) In this section—””
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation, and the work that I do with Nottingham University in the Rights Lab there, as declared in the register of interests.
There are times when you stand up in this House and are proud to do so to move a particular amendment. I am proud to stand up and move this amendment before your Lordships late this evening, in defending what I think was one of the finest pieces of legislation that this country has passed in many a year. That legislation was passed in 2015 by the previous Conservative Government. Many people, as I look across this Chamber, were members of that governing party at that time. If you had said to me eight years ago that I would be stood here defending that Modern Slavery Act in the face of what a Conservative Government were doing, I would have found that almost impossible to believe.
Why do I say that? Because even today, a significant number of Conservative MPs voted for a Conservative Peer’s amendment; namely, that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, another fine advocate of the work in this area. A former Conservative Prime Minister—not to be dismissed, I would say—and former Home Secretary, Theresa May, found it unbelievable, astonishing and incredible that her own party was driving a coach and horses through the legislation of which she was proud, of which this country was proud, and which, in fact, as many of your Lordships will know from the international conventions and conferences that they go to, has been used as an example by other countries across the world.
So I stand here moving this Motion F1, which seeks to protect UK-based victims of modern slavery with a 14-day grace period, which can be renewed by the Home Secretary, to allow them to access support and to facilitate co-operation with the authorities in relation to criminal proceedings against traffickers. During that period, all it does is restore and reapply the protection offered under the recovery period of the Nationality and Borders Act.
It is not just about helping the victims, important as that is; it is seeking their co-operation to see criminal gangs prosecuted. Noble Lords across the House have experience. All it seeks to do is, for a certain period of time, to disapply the measures contained within the Bill which would see potential victims of modern slavery detained and deported. Is that what people want? I do not believe that anybody wants that. Even people who are going to vote for this tonight do not want that. But that is the consequence should people vote for this particular piece of legislation. I am not one of those who believe that noble Peers opposite want to see victims of modern slavery dealt with in that way. All I ask them to consider is that that will be the consequence. In the Bill, there is no grace period. There is no period which will disapply the Bill from potential victims of modern slavery. They can be instantly detained and deported.
Co-operation with the police can take place overseas—what planet is that on? On what planet do we believe that you can deport a victim of modern slavery to wherever and they will continue to co-operate with the police of this country? Those victims are terrified and victimised, as are their families. You will not be able to seek what we all desire, which is to see more criminal gangs brought to justice.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Motion J1. The amendment put forward under Motion J1 aims to ensure that, not only now but in the future, the Government’s policy is examined. As the Minister said, the current Government’s concentration is on international co-operation and working, although with some hesitation at times, with groups such as the UNHCR and others internationally. The amendment would ensure that that strategy—the way the Government are working—and the context in which migration is being considered are brought in front of both Houses, simply for a debate, with an analysis of the situation by the Government.
The Minister has said very clearly that he does not wish this to happen on the grounds that it is being done now, but this Bill is not about today. It will shortly be an Act, and when it is an Act it will last years—it may last many years. Who knows what will happen in elections in the future, whether they are next year, in 10 years or whenever? We cannot guarantee what kind of Government there will be at that time. That is why we have Acts of Parliament and a system of law which requires changes in the case that people wish to change the way in which this country operates.
It seems to me that the problem with the Bill is that it has not started at the right place. Where it needed to start was on a matter such as this—to have a level of national consensus and agreement on what the aim of our migration and immigration policy will be in the long term. We know what our aims are for other matters. For instance, the NHS is care that is free at the point of delivery to all who need it; it is not a political matter—at least not at the moment. That is something that holds us together, and then we argue about how it is done—fair enough.
The Bill, and the failure to pursue this amendment, seems to me to have four very simple failures. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said so eloquently just now. First, it does not give space and time for the Houses of Parliament—for politics—to generate a consensus on what we do about a problem that the Foreign Secretary himself said last week is one that is global, geopolitical and generational. We have to make time to discuss such threats. We put time aside for threats such as climate change. Much of the migration will be generated by climate change and, in being so generated, it will move literally hundreds of millions of people across borders.
We cannot put into the Bill that we should set time aside once a year in both Houses to look at that context and discuss it and try to generate a consensus across our nation, where so many communities, including in my own diocese, which I serve, are divided, depressed and anxious—reasonably, because so much is said to them that does not have a common, united vision for this nation. That is a failure of reconciliation; it is a failure of vision to leave the structures of migration better than they used to be—because heaven alone knows it is more than 25 years since we could last look back and see an immigration policy that was really working. It is not a party-political thing.
Secondly, the rejection of this amendment—and much of the Bill, as we have heard earlier this evening—diminishes parliamentary accountability. It does not say that the Government must come to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and give reasons for what they say. It does not say that a Minister of whichever party must stand up and face people such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I apologise for embarrassing him, I am sure, but I would venture to suggest that he is probably the most respected man in this House. His own experience of being an unaccompanied irregular migrant is without parallel, but his approach was casually dismissed. That is not how we should listen to the wisdom of so many years and so much experience.
Accountability is diminished. Parliament exists to hold the Executive to account—not just this Executive but future ones. It diminishes our leadership. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, but he was right in everything he said about the Modern Slavery Act, as was the former Prime Minister today and as she has spoken over the past weeks, publicly and privately. It also diminishes our flexibility. This Bill pins everything down; it does not give grace periods or enable Parliament and the Government to say that the situation had changed dramatically. Who would have said four years ago that we would have 45,000 people coming across the channel in boats? Of course, we must stop that—I agree entirely with the Minister. Of course, we must stop it, but I fail to see how this legislation does that, and I have not heard anything to convince me.
But that is the view of the other place and I agree that, in the end, on most things, except the most essential, this House must give way to the other place. Therefore, I shall not be seeking to divide the House on this Motion.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I speak for these Benches, first, on modern slavery and trafficking. The Government characterise victims as fraudulent and frivolous—those are both words that have been used in debate—but you do not get into the national referral mechanism unless you are referred by Home Office-accredited first responders. They are not frivolous and they are not fraudulent.
We are left trying to salvage something from the wreckage that the Government are making of our tackling of slavery and trafficking. The Minister in the Commons today said they would not remove anyone to a country where they are endangered. But we cannot know that traffickers will not be operating in the country to which people are removed. The chances must be very high that they will operate in Rwanda, or wherever, and we will be opening up new markets for the traffickers instead of tackling them as criminals.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall—from his speeches in earlier stages of the Bill—and much of what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, that we are of a similar mind as to the support offered to victims of exploitation that takes place in the United Kingdom. It remains the Government’s view that statutory guidance is the appropriate way to achieve this aim, and for that reason the Government resist the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
Moving on to deal with the revised Amendment 103D, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, spoke, he seeks to confer an explicit statutory duty on the NCA director-general to produce a report within a period of three months, beginning with the day on which the Act is passed and every three months thereafter. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in thanking the officers of the National Crime Agency, who consistently bring their expertise and dedication to combating serious and organised crime and making the UK a safer place. With regard to publishing reports, surely noble Lords can agree that the NCA’s time is better spent focusing on reducing serious and organised immigration crime and arresting the criminals behind it rather than producing reports. One has only to read the NCA’s annual report to appreciate the range of activities it is already engaged in to help tackle the cross-channel people-smuggling gangs. The NCA has also published its annual plan for 2022-23, which sets out priorities for the year ahead and how it will deliver them. I commend it to noble Lords.
On Amendment 107E, proposed by the most reverend Primate, I welcome the fact that he has put forward a new amendment which no longer seeks to provide for a 10-year strategy but rather a one-off debate. However, I am afraid that the Government remain unpersuaded of the case for his new amendment, and it is not accepted by the Government. It is not for the United Kingdom in isolation to assess the effectiveness of the refugee convention, as the amendment appears to suggest.
For all those reasons, I invite the House, in the event that any of these matters are put to a Division, to oppose them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, and for the reasons that I gave with regard to the Modern Slavery Act, I beg to move my Motion F1 and wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 103B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 103C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
“Reviews: NCA organised immigration crime operations(1) The Director General of the National Crime Agency must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and every three months thereafter—(a) prepare a report summarising the nature and outcome of organised immigration crime operations undertaken by the National Crime Agency in the preceding three months, and(b) send the report to the Secretary of State.(2) Upon receiving each report under subsection (1)(b) and subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable, lay each report before Parliament.(3) The Secretary of State may, if they deem it appropriate for reasons of national security, publish a summary of any report from the Director General rather than publishing the report in full.(4) For the purposes of this section, “organised immigration crime operations” are operations to combat organised crime where the purpose of that crime is to enable the illegal entry of a person into the United Kingdom via the English Channel.(5) This section ceases to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 107B and 107C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 107D.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.